Talk:Forrest Griffin

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

removal of controversial decision[edit]

Saying the fight was a controversial decision not only goes against WP:NOT#NEWS, WP:DUE, and WP:BLP. Also Xander756 needs to refrain from making personal attacks as he violated WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL twice by making personal attacks here [1] in the discussion and here [2] in his comment while removing the warning for for violating policies by making the first personal attack. The bout was not only a unanimous decision. But if you view the CompuStrike scores Forrest also clearly won. The only person causing a stink about Rampage losing is the one man {Juanito Ibarra} that went on record with the UFC saying he will retire from mma training if Forrest wins. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a newssiteWP:NOT#NEWS, the word controversial does not belong in unanimous decision. I personally am a Rampage fan, but in this case he clearly lost, and he even admitted so after the fight.[3] Agreeeing with CompuStrike and the judges.

  • CompuStrike results
Takedowns
Griffin 0
Jackson 1
  • Submission attempts
Griffin 4
Jackson 0
  • Reversals
Griffin 0
Jackson 0
  • Dominant Positions
Griffin 2
Jackson 0
  • Total Arm Strikes
Griffin 48
Jackson 67
  • Total Leg Strikes landed
Griffin 51
Jackson 3
  • Ground strikes landed
Griffin 46
Jackson 14
  • Total Strikes landed
Griffin 145
Jackson 84
  • Judges Scorecards reflect what CompuStrike verified

48-46, 48-46, 49-46. The only possible way for there to be controversial decision would be if the judges went against CompuStrike. Because when you look at the CompuStrike data, the numbers are closely in favor of Griffin when you consider the rules of the UFC. Also Griffin completely controlled round two; Rampage never got an offensive maneuver during that whole round. On top of injuring Rampage’s leg in round two, he secured a take down and landed 44 strikes while Rampage landed none the entire round. Forrest also secured several submission attempts during that round. This round played a key factor in awarding a unanimous decision to Forrest. Rampage strikes did more damage, but the rules do not award points for the severity of strikes. Points are awarded for “aggression” and “octagon control” of which CompuStrike shows Griffin with clear advantage[4]. Also the UFC itself does not think the decision was controversial [5] even pointing out Jackson stating after the fight that “He (Grifin)whupped my ass,” said a gracious Jackson. “Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose. He deserves it.”Swampfire (talk) 07:12, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The fact the decision was controversial was cited by four references in the article all credible sources. Numbers cannot determine if something is controversial or not. If numbers could do this, I could state that the 2000 United States Presidential Election was not controversial because George Bush got more votes. The people and media determine it by disagreeing with what happened. There is more than enough evidence to support that many disagree. All three policies cited by Swampfire are not applied here, I think that he needs to read them himself (it would not be the first time he hasn't read them if you look at his user talk page). WP:NOT#NEWS does not apply as this is not a news article, WP:DUE does not apply because the sources cited are neutral and credible (Sherdog is an official MMA site), and WP:BLP does not apply because the information is referenced. WP:BLP also does not apply to the very word "controversial" it applies to something that the person in the biography said or did that might be deemed controversial without a source. As for the two sites he listed here, the first one would help further prove my point if you look in the comments there is a flurry of people who are disagreeing with the decision. The second one doesn't mention the controversy at all and was written by a journalist for ESPN. I hardly think that he can be viewed as representative from the UFC. You need to start doing more research, Swampfire. --Xander756 (talk) 15:30, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You need to re-read the policies, because once you actually read the ENTIRE policies you will see the violations. Also you violated the WP:3RR today. So know not only have you proven you ignore policies such while editting such as WP:NOT#NEWS, WP:DUE, WP:BLP but you have also proven to violate other such as WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL, and now WP:3RR. The only one you might not possibly of broken is 3RR but you are sittin on the edge. Swampfire (talk) 21:11, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

shut up ya wikiwhiners 71.86.179.115 (talk) 18:10, 12 July 2012 (UTC)sk![reply]

Other Discussion[edit]

Removed section stating he won a fight after getting arm broken in an armbar, this is a rumor started by misinformation stated by an announcer at a UFC event. His arm was kicked and he went on to win the fight. The source for the section I removed was a post from shreddog forum :\ , I seen the fight and the article here contained wrong information

