Talk:Los Angeles Lakers/Archive 1

Introduction

I thought it was a mistake to structure the introduction around great centers and guards, since it meant leaving out Elgin Baylor, who is as emblematic of the Lakers as West, Chamberlin or Magic. I altered the structure to one focusing on the Lakers who are members of the 50 Greatest NBA Players, which gets Baylor plus all of the previous players except Goodrich. I like Gail, but he is not as important as Baylor. It might be good to add a list at the end of Lakers who have had their numbers retired, and that would catch Gail.

I also added a brief section on Chick Hearn, who by any measure is as important to the Laker franchise as any of the Hall of Fame players. Gogh 21:03, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Main Rivals

I must question how the Detroit Pistons and the Los Angeles Clippers can be considered rivals to the Lakers. The Pistons are, at best, a seasonal rival because of how they dominated the star-studded 2003-04 Lakers team. They cannot be considered a true rival unless they continuously battle for the NBA crown (e.g. the Lakers and the Celtics in the 1960s, mid-1980s). The Los Angeles Clippers have long been considered a joke by the Lakers, and only "rival" the Lakers because it is considered shameful to be worse than the perpetually lottery-bound Clippers. I'll edit them out right now, but if you have any objections feel free to edit them right back in, but please justify the decision.King July 1, 2005 23:22 (UTC)

Celebrity fans

I don't think there needs to be a separate section about the Lakers' celebrity fanbase AND an entry under the Miscellaneous section about the Lakers' celebrity fans. It's redundant. One or the other should be deleted IMO. Anyone else agree? --Jsol5 09:57, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Yup. I hadn't noticed that before. Thanks for pointing it out. Mwelch 22:19, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Slava

Slava Medvadanko doesn't play for the lakers any more. This needs to be updated again. What's weird is that this page has the new guys such as Von Wafer, but the page still has Slava! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 164.116.22.138 (talk • contribs) 13:45, 5 December 2005.

You can be bold and update it! Unfortunately, it seems that you're wrong. The NBA page [[1]] still has Slava there and I personally haven't heard anything to support your theory. Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 20:57, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

He's still on the roster, he just hasn't had any playing time in quite a while. He seems to be out of favor with Phil. -->Chemical Halo 22:28, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

No, Slava's been injured. He got hurt at the beginning of the season and was expected to be out at least a few months. Haven't seen in the LA Times recently if he's been practicing yet or not. howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 16:45, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Ohhh! Herniated disc. At the time they said he'd be out 6 weeks[2]. -->Chemical Halo 18:14, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Gotcha, he is in the roster, then. Question settled. :) Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 03:28, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Slava was waived off the roster to make room to pick up Jim Jackson. Also, Laron Profit was waived after a season-ending injury during the game that Kobe scored 62 points in 3 quarters.--> Galtarafal

LA vs. Miami

Didn't they play the Miami Heats every Christmas since the Shaq trade? someone should add, that because i remember two games on two christmas and they were against each other

Yes that is true, but I do not think that it deserves to be on here because chances are they won't play each other EVERY Christmas from here on out, especially if Shaq and Kobe are not around anymore. Dknights411 04:41, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

It won't neccesarly be EVERY Christmas, but for the new couple years it will most likely be. Besides being the most popular team for ESPN/TNT broadcasts(The Lakers that is), there's always the Shaq/Kobe factor, even if the feud was ended. --Freepablo 01:13, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

This christmas its lakers @ heat!

Forum vs. Great Western Forum

I know that the building is now known simply as "The Forum" or the "L.A. Forum", but it was known as the "Great Western Forum" when the Lakers were playing there. Shouldn't "Great Western Forum" be listed instead of "The Forum", if nothing else to distinguish the bulding from the Montreal Forum? Dknights411 23:58, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Before naming rights were sold to Great Western Savings & Loan in 1988, it was known informally as the "Fabulous Forum". I made a small change to reflect this. Gogh 20:56, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Since, as you note, it was know by that name only informally, it's a little misleading to note it that way in just a list of arenas with their actual official name. The Forum's own article talks about the "Fabulous" nickname. Mwelch 06:53, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough I suppose (though while informal, it was almost universal, and the Forum was almost never referred to in the media in relation to the Lakers (I'm not sure about the Kings) without the adjective "Fabulous", so it seems worth a mention somewhere here). However it is inaccurate to leave the impression that the Forum was known as "Great Western" for all of the period the Lakers were tenants, which is the implication in the previous version. I have made a minor modification.

Gogh 06:54, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

The ubiquitousness of the use of "Fabulous" really only applied to the game broadcasts. Indeed during a game broadcast, you're right that you would pretty much always hear it. But outside of here in L.A., newscasters talking about the game afterward, generally didn't use it. And the print media, even here in L.A., definitely didn't typically use it. If you look at old L.A. Times articles about Laker games, for example, it usually is not there.

Fully agreed about specifying the dates for "Great Western", though. Mwelch 08:26, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I accept the judgement that "Fabulous" was not part of the official name, but can't help pointing out for the record that the adjective was often used by local television and radio sports anchors, as in "Tonight at the Fabulous Forum in Inglewood, the Lakers again trounced the Celtics...". I will grant that it probably was not much used in newspaper reports. If it were not for the now common phenomenon of official naming rights for sports venues, I would argue the point more strongly, because in the day for all practical purposes I believe the Forum was known as Fabulous. But since it was not part of some official, paid-for name, including it here would leave an incorrect impression.

Gogh 06:12, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

MVP

Kobe Bryant is MVP!! He deserves it, 35-6-5. Last time that happened, it was Jordan. They will win the championship next year realistically, if not this year. Forget Lebron, Carmelo, Nowitzki, maybe even Nash, everyone fails to comparison with Kobe.

Heh. Lakers 05:56, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Clean-up

As a long-time Laker fan, I found and read the article with earnest. However, the majority of the article is filled with poor grammar and awkward sentences. The article definitely needs to be cleaned-up to meet the standards of Wikipedia as well as the Los Angeles Lakers. I marked the article at the point that I felt needed the most editing. Jsol5 00:07, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Looks like someone did some major cleaning of this article. Bravo. --Jsol5 09:51, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

There is still substantial refining to be done here, but I did what I could. My edits are really too numerous to list; compare with the previous version to see them. -- Padjet1 21:37, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

In the section of notable lakers, why isn't kobe byrant's name there? he has the laker record for most points in a game and can't be considered a notable laker? Oh, but you consider eddie jones to be one?

Because he's currently on the team. That section is for players who used to be on the Lakers but aren't anymore. howcheng {chat} 16:53, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

KCAL

The line about KCAL needs to be fixed for factual accuracy. They air every Laker road game that they are able to. They do not air Laker road games pre-empted by national television. --PK9 03:30, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Game Songs

What songs are played during the game by the Lakers?

_Magic Johnson V.S. Larry Bird (1980's) ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ One of the best rivalries of all time.Celtics and the Lakers,which dominated the NBA for five years.

Bob Harrison

Please fix Special:Whatlinkshere/Bob Harrison. -- Newhoggy | Talk 12:50, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Charge Theme

What is the history of the charge theme being played only at the start of every quarter?

Celebrity fan list redux

I guess upon further consideration, the tone of the comment within the article source saying not to add more fans to the list does perhaps come across as a bit of a unilateral mandate. Obviously, the way to operate here is by consensus, so let's go ahead and try to reach one.

If other editors agree that the list shouldn't be lengthened further, then we can amend to the comment within the source to refer to this discussion item as evidence of consensus on the point. If other editors disagree, then we should remove the comment altogether and indeed allow the list to grow as each user sees fit to add whom they please.

So would any other editors care to offer their opinion in that regard? Do you all agree that the list is long enough as it is (if not too long even)? Or do people feel the article would in fact be improved by continuing to add names to that list? Mwelch 23:47, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I know in other team articles in other sports, the "notable fans" sections have been eliminated, but IMHO the Lakers are a special case (along possibly with the Knicks) where the celebrity fans are usually highlighted during the TV broadcasts. I think it should be limited to those who are seen at the games often, such as Jack, Dyan, and Denzel. We don't need to know everyone who's a fan, and for some reason there's a lot of discussion about the Red Hot Chili Peppers in this section too. howcheng {chat} 00:08, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Just as a follow up on the last point, specifically, I think the RHCP stuff is borderline. But at the same time, since that's not really music I personally listen to, I'm guessing they might be a little bit "bigger" celebrities to others than they are to me. And certainly I can see the argument that if their fandom is high-profile enough that one of the members is invited to blog about it on the official web site of the NBA, there is some notability in that.

