Talk:Andrew Bynum

Any mention of his streak of deliberate fouls?

He has three in history so far, one to Gerald Wallace, one to Michael Beasley and the last and most infamous one is recently to JJ Barea.

Any time soon in April?

"however, Lakers coach Phil Jackson said that he did not foresee Bynum making serious contributions any time soon in April"

So Jackson doesn't see him making contributions soon in April, huh?

GeneCallahan (talk) 04:13, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Height

I have checked both ESPN and the Lakers official website. He is listed as 7'0" on both of them.--MP123 19:55, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

What I did was I put links claiming he had grown to 7'1" but I didn't change his listed height from 7'0". I put the 7'1" claim in the body. .--RandyRhoadsRonnieDio —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 05:30, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Youngest player

Not for long.

Weight

Andrew Bynum looks like he's lost about 20 lbs. and looks incredibly more mobile. Has anyone else noticed?--MP123 —Preceding comment was added at 04:09, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

agreed there is no way in fuck this dude is 285 dwight howard is way more jacked and hes still 20lbs heavier no way andrew bynum is 265 ill bet my left nut --69.230.182.169 (talk) 17:05, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Deletion

Cleaned up a little. Please do not revert, or at least rewrite. 71.105.240.19 (talk) 07:07, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Salary

Why does it state $2.8M in the infobox when he signed a 4 yr/$58M deal? That comes out to about $14.5M/yr, unless I'm missing something. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 18:34, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Deleted text on Orlando

The Orlando Sentinel wrote:

When the Magic decided that pricey Brook Lopez in the Nets' offer would only guarantee them mediocrity for years and were scared off by Lakers center Andrew Bynum's knees, immaturity and pending free agency…well, what did everyone expect they'd get in return? I pushed for Bynum-for-Howard. But the Magic are convinced through "our research," said Hennigan, that Bynum is too brittle to invest in (see Grant Hill).

which seems to support "Orlando decided against receiving Bynum due to concerns over his knees, immaturity, and his upcoming free agent status" that was deleted by this edit. I don't think it is necessary, but we could follow WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV and attribute it to the Sentinel, i.e. "The Orlando Sentinel wrote that Orlando decided against receiving Bynum ..."

I also don't understand why the following sentence, "Bynum could sign a maximum three-year extension to his existing contract or become a free agent and re-sign for up to five years at larger raises than are allowed with an extension", is disputed and removed as well.—Bagumba (talk) 03:23, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

I'll assume consensus and restore but with attribution to the Sentinel.—Bagumba (talk) 00:56, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

The attributed statement has been removed again with edit description of "It doesnt matter what the Orlando paper wrote. PER WIKI GUIDELINES, unless it is OFFICIAL it cannot be added to the page." Wikipedia demands that statements are verifiable, not necessarily limited to "official" statements. If we only use official statements, those would all be non-independent views that lack WP:SECONDARY perspective based on sources. WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV allows statements based on opinion if they are attributed. —Bagumba (talk) 17:18, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

I think the material is OK. Perhaps a slight wording tweak ("The Orlando Sentinel claimed that the Magic...") could clarify that the Magic themselves did not publicly say anything. Zagalejo^^^ 01:21, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

WP:CLAIM says that "claim" unduly introduces doubt, where as "wrote" is considered neutral.—Bagumba (talk) 04:47, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Note: Notice of this discussion has been left at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Basketball Association.—Bagumba (talk) 17:20, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand why this is even a discussion. FoxNews wrote an articl that Obama's main goal was make our country unsafe. Should I add that to his biography? We can search tons of well-known sites for a bunch of "he said, she said"...one site says they didn't want Bynum because he's injured and immature, another site says they wanted him but he wanted to play for a contender. Its all unnecessary and basically irrelevant since this is not an official source and has zero ties to the Magic organization. Their view is sketchy speculation at best. MavsFan28 (talk) 03:28, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't care about this either way. You can argue that the statements are irrelevant. But statements like that are fine as long as they are verifiable, they don't necessarily have to be supported by an official source.—Chris!_c/t 04:49, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