I am nominating User:Swampfire to be formally removed from this wikiproject for making bad faith edits and vandalizing the article on Forrest Griffin. --Xander756 (talk) 23:27, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have not made bad faith edits. In fact what you have done is actually bad faith edits. The word you have in the conyext it is used not only goes against WP:NOT#NEWS, WP:DUE, and WP:BLP. Since you continually think your personal POV is higher than policy. I think it is you that should be removed. So I formally nominate Xander756 be removed. Also during the talks over wording Xander756 violated WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL twice by making personal attacks here [6] in the discussion and here [7] in his comment while removing the warning for for violating policies by making the first personal attack. The bout was not only a unanimous decision. But if you view the CompuStrike scores Forrest also clearly won. The only person causing a stink about Rampage losing is the one man {Juanito Ibarra} that went on record with the UFC saying he will retire from mma training if Forrest wins. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a newssiteWP:NOT#NEWS, the word controversial does not belong in unanimous decision. So I am not making bad faith edits by stopping you from violating policies. I personally am a Rampage fan, but in this case he clearly lost, and he even admitted so after the fightUFC.com. Agreeeing with CompuStrike and the judges.
  • CompuStrike results
Takedowns
Griffin 0
Jackson 1
  • Submission attempts
Griffin 4
Jackson 0
  • Reversals
Griffin 0
Jackson 0
  • Dominant Positions
Griffin 2
Jackson 0
  • Total Arm Strikes
Griffin 48
Jackson 67
  • Total Leg Strikes landed
Griffin 51
Jackson 3
  • Ground strikes landed
Griffin 46
Jackson 14
  • Total Strikes landed
Griffin 145
Jackson 84
  • Judges Scorecards reflect what CompuStrike verified