With you all the way, though, on the points about the Lakers and Knicks being special cases, more worthy of mentioning celeb fans than other franchises, but that having some ridiculously long list naming such celeb fans is not desirable. Mwelch 00:55, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Los Angeles Lakers' Band

Could someone include information on the Los Angeles Lakers' Band? I believe they're the only team in the NBA that has a band that plays at Staples Center during the games. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.251.232.168 (talk) 21:25, 16 December 2006 (UTC).

Hi, some information or a directory would help us. Lakers 05:55, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Single game point leader

I reverted a change back to Kobe's 81 points as single game leader. Wilt wasn't playing for the Lakers at the time of his 100 point game.Vgranucci 22:42, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Lakers 1966-1991.png

Image:Lakers 1966-1991.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 20:46, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:KareemAandEarvinJ.jpg

Image:KareemAandEarvinJ.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 06:57, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

D-League Affiliate

Why is the D-league affiliate in the team info sidebar not showing properly..i tried editting it still showes {{{affiliate}}} Motafa (talk) 21:09, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Phil Jackson 04-05 or 05-06?

Yes Phil did come back during the year 2005, but the page is about when he coached the team. He coached the team during the 06 season. Its not when the year stars, its what year the season ends. That's what the NBA calls their season, "by the year the season ends." For example, Frank Hamblen has been with the Lakers since Phil first joined the team during the 1999-2000 season. Yet, in that page he coached the team during the 04-05 season, but did he come during the 04-05 season? No. Its the same with Phil, he came during the year 2005, but he coached the team in during the 2005-06 season. Carlo_ms06 (talk) 05:45, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

NBA is not like MLB or NFL. There is no 2006 season in NBA, there's only a 2005-06 season. Phil Jackson signed his contract in 2005 and the first season he coached was the 2005-06 season. As for Frank Hamblen, he was an assistant during the 1999-2000 season. In 2004-05 season, he became the head coach.
Please, take a look at the Phil Jackson's NBA page and you'll read "Jackson guided the Lakers to three titles in his first stint as their head coach from 1999-2004." It doesn't say that his first stint was from 2000-2004, it clearly states the first year of his first season as a Lakers head coach, which is 1999.--Crzycheetah 06:08, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

So by making this edit, you're stating that the 2006-07 season was Phil Jackson's first season, which is clearly wrong.--Crzycheetah 06:18, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Alright, how about we change its to 2005-06-present? That way the it shows the season when the coach started his term as the head coach of the team? What about it? Carlo_ms06 (talk)

As that NBA page shows, the first year of the first season should be mentioned first, so I changed it back to "2005-present" and linked "2005" to the 2005-06 NBA season to avoid confusion.--Crzycheetah 19:12, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Kobe Bryant picture in Team History

Why is there a picture in the Team History? I really doesn't make sense putting a Kobe Bryant picture in the team history. If there's a Kobe bryant picture in there, why not put Magic Johnson in there or Kareem Abdul-Jabbar? **Annoyomous24** (talk) 21:45, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Trivia

Does anyone think that we should delete the section, Trivia? $$Annoyomous24$$ (talk) 19:07, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Definitely, but first we should check the team history section and see whether those "trivial" info is there, then remove it.--Crzycheetah 20:18, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Source of "Lakers" name

Where did the Lakers name come from? I've heard three origins. The article says because Minnesota is the "Land of 10,000 Lakes". I've heard it was because Minneapolis is the "City of Lakes". This site says because of a type of cargo ship.[3] I'm leaning towards the Minneapolis origin but I can't find any reliable source for the nickname. ~ Eóin (talk) 18:20, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

To answer my own question, this Sports Illustrated article backs up the Great Lakes cargo ship idea. So is the "Land of 10,000 Lakes" origin wrong? ~ Eóin (talk) 00:40, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I think it may be a combination of the "Land of 10,000 Lakes" and "City of Lakes". I'm suspiscious of the claim that they were named after a ship.--RLent (talk) 18:20, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

The ship name seems dubious to me too. This Maxim article says 10,000 lakes as does this book. So I think we can eliminate the "City of Lakes". ~ Eóin (talk) 19:16, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Some helpful people at the reference desk solved the problem. See Wikipedia:Reference desk/Entertainment#Source of Los Angeles Lakers nickname. ~ Eóin (talk) 20:12, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Los Angeles Lakers/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Immediately looking at the article, I don't think this is near enough to a pass to put it on hold and give it my level of full review, but I will do my best to try and help you improve it and push it towards a future re-nomination.

I would also suggest you look at Portland Trail Blazers, which is a basketball team GA, and any basketball team FAs, for a guide on improvements. A WP:PR might also be a good idea.

The main problem with it is the lack of text really for such a huge subject. The history section could be vastly expanded, but particularly it looks very weighted towards recent years. Each decade from the 50s to 90s, get only a paragraph each, yet the recent years, have different split off periods, with the last season getting a long paragraph all to itself.

Is the celebrity fans section really notable enough to be included? It's also very stubby.

I would suggest putting the home arenas section into prose rather than a basic list.

For such a team as famous as the Lakers, I would expect far, far more information and more sources available to you. There is only one book used in the reference section.

There are also several MOS issues.

• Scores should use endashes. See Wp:DASH. As should date ranges.
• Numbers under 10 should be written in full. See WP:MOSNUM.
• Numerals and units should be broken by a non-breaking space, e.g. 20 years.
• See WP:DATE for how to use dates. Also they should be consistent throughout.
• Don't use images directly under level 3 heading. Also don't force image sizes. Portrait pics should also use the "upright" tag in them. See WP:IMAGE for more details.

Best of luck expanding and improving this article towards a renomination. If you want any more advice or questions, just fire a message at me. Peanut4 (talk) 18:32, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Celebrity Fans

Who is Allen Yaghoubzadeh and why is he a famous fan? A Google search says he's an Orthodontist in Beverly Hills. Really? C'mon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigobigo (talk • contribs) 19:35, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

My guess is that it was added by some joker, who wanted to laugh a little. I removed that name.--Crzycheetah 20:17, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Shahram Shabpare ( Iranian hip hop artist, live in Los Angelses ) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.253.93.139 (talk) 16:00, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Shaquille O'Neal

Shaquille O'Neal won 3 consecutive NBA Finals Most Valuable Player Awards from 2000 to 2002.

Even though I don't really like Shaq, there should at least have a picture of him in the articl. Here's one right here -->. -- K. Annoyomous24 02:01, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism/Edit wars

Is this article really appropriate for a GA nomination when it is obviously the target of such a large amount of vandalisms and edit wars? It is one of the more hated/loved NBA teams and that draws frequent vandalisms. Are there any more thoughts, I think the GA might have to be denied just because of that. --Banime (talk) 16:22, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

If you look at Michael Jackson, you'll see that there are also a lot of vandalism. The article Michael Jackson is currently an FL. So I think vandalism won't make GANs a speedy decline. -- K. Annoyomous24_[c] 19:00, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree that vandalism/edit wars alone should not cause the GA nomination being denied. Though I think the current nomination should be denied since the nominator has not attempted to address issues raised by the reviewers.—Chris! _ct 21:06, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Los Angeles Lakers/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Hello. I will be doing the GA review for this article. Here are some issues I noticed, as well as some suggestions for improvement:

Completed tasks

• "The Lakers are notable for having" - You don't have to mention that something is notable...obviously it is or it wouldn't be included. Change to "The Lakers had"

Did i replace the word notable? BlueRed 19:28, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

• "The Lakers are generally regarded as one of the NBA's most successful franchises." - by who?
• Avoid contractions - I see at least a couple that need to be spelled out longhand

What contractions did you notice? BlueRed 08:00, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Didn't (twice), weren't...that was just a scan though, there may be more. Nikki311 16:09, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