The source attributes the Orlando GM saying as much, but as a concession I attributed it to the Orlando newspaper as there might be synthesis on its part. This is likely all from an Orlando official, and is at worst an expert opinion. This is far from fan speculation. If there are other viewpoints from reliable sources like you mention, they can be added for neutrality.—Bagumba (talk) 05:43, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

In NO WAY, can it be considered anything other than speculation unless the Magic GM says as much. Expert opinion? Please, they'll write anything. I really don't see how its even being discussed. It is speculation from one source. One person will say they didn't want an impending free agent, another will say he's immature then another one will say he didn't want to play in Orlando at all. Come on, seriously, there were "reputable sources" saying Lebron James was manuevering a return to Cleveland in 2014. Something found from an article online does not need to be added, unless it provides an official source.MavsFan28 (talk) 02:59, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

There is no need for you to shout. While you prefer official sources, Wikipedia policy prefers secondary sources such as the Orlando Sentinel's, and attribution is also within policy. Among participants in this disussion, there has been no consensus to limit ourselves to what you refer as "official sources". Moreover, this article from USA Today also corroborates that "Henningan and his staff didn’t want Andrew Bynum due to his history of injuries and upcoming free agency drama of his own".—Bagumba (talk) 07:20, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

I just want to add that no policy on Wikipedia says speculation could not be added to an article as long as it is notable and verifiable.—Chris!_c/t 20:07, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

And with two sources (and there are probably others), it's probably not even fair to call it speculation. Either way, I am seeing consensus to mention it.—Bagumba (talk) 20:13, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

With two sources and consensus to add, I've added the content back. I did tweek it, removing part about "immaturity" that was in Sentinel but not in USA Today.—Bagumba (talk) 01:53, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Chicago Bulls trade?

Bynum is going to be waived aren't we jumping the gun by listing him as a Bulls player? --Orestes1984 (talk) 19:20, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

He's the property of the Bulls until he isn't per WP:CRYSTAL.—Bagumba (talk) 20:38, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Teams listed in biography infobox

FYI

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Basketball#Teams_listed_in_biography_infobox to determine how teams that a player never played a game for should be handled.—Bagumba (talk) 22:59, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Role with Pacers

This edit again changed without explanation the phrasing for Bynum anticipated role with the team from "was expected to" to "will". "Will" seems a bit WP:CRYSTAL, especially given his injury history and the fact that he hasn't played for Indiana in the weeks since he's been acquired. "was expected" also has the beauty of not needing any updates regardless of whether he ever plays for them, whereas "will" seems less inappropriate every additional day he doesn't play.—Bagumba (talk) 20:22, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Can we agree on "is expected to"?— Preceding unsigned comment added by PETEYTHEREF (talk • contribs) 20:27, 5 March 2014‎ (UTC)

We can use that in the interim while discussion continues. I usually try to avoid the present tense as much as possible to avoid sentences becoming dated. Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Biographies#Tense says "Historical events should be written in the past tense in all biographies." In this case, the text is about what was expected of Bynum on February 1, 2014, when he was acquired by Indiana. That may or may not be the same as what is expected of him today, or tomorrow.—Bagumba (talk) 21:09, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Out for 2014 playoffs but still on roster

Bynum wil not play or accompany team for 2014 playoffs, but is still on the roster.[1] He also still shows on Pacers.com on their roster.[2] He has not been released yet.—Bagumba (talk) 08:34, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Andrew Bynum. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/6A0ana3sZ?url=http://www.andrewbynum.com/ssp/biography to http://www.andrewbynum.com/ssp/biography
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.losangeleslakersonline.com/andrew-bynum.php
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.latimes.com/sports/basketball/nba/lakers/la-sp-heisler-lakers-andrew-bynum-20110422,0,6764734,full.column
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.latimes.com/sports/basketball/nba/lakers/la-sp-lakers-hawks-20110309,0,354182,full.story
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.latimes.com/sports/basketball/nba/lakers/la-sp-lakers-fyi-20110317,0,4702583.story

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:43, 3 January 2018 (UTC)