48-46, 48-46, 49-46. The only possible way for there to be controversial decision would be if the judges went against CompuStrike. Because when you look at the CompuStrike data, the numbers are closely in favor of Griffin when you consider the rules of the UFC. Also Griffin completely controlled round two; Rampage never got an offensive maneuver during that whole round. On top of injuring Rampage’s leg in round two, he secured a take down and landed 44 strikes while Rampage landed none the entire round. Forrest also secured several submission attempts during that round. This round played a key factor in awarding a unanimous decision to Forrest. Rampage strikes did more damage, but the rules do not award points for the severity of strikes. Points are awarded for “aggression” and “octagon control” of which CompuStrike shows Griffin with clear advantage[8]. Swampfire (talk) 07:12, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I don't think the (most) controversial part is Griffin getting the win, but more how the fight was scored... Anyhow, we can't say "Griffin clearly won, therefore it was not controversial." Sherdog clearly says it was ("Griffin Snatches UFC Title with Controversial Win"), and several other outlets have questioned the scoring. How about instead of calling it a "controversial decision" just mention the fact that many outlets thought the fight was close and that Ibarra is (/was) planning to protest the decision. Also I think the section needs a rewrite as as of now it's very biased towards Forrest, giving the impression that the fight was nowere near close (as both Forrest and Randy Coture said it was, for the record). Another small thing: "Griffin successfully executed his gameplan by pushing the pace of the fight from the opening bell, keeping his distance with long jabs and leg kicks.". How do we know that was his gameplan, and who says he susessfully executed it? Just something to keep in mind if anyone wants to have a go at editing it. --aktsu (t / c) 14:30, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am kind of distraught over the sentence that "the only way for a decision to be controversial is if the judges go against CompuStrike." This is very disturbing not only as a fan of MMA because it seems you do not know how MMA is judged but as a person in general because it seems you do not understand how the world works. If anything, I think that this sentence should serve as evidence for why you should be removed from this WikiProject on MMA. Something is deemed controversial by the public at large and in large part due to the media reporting. aktsu, I think that your suggestions are a little overboard, there's no need to talk about how it is being protested and how all these media outlets are disagreeing when it could all be done in one simple word "controversial" and then referenced by the material which has been referenced. Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary (11th ed.) definition of controversy is: "a discussion marked especially by the expression of opposing views: dispute." It does not mention statistical numbers. --Xander756 (talk) 15:55, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Still, it should be explained why it was controversial don't you think? --aktsu (t / c) 16:19, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I thought that this is what the references would be used for. Perhaps a sentence in the article such as "Griffin won a unanimous decision in which the judges scoring was controversial" might suit it? --Xander756 (talk) 16:24, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, now I'm no longer sure how much info is appropriate on articles on fighters :P If you look at Fedor Emelianenko (probably the best and most worked on biographical article in WP:MMA, IMO) the fights are described very sparely, so I guess that's how we should go about it too? I'd like it a bit more fleshed out myself, but now I don't know anymore... Anyway, something along those lines would probably be okay assuming we're taking the "Fedor" approach... --aktsu (t / c) 16:51, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is supposed to be written in Encyclopedic form not news journalism form. Which is why footnotes are to be provided. I will do the same with Forrest Griffin as I have did with others. I will change it back to unanimous decision but include the footnote, with link in the footnote. That way it is in encyclopedic form, and yet someone can read the footnote too.Swampfire (talk) 21:34, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I agree that there is no need to go into depth about one single fight but as the decision caused quite a bit of controversy in the MMA community I figured that it should be at least noted in the article. --Xander756 (talk) 17:48, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You are assuming it has caused as you say quite a bit of controversy in the MMA world. When in fact only a tiny faction has even talked about it which is how it goes against WP:DUE. Also Wikipdia is an Encyclopedia, not a newssite or tabloid and is held to higher standards which is further evidence of why it does not belong. the mere fact that someone uses the word controversial does not make it noteworthy WP:NN. I have stated not only reasons for removal but policies. you have stated none other than your personal opinion. Which is why the policies exist. Also now you have went on to violate the WP:3RR too. You have proven yourself to ignore policies. Even if we leave out WP:NOT#NEWS, WP:DUE and WP:BLP. You have broken WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL and now WP:3RR with warnings for the last 3 on your talkpage. With the evidence of violating them. Although you have tried to hide them, They can still be retreived with evidence viewed. Ok so you might not have broken 3RR if the 4th was reverting a blanking. Swampfire (talk) 21:24, 26 July 2008 (UTC)#[reply]
"Griffin Snatches UFC Title with Controversial Win" - kind of says it all internet argument aside that is a reliable source that it was controversial. The fact the judges decision matches an external rating shows the judges were right, not that people were not debating and discussing whether is was the right decision i.e. it was controversial. Also that count mkae not note of the power or effectivenss of stirkes or third maker of 'Octagon Control'. --Nate1481(t/c) 07:33, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
one WP:Due, Sherdog is the biggest MMA site, not a negligible comment. --Nate1481(t/c) 07:35, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I will however point out something that you: Xander that you don't seem to understand. Pointing out that one reporter on one site thinks a bout is controversial. Is only a tiny faction. Heck even if it was 3 reporters on 3 sites. That is still not even big enough to be a tiny faction. You need to actually read WP:DUE for future reference.It doesn't matter who says it. It matters how many say it. But it is now a mute point once the head of the NSAC shot down Ibarra. Informing him his complaints was pointlessSwampfire (talk) 08:47, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I just posted a proposal for the description of the fight at User talk:Swampfire#Griffin article. Any thoughts? We integrated it into the article. Does it look OK? --aktsu (t / c) 08:13, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WP:Due does not apply to the biggest MMA site as Nate1481 calls it. It is obviously written from an objective point of view. There is no reason to assume Sherdog or the other sources are biased simply because you want them to be. The re-write on the article is far too long for one fight and I am surprised that you put it on there after saying we should take the Fedor approach and write as little as possible. As Nate1481 says, the fight is clearly controversial and should remain noted as so. --Xander756 (talk) 17:09, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