• "Abdul-Jabbar broke his hand and was out for two months, the Lakers ended up winning 45 games." - there is a word missing in here somewhere
• The one section is entitled "Showtime" without making it 100% clear to what it is referring. Maybe change "By the 1984–85 season, the Lakers' "Showtime" era was in full swing" to "By the 1984–85 season, the Lakers' "Showtime" era, the most successful era in the team's history, was in full swing" - I'm just using that as an example, because I don't know exactly what the era means, but my phrase could be substituted with the appropriate definition.
• Headers: only the first word and proper nouns should be capital

Which words shouldn't be capitalized? BlueRed 08:00, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Dynasty (depending on if that's the proper name) and rivalry. Nikki311 16:09, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

• "Although Seattle won the first game, the Lakers responded with four straight wins, and taking the series." - two options to fix this sentence. "Although Seattle won the first game, the Lakers responded with four straight wins, taking the series." or "Although Seattle won the first game, the Lakers responded with four straight wins and took the series."
• Avoid POV terms like "Unfortunately"
• Avoid prepositions at the ends of sentences: "the team saw the emergence of their young center Andrew Bynum, whom the Lakers saw potential in." --> "the team saw the emergence of their young center Andrew Bynum, in whom the Lakers saw potential."
• Isn't a little too early to call the last section "Rebirth"? They could begin losing again at any moment, and although some great things happened (including getting to the finals), they didn't win them. I'd suggest merging the "2007–present" into the "Rebuilding section".

I merged it. BlueRed 19:30, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

• "The Lakers have a long and historic rivalry with the Boston Celtics, who met in the NBA Finals 11 times, the Lakers only won two of them (1985, 1987)." - this sentence is missing a word somewhere
• "One of the most memorable moments in the rivalry" - POV - Just say "During the rivalry"
• There is a lot of vernacular or informal phrases. For example, saying a team "fell" instead of lost or were defeated, as well as saying "ended up winning" instead of just "won" - a good copyedit may help eliminate some of the wordiness and informality

I removed all "ended up" phrasing.—Chris! _ct 06:34, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

• Some of the references are missing publishers, accessdates, etc.

Which ones? BlueRed 19:30, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Fixed—Chris! _ct 06:34, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

• I'm worried about the reliability of some of the sources, including LakersWeb.net, hoops4thesoul, greatsportsrivalries, and lakersuniverse. What makes these sites reliable?

• There is also some cases of improper comma usage throughout. Commas should be used to separate clauses that can stand independently of one another without the conjunction. So... "During the 1993–94 season the team ended up only winning 33 games, and missing the playoffs for the fourth time in franchise history." should be "During the 1993–94 season the team ended up only winning 33 games and missing the playoffs for the fourth time in franchise history."

Did i fix it, or are there still more? BlueRed 19:30, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

• The lead doesn't comply with WP:LEAD. The lead should be about three or four paragraphs summarizing all the main points of the article.

I'll give the authors of this article seven days to make improvements. Nikki311 16:37, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Some work has been done, but I still see quite a few problems that have not been addressed from my list above. I'll give the article a few more days in the hopes that some fresh eyes will have a go at my suggestions. Nikki311 17:07, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I put strikes through the ones I thought were completely taken care of. The ones without strikes still need some work. Nikki311 01:38, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I've expand the lead and fix some comma issues.—Chris! _ct 23:53, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I've been busy with some other projects. I'll check through the article again in the next couple of days. Nikki311 00:03, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok. I finally had a chance to look back through the article. I eliminated quite a bit of wordiness and peacock phrases. Keep an eye on new contributions to make sure wording is neutral. For example, saying a season was good is biased...just state the facts. I've decided to pass the article because I believe it now meets all the GA criteria. Great work! Nikki311 22:41, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks—Chris! _ct 22:48, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Lakers Rivalry

Why is there a section for the Sacramento Kings? As Kobe stated, the Kings and the Trailblazers are not our rivals and won't be considered our rivals until they beat us in the playoffs. It's why the Suns aren't our rivals, because we haven't had the chance to knock them out (D'antoni went running, it loses some of it's luster now). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.148.112.200 (talk) 21:47, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

They may not be true rivals now, but we do have an entire article about the Lakers-Kings rivalry. howcheng {chat} 16:01, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Length of the team history section

Why is the team history section so long and detailed, when there's a separate article specifically for the history of the team? Isn't that the whole point of having a separate history article: so that this article isn't forced to be mostly a long recitation of the team history, but instead can provide a very brief summary (maybe three or four paragraphs) of that history and then move on to other things about the team? If the editors of this page really want the history to be so long and detailed on this page (and I can't imagine why that's desirable), then what is the point of having a separate "History of ..." article at all? 12.155.58.181 (talk) 22:11, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Three or four paragraphs for the entire history is too brief and short. Though I kind of agree that the history can be a bit more concise.—Chris! _ct 00:04, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Non-playoff seasons

The sentence with "the fewest non-playoff seasons with five (tied with San Antonio Spurs)" should be deleted. The Lakers missed 1958, 1975, 1976, 1994, 2005 between 1949-2008. The Spurs only missed 1984, 1987, 1989, 1997 between 1977-2008. 208.127.31.79 (talk) 03:57, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

You are totally right. I think the person who inserted that sentence was also counting the ABA seasons, which I don't think it should. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]]_{call me Keith} 04:15, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Fred Schaus

Fred Schaus led the Lakers to 4 NBA Finals in 5 seasons. He was coach from 1960 to 1966 and later on became the team's General Manager. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Family guy85 (talk • contribs) 07:00, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Lakers' Rivalries

There is a page on the Kings-Lakers Rivalry. Wouldn't it make sense, if we're counting that as a rivalry, to count Lakers-Spurs as a rivalry. Considering that they played each other, 5 times (I think it was five) in the playoffs this century. And that until last year, the Western Conference Champion was either the Lakers or the Spurs since 1999. Also, it was a much more even rivalry than Lakers-Kings.--Seventy-one 20:54, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree, Lakers/Kings was hardly a rivalry. The games were competitive but the Lakers won every series, at least the spurs were able to beat them. Also, no mention of Wilt in team history? 76.168.129.68 03:43, 10 May 2007 (UTC) KO

There's an article about it: Spurs-Lakers rivalry. And Wilt is in the team history summary provided here. For more details, see the much longer History of the Los Angeles Lakers article. howcheng {chat} 06:38, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

If we are going to add rivalries, we should make mention of te time periods which they were rivals. Right this moment, its the SUns (Eliminated them 2 straight years) and the Clippers (Finally performing to the level of the lakers) however we definetly need to add rivalries for the Celtics and the Spurs who are old classic rivalries. Ptotheerry2 20:14, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I've got to say, the contention that the Lakers and Kings have a rivalry worthy of mention in this article is a bit of a joke. Even back when it was at its peak, which only lasted 2 or 3 years, the teams played one competitive series (the 2002 WCF). In terms of what constitutes a "rival," the Kings would not even be in the Top 10 from the Lakers' perspective. Just off the top of my head, I would list the Celtics, the Sixers, the Pistons, the Spurs, the Suns, the Jazz, the Rockets, the Nuggets, the Trailblazers, and the Sonics as more intense rivalries, historically, than what the Lakers have going with the Kings.CFBSolon (talk) 02:41, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the above.. if you look at it historically, Lakers-Milwaukee Bucks or Lakers-Pistons were better rivalries. Lakers-Kings should be removed. Nada (talk) 05:45, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

George Mikan

Mikan's name is spelled incorrectly in various parts of this article as "Milkan". 124.93.208.4 (talk) 00:57, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Fixed -- thanks for the heads-up. And please feel free to fix any other mistakes you come across. — Myasuda (talk) 01:07, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Lakers named after vessles on the great lakes, called Lakers

The Lakers name came, not from the Lakes themselves, but for the vessels that frequented the water ways. The were called "Lakers". Thus the name of the franchise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.40.106.142 (talk) 18:00, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

• • You're probably referring to this article: Lake freighter ("Lakers"). Those vessels are indeed called "lakers", and they ply through the Great Lakes 71.116.123.177 (talk) 09:44, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Error in rivalry section

It is stated that following the Celtics' victory over the Minneapolis Lakers, the teams met 5 more times in the '60s following the move to LA, with the Celtics winning all. I believe that would actually be 6 more times. Leominster (talk) 18:06, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