One site does not overrule WP:DUE. The only way for that to happen would be for a majority of sites to state such. Also you cited early references to the fight. The head of the NSAC said that Ibarra's accusations were pointless (which means not controversial). And as such no petition was filed by Ibarra. Facts have already been proven. Just because it did not go your way does not mean. You get to remove valid statements and sources provided by Aktsu and myself. You need to get over it. As what you are doing is not positive to this WikiProject, but detrimental to it.Swampfire (talk) 17:22, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean "one site does not overrule WP:DUE? This policy is a policy to control and measure the quality of references. It doesn't make sense to say you can overrule it with multiple sites. WP:DUE applies to individual sites only. I don't know why you are so obsessed with this Ibarra thing. The fact that his trainer was going to file a protest was only one small piece of evidence to the fact that this decision as believed controversial. You cannot ignore and remove multiple references based on your own will and one other user possibly agreeing with you. How long have you been on wikipedia? You should know better. --Xander756 (talk) 17:26, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Here is an interested tidbit I found: "Some fans on Internet message boards are so angry about the controversial decision that they have promised to never buy another UFC pay-per-view ever again." Sourced from: http://dwizzlesworld.blogspot.com/2008/07/rampage-loses-belt-in-controverisal.html. While obviously this source would not meet the criteria needed to be a reference on an article, obviously the fans in general are torn between this decision. --Xander756 (talk) 17:30, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia, NOT a news article or blog, and WP:DUE clearly states "Articles will generally not include tiny-minority views at all" You are talking about a tiny view. In fact it has been proven various times the statement hold no real merit. Including the fact that Rampage himself admits defeat. But the bottom line is this is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid, blog or newsite. And now you have clearly expressed the reason you are trying to add such and it is in direct violation of WP:BLPSwampfire (talk) 17:48, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The articles linked there are not tiny minority views. The views expressed in the article are not simply the views of the journalist. By claiming WP:DUE you are calling into question the reliability of Sherdog as a source that can be sourced in MMA articles here on wikipedia. If you are doing this then we would have to remove ALL references from Sherdog on every article here which would be absurd. Saying that Sherdog, the biggest MMA site, is unreliable and slanted is quite a difficult positionf or you to defend. If you are not trying to say this, you cannot claim WP:DUE nor can you claim WP:BLP nor that wikipedia is not a news site. To claim these things you have to say Sherdog cannot be used as a source at all. --Xander756 (talk) 17:51, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is obvious that you do not understand the policies. I know that now. You also try to say Aktsu said things. Which even Aktsu himself said he did not have all the facts. And after he did, the rewrite was done by HIM not me, as evidenced on my talkpage. So you are trying to say his views (which are against the rewrite he himself did) Which makes no sense. It is evident that once your case was disproved you know want to try and grasp at straws of something that was said before all the evidence was revealed. You also fail to realize that a few sites does make them a mjority. Ther are over 120 billion websites in the world 3 websites is in fact a tiny minority. WP:DUE is based on amounts, not the name of the site. Also you have since expressed that you want it on Forrest page for reasons of demeaning the victory by Forrest. Which clearly is againt the Human diginity portion of WP:BLP. Also as pointed on by the head of the NSAC Griffin won the fight either way. So the only possible controversy would in which manner Forrest won. Not whether he won. Which is how it was worded before your needless reverts. Which is why the vandalism you did by removing the links to what the head of NSAC said will be reverted.Swampfire (talk) 18:45, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Aktsu had it worded in a perfectly NPOV as is needed with encyclopedic articles. Which included the newest results of what was SUPPOSEDLY happening. That never did. Trying to place it as is now is detrimental to the image of Griffin and in violation of WP:BLP, especially after what the head of NSAC has stated, Which you removedSwampfire (talk) 19:31, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, my view is that the result of the fight was controversial in that many believe the fight should have been scored differently (as in a closer decision, either for Griffin or Jackson). Xander, as for the "Fedor approach", my view is that something like this should be explained, not excessively, but more than leaving a link to another site telling the reader to go there instead. The article should in my opinion give a general impression on why it was controversial. I made the rewrite in hope that it could be a compromise between you two fighting over the inclusion of a single word. It's maybe long, but I was hoping it would represent all views fairly and have a more NPOV that the current text. (Sidenote: you said "Jackson does not support the decision as was alleged in your changes", it was not my intention to allege that so if it does it needs to be changed (also see the edit history of Griffin's article for the newest version of the section, not Swampfire's talk page)). Swampfire, I think you're misinterpreting the policies. The articles on Sherdog does not represent the authors own view, but they are echoing the publics general view of the fight (i.e. that the scoring was controversial - as in there were opposite views on who should have won the decision). Remember, even though you think Forrest was a clear winner doesn't mean other people did - and Sherdog it telling us there were different opinions on the fight. If you are going to claim there wasn't any controversy you need to present a reputable source saying it wasn't. Then you would have a case for saying "only sherdog and Ibarra thought it was close". Anyway, edit warring over a single word seems silly so I was hoping my proposed text would be a good compromise, but if you don't agree Xander we'll just have to keep working towards something everyone agrees on :) Also, let's stop reverting and keep the page as it is until we agree on something. --aktsu (t / c) 20:08, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See that is exactly what I thought you believed, aktsu. Swampfire made it sound as if you agreed with him and conceded it was not controversial but according to your paragraph there, it's obvious everybody here except Swampfire knows it is controversial. The solution to this doesn't necessarily need to mean anything has to be changed. By expanding the article as you did it only makes the article more poorly written as it seems to dwell on that fight. Just simply noting it was viewed as controversial is all that needs to be put on there. It's not like I am saying it is controversial and then stating how ridiculous it was, I simply noted that it was seen as a controversial decision. Swamp wants to hide this information and I do not know why as he has consistently stated things that have nothing to do with it like numbers of strikes. Hopefully we can work this out so that the proper note can be acceptable to everybody. I have notified an admin asking for a 3rd opinion so we'll see what happens. --Xander756 (talk) 20:20, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I see your point in how simply noting it was controversial might suffice, but I'm still torn on whether I think that is "enough". I guess it's just different opinions on how much info one wants in the articles... Anyway, let's see what happens. I hope more people decide to chime in on this. --aktsu (t / c) 20:35, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
First off, With all the possbile evidence presented there is only one thing that could be controversial, and that is how he won. By unanimous or majority. And if the term controvesial is to be included the the other side needs to be present too. Which was inclued and cited. He is the thing. In the simplest form it should just say unanimous decision with a footnote to the descrepency. However if the negative side is to be left in, the other side needs to be presented as well. Which you Aktsu had done. You had rewriten it to include both sides. Which is what I pointed out when I said me and Aktsu agreed. It should include all sides or none. Which is how I will be adding it back. Both sides or none per NPOV. As I have stated. I am not actually a Rampage fan, but I am not rewriting this article for or against Forrest, but merely from an encyclopedic NPOV.Swampfire (talk) 22:20, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What you still are failing to understand is that something is deemed controversial by how the general public interprets it. How he won isn't the only thing that is seen as controversial but also if he even should have won. You cannot try to disprove how people see something using figures, statistics, and sources. Obviously it was a unanimous decision but this does NOT mean it wasn't seen as controversial. You are stuck on this notion that a unanimous decision by definition isn't controversial and you need to get over that. People disagree with judges all the time. The very fact that we even need to argue about this shows that it was indeed a controversial decision. Again, if you are claiming NPOV and saying sites such as Sherdog do not follow this, then you must be arguing against Sherdog used as a reference. Is this correct?--Xander756 (talk) 23:05, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What you are failing to see is you have not yet provided that the amount of people that believe this that carry it above WP:DUE. You have merely made assumptions. I can't disprove and amount that you havent proven. It is you that have to prove the amounts. Because the citation you pointed out only stated the reporters point of view, as he did not include any poll information or other stuff stating the amount.Swampfire (talk) 23:20, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Pleas read what User:aktsu stated above. "The articles on Sherdog does not represent the authors own view, but they are echoing the publics general view of the fight." --Xander756 (talk) 03:15, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It does NOT state the percentage of the public view. It is stating what the reporter assumes, and even in what he assumes he does not even attempt to rationalize it with numbers.Swampfire (talk) 03:30, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't matter. Sherdog is a reliable source, and if it says something then that carries far, far more weight than anything we says. Are you claiming that amount of people believing the decision was controversial is comparable to the amount of people supporting something like the Flat Earth concept ("a view of a distinct minority") when you're saying the view is not carried above WP:DUE? --aktsu (t / c) 10:15, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think the fact that Forrest got boo'd in his home town after the fight is also significant in this regard. Obviously, much of the crowd did not agree. --Xander756 (talk) 16:17, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your statement on the boo's are misleading. According to Dave Meltzer (someone that you have quoted in trying to state your case) of Yahoo! Sports was there and states. When announcer Bruce Buffer declared a unanimous decision and read the scores, before saying who won, I was certain it would be Griffin. When Griffin was announced as the winner, I made sure to look at the crowd for the reaction. Eighty to 85 percent people at Mandalay Bay standing and cheering, with a large percentage practically dancing and celebrating the title change.[1]. Dave Meltzer also says this In those situations, boos are always louder than cheers, but this was very clearly a decision most of the crowd agreed with, no matter how it may have sounded on television.[2] I had been saving this link waiting to see if you could provide what I asked for. But since you didn't I thought I would finally use your own source against you. So according to Dave Meltzer 80-85% approved the decision. while only 15-20% did not. Although I did a rewrite the same way I had already told Aktsu I was going to do. Giving the alledged controversy its own subsection while including both sides.Swampfire (talk) 01:39, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There doesn't need to be an entire section devoted to one single fight. This article is about the fighter, not about the fight nor the event. If you want to create a subsection on the events article (if there is one) that would be more fitting. I find it hard to swallow that you are not willing to concede the word controversial be incorporated into the article but yet are proposing adding a whole subsection about the controversy here. Are you arguing for arguments sake or what? --Xander756 (talk) 04:16, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you concede and the word controverisal is removed. Leaving just the actual results of the fight and NOT what a small percentage of the viewers say. Then there is no need to represent both sides. They best way to represent both sides is a seperate subsection at a NPOV as is written. I do not care who won the fight and why. I do however care that the article is represented fairly and at a NPOV. The only encyclopedic way to do that is represent both sides, or leave it as just the actual results.04:34, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Every user here has tried to tell you that you cannot claim NPOV as sherdog is a reliable and credible source. You need to stop with this. There are not two sides to the issue. Either the decision was seen as controversial or it wasn't. It just so happened that it was. --Xander756 (talk) 04:38, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How about this for a re-write? "Griffin became the new undisputed UFC Light Heavyweight Champion after defeating Jackson in a unanimous decision victory that many fans viewed as controversial." --Xander756 (talk) 20:49, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How about "Griffin became the new undisputed UFC Light Heavyweight Champion after defeating Jackson in a unanimous decision victory, the judging of which many fans believe was fair and just"? Even on a poll on the Sherdog website, the opinions of the result heavily favored Griffin winning, despite the forums generally having an over anti-TUF/Pro-PFC attitude. -GTD