You're right -- I've gone and fixed the error. Thanks. — Myasuda (talk) 01:32, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Lakers as a signature franchise

I added to the intro the statement that "The Lakers are considered to be among the signature franchises of the NBA." A certain editor claims this is POV; I don't see how this is the case at all. The Lakers have an incredibly rich history filled with success and storylines, and are one of the first few teams people tend to associate with the NBA. The New York Knicks page has a mention of the Knicks as a signature franchise; this page should be no different. TheFix63 (talk) 22:07, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

The relevant section in WP:NPOV advises editors to "assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves." "The Lakers are considered to be among the signature franchises of the NBA" is clearly POV because it is clearly an opinion, or "a matter which is subject to dispute." Rather than calling it a signature franchise on top, why don't we let readers draw their own conclusion about the Lakers. I have deleted the similar statement on the Knicks page as Wikipedia policy applies to the entire site.—Chris!_c/t 22:57, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

No, this is basic English. I included "considered to be," rather than simply saying the Lakers are one of the signature franchises. There's a clear difference, and it's the difference between confirming the existence of a major opinion and confirming the opinion itself. TheFix63 (talk) 23:33, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, you cannot confirm the opinion without backing of reliable sources. But the bigger point here is that there is no need to say that here. If readers happen to agree with the opinion that "The Lakers is a signature franchise of the NBA," the entire article already confirms that by telling readers every thing about team. That is no point stating it again. It is not Wikipedia's job to tell readers what to think.—Chris!_c/t 23:51, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

OK, I'll add a source for this self-evident statement. And your argument doesn't hold up at all; again, this isn't telling readers what to think - it's confirming the existence of a major opinion. I guess you want to remove the statement for Michael Jordan that he's considered the greatest player of all time, too, or the one on Larry Bird's page about being an all-time great - which you want to preserve, ironically. TheFix63 (talk) 01:35, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I guess you have misunderstood the POV policy on this site. Forcing your so-called "major opinion" onto the article gives undue weight to this point of view and is exactly what "telling readers what to think" is. Also, there is a difference between:

• "Larry Joe Bird is a retired American NBA basketball player, widely considered to be one of the greatest players of all time."

AND

• "Larry Joe Bird is a retired American NBA basketball player, whom coach Red Auerbach considered to be the greatest basketball player of all time."

The first one is an opinion because it is not back by reliable sources. The second is a fact of an opinion by an expert and is permissible if back by reliable sources. This is according to Wiki policy, not because I like it this way. It seems like we have talked past each other and I am taking this to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard.—Chris!_c/t 01:54, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

This is such an WP:LEW. First off TheFix63 is right that the phrase is not considered to be POV, but Chris is right also because you need reliable sources to back up the information, just to give evidence to the readers that some do consider Lakers as an signature franchises of the NBA. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 02:52, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Stating that "x is considered y" is a weasel statement, which is actually a POV in disguise. Instead of trying to justify why something is considered whatever, I believe we'd be better off providing the reader with objective material, e.g. the number of championships. —LOL ^T/_C 03:07, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

This is stupid. Your first mistake is claiming it's only my opinion; it's not, as any halfway knowledgeable NBA fan and the NBA itself can attest to. Second, "so-called" major opinion? Are you serious, or are you utterly unfamiliar with the Lakers' history and reputation? Of course it's major; that's beyond dispute. Third, I did back up the Bird statement with a reliable source (do you not consider the NBA a reliable source now?). And you didn't even respond to the Jordan example, which contradicts your entire argument. TheFix63 (talk) 03:11, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I never claim "it's only my opinion." And even though most people may share the same opinion, that would not automatically make it a fact. If 90% of the Earth's population think the world is flat, does it automatically make that a fact? I think not.—Chris!_c/t 03:48, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

And you still fail to understand our policy. The sentence "His biography on the National Basketball Association (NBA) website states, by acclamation, Michael Jordan is the greatest basketball player of all time " is not pov versus "Michael Jordan is the greatest player" is pov.—Chris!_c/t 03:53, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

TF63, proclaiming the "stupid[ity]" of this, or asserting that we made mistakes by doing... stuff that we didn't actually do, or asking rhetorical questions about our familiarity with the franchise isn't going to make an argument more convincing. Anyhow, the important points:

• WP:NOR: "Even with well-sourced material, however, if you use it out of context or to advance a position that is not directly and explicitly supported by the source used, you as an editor are engaging in original research". 'Nuff said?
• Michael Jordan: "His biography on the National Basketball Association (NBA) website states, 'By acclamation, Michael Jordan is the greatest basketball player of all time.'" The main body attributes a quotation to a reliable site, which is much better than asserting an opinion with an implicit citation.
• Regarding [4]: Wikipedia doesn't allow synthesis.

—LOL ^T/_C 04:04, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

This is getting out of hand. TheFix63 is edit warring. Should we ask an admin to intervene?—Chris!_c/t 04:07, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, as he (and LOL) violated WP:3RR. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 05:00, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Intervene I will. I'll let the 3RR go for now, as both editors involved are looking to do the best for the encyclopedia; I won't punish you for trying to make the reader experience better. However, edit warring isn't acceptable; instead of using edit summaries to communicate, talk things out here, please? Otherwise I'll have to protect the page and nobody will be able to do anything.

Anyway, from what I see here, TheFix would like to have a general statement, supported by the NBA sources. I don't think that's anything bad, but the sentence needs to be worded more clearly (the NBA isn't the only basketball organization in the world). Master of Puppets - _{Call me MoP! :D} 05:09, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Are the Jordan example and the second Bird example above worded clearly? As an aside, may I see the diffs of the four 3RR-violating edits I made? —LOL ^T/_C 13:54, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

The general statement TheFix63 wanted to add is not supported by any sources. The sources he added say nothing about the Lakers being a "signature franchise of the NBA." So that sentence is WP:OR.—Chris!_c/t 21:58, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Information RE Laker's Controversy

I was wondering if someone could do the research appropriately and include in this article multiple news reports that are launching investigations about game fixes for both game 7 of Lakers-Portland finals and Game 6 of Lakers-Kings finals. While I understand that the Lakers themselves may not have even participated or have known about possible fixes, the fact that these possible fixes, if they exist, directly would have contributed to the rise of the "Laker's Dynasty", it would be good to the balance of the information if it were added in a "Controversy" section and updated as developed. As well, I am also very interested in information surrounding this investigation. Thank you Bullercruz1 (talk) 00:04, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

That belong in the playoffs / finals articles, not here.—Chris!_c/t 00:29, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Lakers now heard on 710 AM ESPN (KSPN) radio station in Los Angeles

Since the article is semi-locked, I move that someone with higher access will update the information regarding the Lakers' new official station, beginning this season (2009-10). I hope the section on KLAC can be kept, since it was a very significant part of Laker history in the media.

http://www.insidesocal.com/tomhoffarth/archives/2008/12/lakers-run-at-k.html

71.189.206.75 (talk) 03:22, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Roster?

Why are the rookies listed on the roster? They haven't even signed a contract yet. Although the Lakers retain the rights to sign them (that is, no other team can sign them), by definition they shouldn't be included on the roster until they actually sign for the Lakers. For all we know, the Lakers may choose to leave Gasol and Sun with their current teams and not decide to pick them up until next season. Furthermore, the Lakers aren't even obligated to offer a contract to any of the players drafted in the second round; they definitely shouldn't be on there. 75.183.24.180 23:28, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

the only reason why they're there is becaus ethe Lakers still have possesion of them even though they're not signed. Annoyomous24 07:59, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

The flag next to Ilunga's name is for the wrong Congo. The yellow, green and red flag already there belongs to the Republic of the Congo, formerly a colony of France's. However, according to his own page and the text next to his name on the roster, he comes from the neighboring, but much larger Democratic Republic of the Congo, formerly known as Zaire and before that a Belgian colony. Also, since his own page says he plays his international basketball for Belgium, shouldn't he have a Belgian flag next to his name anyway? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.160.161.203 (talk) 02:45, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Edit request from 71.93.174.30, 11 May 2010

{{editsemiprotected}}

Modification: in one of the pictures with Kobe Bryant, the player is on the left and not on the right, like in the wrong caption under the picture.

71.93.174.30 (talk) 08:24, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

 Not done looks to me like the caption is correct. It says Shaquille O'Neal is on the left, with Kobe Bryant on the right, this image is on the left, and this one on the right. Kind regards, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 13:13, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Didier Mbenga

Didier Mbenga was indeed born in RD Congo. But he holds the Belgian nationality. He even plays for the Belgian national team. So I don't see why he has been stated as a Congolese. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.165.108.11 (talk) 11:16, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

His flag should be changed to a Belgian flag since he is Belgian and plays for the Belgium national team! Arkaska (talk) 01:17, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 63.164.47.229, 15 June 2010

{{editsemiprotected}}

Need to fix typo in this sentence: They currently meeting for the 12th time in the 2010 NBA Finals.

"They" should be "They're"

63.164.47.229 (talk) 06:39, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Done Favonian (talk) 10:09, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Jmatney83, 24 June 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} Under the section "2007-present: Return to championship form" it states, " win their sixteenth title and tenth in Los Angeles." This is incorrect as this is the Lakers' eleventh championship in Los Angeles and should read, "win their sixteenth title and eleventh in Los Angeles." Looking at the NBA's official page, http://www.nba.com/history/finals/champions.html, you can see the Lakers won championships in Los Angeles for the 71-72, 79-80, 81-82, 84-85, 86-87, 87-88, 99-00, 00-01, 01-02, and 08-09 seasons. With the addition of this year's 09-10 title, the total now stands at eleven in Los Angeles. Jmatney83 (talk) 19:27, 24 June 2010 (UTC) Jmatney83 (talk) 19:27, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

 Done CTJF83 pride 19:36, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Sasha Vujacic and Luke Walton removed in two articles

This is really weird. The Lakers have still Vujacic and Walton on their roster. I saw two articles (including this) that it didn't include the two and some sort of messiness in the current roster infobox. --Sir Jazer 13 (talk) 13:25, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

:Thanks for who solved the roster problem.

--Sir Jazer 13 (talk) 08:25, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Media guide

Is there any place in internet where is downloanable Media guide of 2009-10 season?--91.200.65.99 (talk) 13:34, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Minneapolis vs. LA

Why do the LA Lakers lay claim to the titles of Minneapolis? --TimothyDexter (talk) 03:39, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Because it's the same franchise. No different, say, than the Los Angeles Dodgers laying claim to the Brooklyn Dodgers 1955 World Series title.— Myasuda (talk) 13:11, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Name

I grew up in Minneapolis, and when an adolescent I had one of the Lakers players on my paper route. Anyhow, I always had heard the Lakers were named for for "The City of Lakes," not for "10,000 Lakes." Minneapolis supposedly has 11 lakes, although I never could come up with that total; I spent much of my childhood playing around Lake Harriet.

Sca (talk) 18:04, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Floor Seat Season Ticket Holders - Complete List

This blog article details who of each court side seat on the wood belongs to. It's impressive and is a good article to include because Lakers fans are such a huge force in Los Angeles.

http://www.thedailytruffle.com/2010/10/lakers-seating-chart/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.144.98.89 (talk) 23:08, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

FA drive

Per discussion at WP:NBA I think we might start a push for featured article status for this article, so I started a to do list. Feel free to add info to it, comment on what's there, or better still address existing issues/requests. Nothing too obvious or broad please (eg; "copyedit", "check writing", "keep writing good" etc) just specific would work best imho. Quadzilla99 (talk) 03:38, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Here's some sources discussing Westhead's firing from Google News archives when it happened:[5] This one is interesting because it says Riley and West were initially named "co-Head coaches"[6] don't know if that merits mention here or if its already discussed, and here's a link to a Bill Simmons article that discusses Johnson getting booed everywhere after the trade:[7] (Johnson info starts in the "You could see it in his face in Boston" paragraph next to the second Lebron pic) I'd like to add 1-2 sentences on this later but figured I'd leave some sources here in case anyone else wants to do it. Quadzilla99 (talk) 04:45, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Here's one more source where Johnson complains about Westhead and demands trade:[8] Quadzilla99 (talk) 04:50, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

This is done. Quadzilla99 (talk) 00:44, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Hollinger

I have removed the Hollinger trivia from the lead again. This smacks of recentism in that this list isn't notable in any way, hasn't received any if mainstream media coverage, and will be forgotten completely (if it hasn't been already) in 5-10 years. Its not fit to be included in a short summary of the Lakers franchise, there are literally 500 things I could think to put in the lead that would be more noteworthy from a historical perspective. Also, and this is a more minor point please read WP:LEAD the lead is a summary of the article, it shouldn't introduce anything not mentioned in the body of the article. Quadzilla99 (talk) 05:54, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Some comments

I've been asked to make some comments on the article, so here goes. I'll probably add to this list as I move through the article:

• A previous version of the article mentioned that the Sparks are the Lakers' "sister team", but the details of this relationship are not discussed anywhere in the article. Maybe they should be? (For the time being, I've removed the phrase "sister team", because I think it will confuse many readers until we provide more information.)
  • I would tend not to include that for importance reasons. But then again, I'm an avowed WNBA hater. So maybe someone else can comment, if Buss owns the team its probably relevant. Incidentally, is it really any wonder NBA teams lost $400 million last season when they're flushing money down the toilet on black holes like WNBA subsidization? Really I just wish that league would go away and stop clogging up ESPN/newspapers/blogs/whatever with its worthlessness.</end rant> In all seriousness, if anyone wants to add some info about that go ahead. AaronY (talk) 21:57, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
    • I actually think it would be worthwhile to say a little bit about the Lakers-Sparks relationship. Not all NBA teams have a WNBA sister team. Plus, the people at FAC will want to see lots of information about the business/administrative aspects of the team. Zagalejo^^^ 06:31, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
      • I think a small mention about Lakers-Sparks relationship would be good for the article. But I would like to see more about the Los Angeles D-Fenders, that are not mentioned at all in the article. The D-Fenders, although they're inactive right now, are the first D-League team owned by an NBA franchise. Their sole affiliate in the NBA is the Lakers and they also played in the Staples Center. — MT (talk) 15:55, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
        • As much as I hate the WNBA, I agree that there should be a mention of the Lakers-Sparks relationship somewhere.—Chris!_c/t 19:33, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
          • Here are some sources for the NBgay stuff:[9][10][11][12] AaronY (talk) 08:51, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
• The Lakers franchise was founded in 1946 in Detroit, Michigan before moving to Minneapolis, where the team got its official title from the state's nickname, "Land of 10,000 Lakes". Is there any specific reason why we don't mention in the lead that the team was called the Detroit Gems? Also, is a team name really a "title"?
  • Changed to "name", "official title" was kind of needless verbosity anyway. AaronY (talk) 21:57, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
• If the article goes to FAC, someone is probably going to complain that the lead is too stats-heavy. I don't have a quick fix for that, although there are a few stats that could probably go (# of HOFers, # of non-playoff seasons, etc). These figures should certainly be discussed in the body of the article, but we don't want to clog the lead with numbers.
  • I've rewritten the lead to take some stats out and make it more of a summary of the article. AaronY (talk) 21:47, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
    • I made a few tweaks for the sake of flow. One thing I noticed is that we repeatedly use the phrase "Hall of Fame...so and so" when describing various players. Do we need to do this at all (in the lead, at least)? Zagalejo^^^ 07:11, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
      • Wow, a bunch of those got in there. I hadn't noticed I was doing that. Basically I was trying to replace the word "star" and "superstar" with a more unbiased sounding term that established the caliber of the player/coach being discussed. Plus lately I've been trying to write sports articles that are more accessible to the general reader; this way I figured the status of the person being discussed could be established immediately. Problem is unlike with some other less successful franchises every Laker worth mentioning in the lead is in the Hall of Fame. AaronY (talk) 19:15, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
• The "fanbase" section doesn't flow very well, and seems unfocused. Some of that info (songs, etc) might be better off in a "cultural impact"-type section. Zagalejo^^^ 07:52, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
  • I had vastly overhauled that section just recently but there was a huge edit:[13] that deleted a ton of people's work with no explanation. I thought the editor had just re-inserted the Hollinger comment. Ugh. Now I have to look through all that. I restored the section. Quadzilla99 (talk) 08:29, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
    • omg what a headache, doing a whole scale revert for now, will incorporate your recent edits. Quadzilla99 (talk) 08:33, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
      • To clarify what happened; the editor wanted to insert his Hollinger trivia (imho) back in and just reverted to the last version that contained it. I did a revert and will try to re-incorporate your work. Originally, I thought he had put it back in and done some copy-editing which I was going to look at later, that's why I didn't notice it. Quadzilla99 (talk) 08:55, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
        • Ah, OK. I can strike one of my comments right now, since it's no longer an issue. Zagalejo^^^ 18:38, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
• The Lakers' franchise was founded in 1946 in Detroit, Michigan when Ben Berger and Morris Chalfen bought the Detroit Gems of the National Basketball League for $15,000 before moving to Minneapolis in 1947. - This is a little confusing. When we say that Berger and Chalfen "bought" the team, does that mean they paid for a new franchise, or did they buy the team from someone else? The closest references in the text don't say anything about Berger or Chalfen. Zagalejo^^^ 20:04, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
  • I see someone has added some more detail, but I'm still a little confused. We're saying that the team was founded when two people bought it from someone else...? That doesn't really make sense. How long did Maury Winston own the Gems before Berger and Chalfen bought the team? I think something in the article needs to be reworded. (Unfortunately, I can't access enough of the ref to figure things out myself.) Zagalejo^^^ 04:38, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
    • The History article has a note (sourced from flickr, so we can't use it) that they were a 4–40 team that was a financial disaster, and owned at least in part by someone name C. "King" Boring. I can't find any free available reliable sources to verify this, but I did find this snippet from a google books result:"The Detroit Vagabond Kings (onehttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Los_Angeles_Lakers&action=edit&section=40 of their co-owners, King Boring, had been a partner in the Detroit Gems of the ... However, building difficulties have delayed its completion and King Boring and Ernie Pabis were forced to go elsewhere. ..."[14] Unfortunately that book has no free preview for those pages. A Google News archive search was similarly fruitless. AaronY (talk) 07:19, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
      • Here we go. I think this should answer our questions; there's a chapter on the Lakers in this book starting at page 67 that is available through free preview, where they discuss the Gems's ownership.:[15] AaronY (talk) 09:10, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
        • Tbh information from that book might need to be quoted in some instances, since the writer was a primary source. AaronY (talk) 09:15, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
    • The reference I supplied should provide access to the pages cited via the link I added to Google Books. Simply enter a search string in the search box, and you'll find the assertions in the article completely supported. The book also contains content that answers your questions, so you may add whatever you find necessary to the article. In particular, on page 94, it states that the Gems disbanded following their 4-40 season (Winston had owned the team just that season), and in fact the players were reassigned to other teams prior to the purchase of the franchise. Per the referenced book, the Detroit team had gone bankrupt and the purchase was essentially payment for nothing -- no GM, no coach, no players, no uniforms, and no equipment other than just some old basketballs. Incidentally, the article History of the Los Angeles Lakers's references to Boring do not appear to be supported by any reliable source that I can find and should probably be removed as misinformation (or at least be tagged).— Myasuda (talk) 15:21, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
      • Oh, I can access the pages now. I'm not sure what I was doing before. However, I'm still a little confused by some things. The book seems to suggest that Winston sold the Gems in 1947, not 1946. Unless I'm misreading things. Zagalejo^^^ 06:01, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
        • Very good and pertinent questions related to the team's origins (this and the original ones that spawned this discussion). I've gone ahead and tried to address them in the article. — Myasuda (talk) 13:08, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
          • OK, great. The new edits definitely help. Zagalejo^^^ 20:39, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
      • I've seen a book about the NBL at my library that might be helpful. I'll try to check it out when I have a chance. Zagalejo^^^ 06:12, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Now, we need to make this more of a summary style again, which it might be staring to change. Either due minor trimming or merge the history article. YE ^{Tropical Cyclone} 15:34, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

If anything, the content of Los_Angeles_Lakers#Team_history should be merged back into History of the Los Angeles Lakers, which is a bit of a mess and has hardly any reference support. — Myasuda (talk) 13:08, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

(undent) They go by prose size on FAC. The article is only 38kb of prose, its not long at all. FAs Michael Jordan (40 kb) and Bill Russell (49 kb) are longer and they are just on one player. AaronY (talk) 19:30, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

• We shouldn't start worrying about prose size. We have some leeway. The people at FAC tend to focus on other things, anyway. Zagalejo^^^ 06:01, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I am not saying that the article is too long, but we still have some work to do before it is FAC time. YE ^{Tropical Cyclone} 15:17, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

• In the third paragraph of the Team history section, it is mentioned that Lakers moved to BAA from NBL. But at the end of the paragraph suddenly there is a word NBA. Readers who are unfamiliar with the NBA history would wonder, did the Lakers moved from BAA to NBA or when did they move to NBA. I think there should be a mention that NBA is formed from the merger between BAA and NBL in 1949. — MT (talk) 16:05, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

• The infobox shows that Lakers have 13 conference title and 9 division titles between 1949 and 1970, but the league was not arranged to Eastern and Western Conference until the 1970–71 NBA season. If we would like to consider the 13 Western Division titles as predecessor to the current Western Division titles, we should delete them from the Division titles and added a note about the change in league's arrangement. Otherwise this seems to be an overstatement of the team's achievement. — MT (talk) 02:09, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I think this can be resolved by adding a footnote to the template. I've created the footnote.—Chris!_c/t 03:59, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

This may seem a bit pedantic, but the comment above is not correct. The Lakers won 12 Western Division titles (not 13). The title they shared in 1950 was for the Central Division. — Myasuda (talk) 04:58, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I added a temporary note. It is not well written, so someone please rewrite to reflect the actual situation.—Chris!_c/t 05:04, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I am a bit confused as to why so many division titles were removed. First off, I believe the editor (whoever it was) meant to say that *conferences* did not exist until 1970. As I pointed out, divisions have existed since the very beginning. Also, it doesn't matter if they won the Central or Western division. A division title is a division title. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Westsidelife (talk • contribs) 06:05, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

See Lakers 2010–11 Media Guide page 81. They only recognize 21 Pacific Division titles. While the Western Division titles are listed together with the Western Conference title (Western Division is the predecessor to the current Western Division). — MT (talk) 06:45, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

The infobox is flawed in its handling of division titles, and the discussion here exhibits a surprising confusion among a few of the principal editors here. A division title is awarded for performance in the regular season while a conference title is awarded to each team that reaches the championship round. In other words, a conference title is a reflection of playoff performance and not the regular season. This is a major distinction that seems lost here. The Western Division titles and Central Division title that the Lakers won prior to 1971 were division titles. — Myasuda (talk) 14:26, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm aware about the difference between conference titles and division titles. However, division titles prior to 1971 were often excluded when media reported the number division titles won. For example, this news from ESPN mentions that Lakers had 18 division titles as of 2004, which excludes the division titles that they won before 1971. Lakers official Media Guide also does not list their pre-1971 division titles as their achievement. If the consensus is to include all the division titles prior to 1971, I wouldn't oppose, but I think the infobox needs to be improved to avoid confusion. — MT (talk) 15:55, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't really care how we present the titles, conferences or divisions in the infobox. As long as there is sufficient explanation, it should be fine. That is why I add a footnote parameter. Actually, I think we should follow the team's media guide. It is weird for Wikipedia to recognize division titles that even the team itself does not recognize.—Chris!_c/t 19:51, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I've noticed that, for now, the Lakers division titles prior to 1971 have been restored. Whatever decision is ultimately made, it should be kept in mind is that other NBA team articles (e.g., Boston Celtics, Detroit Pistons, Atlanta Hawks, Golden State Warriors, etc) have all chosen to list the team's pre-1971 division titles. If there is justification to remove them here, I'd expect that they'd also be removed elsewhere for the same reason. — Myasuda (talk) 14:25, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

So what should we do? We have to decide.—Chris!_c/t 19:43, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

If we remove the footnote, then I'm okay with the infobox content as it currently stands. This will make it consistent with other NBA team articles. The footnote is unnecessary, and it does not address the 1949-50 situation. — Myasuda (talk) 03:56, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

If you all don't think the footnote is necessary, then feel free to remove. I just thought that it helps clarify the situation better. Also should we follow the media guide? I think this still need to be discussed. Anyhow, I've asked Zagalejo to comment here.—Chris!_c/t 04:05, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I have an idea that should work without really altering the infobox. What if we create a List of NBA conference and divisional champions and insert the link to them into the infobox like this. We could explain the difference between conference and divisional titles there and let the readers who are curious with the titles read about it themselves. The list would also be a good place to compare teams achievements in divisional and conference titles which are not found anywhere yet. — MT (talk) 05:25, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

That is a good idea. This list would be a great complement to List of NBA champions.—Chris!_c/t 05:31, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I just found that NBA Conference Finals list all the conference champions. So all we need to create is the List of NBA divisional champions. — MT (talk) 13:20, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

You know what? If it were up to be, I'd remove the conference and division titles from the infobox entirely. We should keep the infoboxes as simple as possible. Zagalejo^^^ 03:16, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

NOR synthesis, should be deleted?