References

  1. ^ http://sports.yahoo.com/mma/news?slug=dm-ufcscoring070708&prov=yhoo&type=lgns
  2. ^ http://sports.yahoo.com/mma/news?slug=dm-ufcscoring070708&prov=yhoo&type=lgns

List of sites mentioning the controversial decision[edit]

-http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2008/writers/josh_gross/07/08/mailbag.0708/index.html

-http://thetandd.com/blogs/?p=769

-http://www.sherdog.com/news/articles/griffin-snatches-ufc-title-with-controversial-win-13564

-http://mmamania.com/2008/07/06/forrest-griffin-vs-quinton-rampage-jackson-judges-scorecards-revealed/

-http://www.mmaweekly.com/absolutenm/templates/dailynews.asp?articleid=6639&zoneid=2

-http://sports.espn.go.com/extra/mma/news/story?id=3475512

-http://www.sherdog.com/news/articles/ufc-86-fallout-possible-protest-rematch-13575

-http://www.osirisshoes.com/news/2008/07/07/forrest-griffin-defeats-quinton-rampage-jackson/

-http://www.mmarated.com/blogs/blog/20080714/forest_griffin_quinton_jackson_controversy-298.html;jsessionid=D579B37D24C37C6CCA37B1AEEF242747

-http://sports.yahoo.com/mma/news;_ylt=Am1V_Ucduvm1SyTzsU7.W__Zn414?slug=dm-ufcscoring070708&prov=yhoo&type=lgns

-http://www.mmaopinion.com/2008/07/10/fightmetric-breaks-down-jackson-vs-griffin-at-ufc-86/

-http://www.mixedmartialarts.com/?go=news.detail&gid=115479

-http://www.mmamadness.com/insight/article/337

-http://www.bloodyelbow.com/2008/7/7/566083/forrest-griffin-vs-rampage

-http://digg.com/other_sports/UFC_86_Forrest_Griffin_Wins_Light_Heavyweight_Title

-http://ufcblogger.wordpress.com/2008/07/07/whats-next-for-quinton-rampage-jackson/

Here is an interview in which Jackson says he knows he won:

-http://fiveouncesofpain.com/2008/07/16/quinton-jackson-video-last-known-interview-prior-to-hit-and-run-arrest/