Deletion consideration for the fourth paragraph's sentence about most sports championships, it has been suggested that merely interpreting what a list of facts states is considered to be NOR and possibly synthesis. I am attempting to get clarification on this (been a number of days without response). I may be wrong discussing this prior to deletion of facts even though those facts may be synthesized since the consensus seems to be to delete facts first then "synthesize" a rationalization for it. Thank you for your time. Hholt01 (talk) 10:32, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Roster vandalism

Don't ask me how, but somebody has vandalized the roster section. They have added "Kenneth de Padua" to the list at a height of 8'10" inches. Obviously this is incorrect and there is no such player on the Lakers. Perhaps whoever did this needs to be banned.76.174.26.88 (talk) 06:08, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the report. I removed the vandalism and warned the user. To remove vandalism from the roster template and similar templates, you can click the "v" link at the top-right corner of the template, click the "View history" tab at the top of the page, click the appropriate "undo" link, and then save. —LOL ^T/_C 07:09, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Vanity roster entry

If you look on the roster, there is an entry for:

77 MEX !Mexico Hernandez, Andrew 68 !5 ft 8 in (1.73 m) 157 lb (71 kg) Dakota Wesleyan University*

However, this does not appear in the edit section for the roster.

This is obviously a vanity entry and should be removed, but I don't know how to remove it, as it does not appear when you go to edit the section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kopitarian (talk • contribs) 22:34, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for reporting. This and many other NBA articles tend to get vandalized from time to time. So, if you see dubious content, please remove them.—Chris!_c/t 07:50, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 84.91.130.106, 1 July 2011

I need to express myself by saying that the Lakers, much like the remaining 29 teams are locked out

84.91.130.106 (talk) 20:43, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Nothing to add in the article. Also it is inaccurate to say the teams are locked out. The players are locked out, but not the teams.—Chris!_c/t 20:50, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Hall-of-Famers

it says in the HOF section that we have 16 of them, 15 players and one announcer. shouldnt we also mention the hall of fame coaches, like pat riley and phil jackson? Kidlittle (talk) 23:19, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Though Phil jackson and Pat Riley have now been listed now as Laker Hall of Fame coaches, John Kundla should be there too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.169.199.130 (talk) 08:04, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and updated the article per your recommendation. I added mention of Sharman as well. — Myasuda (talk) 20:51, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Need to add another Hall of Famer -- Jamaal Wilkes — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thetonger (talk • contribs) 17:16, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Will do -- following the induction ceremony in September. — Myasuda (talk) 18:49, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

dance team

I wanted to look after a dance team member, and got no name lousy art! Maria-Mirabela şi cu Gopo — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.25.49.49 (talk) 11:37, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

1997-1998 Season

While this page does accurately quote the Lakers.com website in claiming that 1997-1998 team won the Pacific Division Title, the Lakers website, itself, is wrong. Seattle and Los Angeles both finished tied at 61-21, but by virtue of a better head-to-head record that season (3-1), Seattle actually won the division title. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.253.190.41 (talk) 12:39, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

It's been fixed. Thanks for pointing this out.—Chris!_c/t 20:48, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 21 August 2012

On the 8.1 current roster section - num 16: Pau Gasol. He is NOT from "FC_Barcelona", which is the football (soccer) team. (This is the link right now). He is from "FC_Barcelona_Bàsquet" which is the basketball team. Thank you. 46.116.49.71 (talk) 23:17, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Already done—Bagumba (talk) 23:23, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

BAA, NBL, NBA Confusion

I'm working on a history of the Lakers right now and I'm a bit confused by something. According to the National Basketball League (United States) page, the Minneapolis Lakers win the 1947-48 NBL championship. Then, according to the Basketball Association of America page, they win the 1948-49 BAA championship. Then the two leagues merge in 1949, if I'm not mistaken. I'm guessing that the Lakers were in the NBL until 1948, then switched to the BAA for '48-49, then the NBA from '49 onwards but the article doesn't really clarify this. Confirmation, anyone? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mileslivingston (talk • contribs) 08:52, 11 May 2009 (UTC) they only have two players — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.242.120.148 (talk) 18:10, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Please read my comments above on the "Championship Confusion" section.

CYLakers (talk) 04:06, 20 November 2012 (UTC)CYLakers

Please edit the number of MVPs that played for the lakers

Since Steve Nash signed the total number of MVP that played for the Lakers should be 5 and the total number of MVP awards should be 10. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.120.130.101 (talk) 02:18, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Notable Players

can you guys stop adding people who aren't really notable like for example, Aaron McKie. I'm going to delete all the ones I KNOW thats not really notable. ~~Annoyomous24~~ 10:33, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Arturo Barba is my boyfriend! Knows more sports than any of you on here — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.87.25.88 (talk) 07:12, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Jim Buss

Hey, I just created it, 'cuz he's been VP or Prez or whatnot of the Lakers for a few years, and now he owns the Lakers. Check it out; feel free to add to it pbp 20:42, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Who to list as owner

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_National_Basketball_Association#Who_to_list_as_NBA_owner. —Bagumba (talk) 18:43, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Team origins

There appears to be some dispute over the Lakers team origin, and it certainly is possible to find (e.g., via Google) some sources that suggest the Detroit Gems is true origin of the franchise. The source I provided, however,

• Schumacher, Michael (2008). Mr. Basketball: George Mikan, the Minneapolis Lakers, and the Birth of the NBA. United States: Univ Of Minnesota Press. pp. 93–94. ISBN 0816656754. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)

appears to be reliable, gives considerable detail on the Gems transaction, and goes so far as to quote Ben Berger about it. The most relevant statement regarding team origins is on page 94 where it states that the Gems in fact disbanded prior to the purchase. If the Gems truly disbanded, then the origins of the Lakers *franchise* lies in Minneapolis and not Detroit. The Gems connection then becomes a matter of franchise pre-history and not a part of the actual Lakers history.

Anyhow, if there's going to be a dispute about team origins, present any competing sources here so we can have a healthy discussion of the matter. — Myasuda (talk) 03:00, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

The official team history on the Lakers website seems to show this as well. The team started as the Minneapolis Lakers in 1947.—Chris!_c/t 03:21, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Even if the team disbanded before Sid Hartman purchased the team to tranfer it to Minneapolis, there will always be a connection between the Detroit Gems and the Minneapolis/Los Angeles Lakers. And that is the no 1 pick that the Lakers had in 1947 NBL draft and the dispersal draft of the Professional Basketball Association of America (PBLA). The PBLA was a league created by Maurice Winston the owner of the Chicago Gears NBL franchise, when the NBL owners turned down his request to become the NBL commisioner. Winston had a team with legends Bobby McDermont and George Mikan and he wanted to have his own league and own all the teams of it. Soon enough he saw that his idea wasn't viable and he declared bankruptcy. The players on the teams of the PBLA were distributed through a dispersal draft to the NBL and the Lakers had the no 1 pick as the team with the worst record the previus year. (Detroit Gems 1946-47, 4-40). This fact connects the Detroit Gems with the Minneapolis Lakers. Also the Minneapolis Lakers had the 2nd worst record in 1959-60 season, their last in Minneapolis. They drafted Jerry West but West played with the franchise only in Los Angeles. If anything else can't convince someone, those two facts result to ONE franchise that played in THREE LEAGUES (NBL,BAA,NBA), THREE CITIES (Detroit, Minneapolis, Los Angeles) with TWO NAMES (Gems, Lakers). If someone don't count the 1st year of the franchise then it seems like the Lakers acquired George Mikan out of nowhere. Both seasons in the NBL must be included to the franchises history. The 1st dismal year in Detroit (1946-47) that resulted to the no 1 pick and the second year in Minneapolis (1947-48) that produced the first professional championship of the franchise.

CYLakers (talk) 18:14, 20 November 2012 (UTC)CYLakers

No one denies that there is a strong connection between the Gems and the Lakers, and the article notes this connection. But to refer to them the same franchise is not well supported. After all, when the Gems disbanded, all of the Gems players were reassigned to other teams. There was no continuity of players or coaches, which one would expect with a single franchise. Your comment about Jerry West is a red herring, since the transfer from Minneapolis to Los Angeles was simply a team relocation. In that instance, the players all moved with the franchise. — Myasuda (talk) 02:14, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

If a team has the right to the no 1 pick then is the same franchise. Detroit Gems played the season that resulted to the Minneapolis Lakers no 1 picks in NBL draft and weeks later to the dispersal draft. I didn't find any similar connection in an NBL BAA NBA former expansion team. Expansion teams have the right to collect players from other teams. MPLS Lakers didn't do that too. They sign players from zero ground and from outside sources like colleges and other leagues (for example Pollard came from the AAU). So the 1946-47 season is the first season of the Lakers franchise and the picks say the story. The players that the Lakers transferred from Minneapolis to LA is ONE of the indications that it is the same franchise that changed locations but the pick is what makes it even more clear. In those two situations the team had changed cities and had the right to a pick that was produced when the team was playing in its last location. And of course changed nicknames (Gems to Lakers) doesn't mean different teams as it is apparent in other franchises too. Sid Hartman bought the Gems in 1947, from all the availabale teams, for that reason. They had the no 1 pick and all the NBL knew that the PBLA league would disband. And the team that would have the right to get the greatest prize (Mikan) would be the Lakers. Another simple thing that reveals the Gems and the Lakers are the same franchise is the transaction itself. Hartman bought the team for the Minneapolis buissnessmen. So is a clear change of ownership. The Lakers trasferred their players from Minneapolis to LA having the same ownership. Players were paid, they wanted to play in LA (Mikkelsen didn't want and retired) and they went with the team. Winston didn't have the money to run the team and pay anyone. But the fact that he took money to sell the team is a clear indication of a change in ownership of the same franchise. Lakers were founded in 1946 in Detroit and played two seasons in the NBL, one in Detroit and one in Minneapolis.

CYLakers (talk) 06:48, 21 November 2012 (UTC)CYLakers

TLDR. Unless you have relevant excerpts from reliable sources that say clearly that they are the same franchise, this has the appearance of original research. Also, don't use <ref></ref> on talk pages, as they aren't easily viewable as they are in articles.—Bagumba (talk) 07:04, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Excerpt from the book "The National Basketball League, A History, 1935–1949" by MURRY R. NELSON: page 159: "The new teams in the Western Division were the Anderson (Indiana)Packers and the Detroit Gems. The Packers had been playing many of the NBL teams,and owner Ike Duffey decided to pursue a league affiliation. Detroit was a new squad in a city where the NBL had tried once before (in 1940) but where basketball seemed to be popular enough to make a real go of it. The Gems were owned by a Dearborn jeweler named Maurice Winston. His associates included King Boring and Ben Maron, who would serve as the coach of the team." page 179 "Detroit’s franchise was sold to owners from Minneapolis who transferred the franchise to that city."

Excerpts from the book "The Compendium of Professional Basketball (Second Edition)" by Robert D. Bradley: Section "OWNERSHIP AND EXECUTIVES" - "BAA/NBA/ABA OWNERSHIP HISTORIES" page 45 "1946: Detroit joins the NBL owned by Maury Winston for $15000" "6Jul47: The franchise is purchsed by Benjamin J. Berger and Morris Chalfen, a local promoter for $15000 and is moved to Minneapolis"

Excerpts from the book "The Show: The Inside Story of the Spectacular Los Angeles Lakers in the Words of Those Who Lived It" by Roland Lazenby page 13 "Sid Hartman: "I was representing the Minneapolis buisinesspeople who wanted to buy the Gems. They wanted a team and didn't want to wait. I'd done my research around the league. I found out the Chicago American Gears were headed for trouble. Maurice White [the owner of the Gears] was drinking. White planned to break away from the National Basketball League to form his own league. But the Gears had Mikan. Even if we didn't get Mikan, the Gems' record meant we'd probably get the first pick in the 1947 draft"

That was incentive enough for the new owners from Minneapolis. They paid Winston $15000 for the Gems. Not the players. Not the name. Not the equipment.

Sid Hartman: "Even the uniforms weren't worth a damn."

Only the franchise and its rotten record. From that Sid Hartman figured he could make a pretty good beginning."

page 22 "One game later,the last piece of the dynasty,the biggest piece, fell into place as Sid Hartman had hoped it would. Maurice White, owner of the Chicago American Gears, had broken away from the NBL to form his own league, the Professional Basketball League of America, with George Mikan as the drawing card. It was an ambitious plan with 24 franchises across the country, including such new hoops territories as Houston, New Orleans, and Atlanta. But White was drinking heavily and insisted on controlling the payroll for all of the teams out of his Chicago office. Part of his plan was to begin the season earlier in September. The plan only hastened his demise. The PBLA folded two weeks into the season and White lost $600000. As Hartman had hoped, the six-foot-ten Mikan was suddenly free to negotiate his own deal with another team and the Lakers had first crack at him. Several BAA clubs were hot on the big center's trail.

page 22-23 Sid Hartman: "All these teams wanted him, but George agreed to come to Minneapolis first to talk business. Max and I spent a long day negotiating with Mikan but his lawyer Stacy Osgood, advised him to pass on our offer. We kept trying to get him sign with us. But Osgood said they had to catch the last plane of the day to Chicago. I was getting ready to drive them to the airport but Max (Winter)called me aside. He said if they leave town, we'll never sign Mikan. He told me to take a long route to the airport so that George would miss his flight. I drove around and made sure he missed the plane"

page 23 "Mikan had to stay overnight, and the next day he agreed to a one-year, $15000 contract. Hartman could hardly contain his glee. Within a matter of months he had assembled the makings of a dynasty, a team that would win six championships over the next seven seasons."

"Sid Hartman:"That was the most fun i ever had in my life""

I think those excerpts should do it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CYLakers (talk • contribs) 08:33, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

CYLakers (talk) 08:47, 21 November 2012 (UTC)CYLakers

Again I am sorry but this matter can be settled with facts. The word disbanded has a meaning; "to break up and stop functioning as an organization". That alone makes the Detroit Gems a different organization than the Minneapolis / Los Angeles Lakers. But beyond that, I direct you to the official website of the Los Angeles Lakers. They do not count the Detroit Gems as a predecessor organization, they do not even mention the Gems whatsoever! There is no more authoritative source, period. Here is the exact link. http://www.nba.com/lakers/history/capsules.html Hopefully, this resolves the matter.Reigndog (talk) 18:59, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Origin of team

I don't believe it is accurate to state that the team began in Detroit and moved to Minneapolis. There were several professional basketball leagues back then. It certainly is possible there was a team in Detroit that had Jim Pollard and when Detroit folded, Pollard came to Minneapolis where a new franchise was begun. It is my understanding that the franchise name had its origin in the City of Lakes, Minneapolis. The origin of the name comes from the nickname for the city and not the description of the state, the Land of 10,000 Lakes. Team names were not regionalized back then. If the team nicknames referred to something about the area, it was about the city and not the state. Perhaps I can find hard facts on the origin of the franchise. I am quite positive about the origin of the team name. Oldsopplaya 23:32, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Ooops, the team had its origin in Detroit. Oldsopplaya 23:36, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

According to the team's official website, the Lakers organization began in 1947 in Minnesota, not in Detroit in 1946.Reigndog (talk) 19:25, 2 May 2013 (UTC)