While this by no means is a complete list of all media reports on this topic, it clearly shows that it's not just a "small minority" who believe that it was a controversial decision if it is being so widely reported as such. Take into consideration these journalists echo the publics general view of the fight, not simply listing their own (in most cases). You could list all your sources that try to say it is not controversial but it wouldn't prove a thing because it would just further fuel the fact that it WAS controversial if there are people who are trying to argue it. Hopefully this list which includes sites such as Yahoo Sports, Sherdog, ESPN, Sports Illustrated, and various MMA websites is enough to convince any reasonable person here that it was indeed a controversial decision and should be noted as such on wikipedia. --Xander756 (talk) 04:52, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And your point is? Controversial was not removed it is in there, infact it now has it's own subsection about the whole thing. The point is, it can stay in as long as the whole thing is represented and not just the fact that someone says controversial. Even Aktsu pointed that out to you early on. You are beating a dead horse no one removed controversial but it was expended on as needed to represent both sides with valid references. Fell free to add to the new subsection.Swampfire (talk) 05:12, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are not two sides. If there were sides it would be that some people think it is controversial and others do not. But by definition that is what controversy is so again, there are not sides to this issue. If you are conceding that it is controversial I propose we remove the section and simply revert to the original article with the mention of it. --Xander756 (talk) 05:17, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What is going on?[edit]

I was contacted by Xander756 (talk · contribs) to check this discussion out, to see if I could be of help. Read the discussion, and finding that I kind of agree with both parts. In these cases, can't an intermediate solution be found? I agree that calling someone a fool sounds like a personal attack. If the bout was that important, maybe it needs its own article? -- ReyBrujo (talk) 06:21, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is also a disagreement on whether the article should be kept as short/compact as possible, not using unnecessary space to describe something that could be summed up with "it was controversial". I think by now everyone agrees that the result was controversial, so what remains is do agree on how much info is needed. (This probably goes for all MMA-related articles, so I'm thinking it should be discussed on WT:MMA.) --aktsu (t / c) 06:29, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Solution[edit]

After reading all of the above, I think a solution to this is actually pretty easy. While flat out calling it "controversial" would be wrong, it would also be wrong to disregard reliable sources saying it was controversial. It being controversial is a matter of opinion, so we can't just call it a controversial decision. Personally, I would have been shocked if Jackson had won the decision after watching that fight, and it seemed obvious to me that Griffin won. The way this sentence needs to be phrased is "Griffin won the fight by decision, a result several sources reported to be controversial" or something to that degree. That is the only way we will get a 100% truthful statement, since to some the fight was controversial and to some it was not. I honestly don't think WP:BLP or WP:UNDUE even apply here, it certainly isn't a BLP violation to include if it was controversial or not. Anyway, I hope everyone can agree to this wording, as it allows the reader to decide rather than taking a stance that it definitely was or wasn't controversial. VegaDark (talk) 08:12, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well according to several definitions of the world controversial, something is controversial if it is "marked by or capable of arousing controversy; giving rise or likely to give rise to public disagreement; A controversy or dispute occurs when parties actively disagree, argue about, or debate, a matter of opinion." So it's not decided to be controversial or not if you or I think it is, it is controversial as fact simply by definition of the word (as obviously the decision has arisen controversy in the public). So one example would be maybe you don't disagree with the decision, but that wouldn't mean it wasn't a controversial decision. Anyway, I think that the problem was solved.--Xander756 (talk) 15:28, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it being controversial is matter of opinion. An opinion would be thinking Forrest clearly won or that Jackson should have won. It is controversial because many disagree. If several sources reported it to be controversial, why not simply call it that? Or how about something along the lines of "the decision created some controversy within the MMA-world as many felt the fight was much closer than represented by the judges scoring"? (Just better written etc. :D) --aktsu (t / c) 15:54, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As Xander756 stated this matter has already been resolved. The problem using the word was in the placement as related to context. If you simply state a fight is controversial it gives the indication that the majority of people view the fight in this way. Which is not the case, as pointed out by Yahoo Sports reporter Dave Meltzer. So while there could be controversy over which way Forrest won the bout. It would not be a fair represntation of the majority. which is where WP:DUE comes in, because wiki is an encyclopedia. When all is said and done that is the main thing to remember. But again why is this being brought up again? Lets just move on to helping other pages in the MMA projectSwampfire (talk) 16:05, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad it's being brought up because I don't particularly like the way it's right now. The "Championship controversy" section should be integrated with the paragraph above, preferably by a sentence we can all agree on, simply because it wasn't such a big deal it needs its own section. As of now there are only two sentences related to the controversy (that there was, and the Ibarra thing), and I don't see any reason why it can't be integrated with the rest. Also, I don't think Ibarra needs mentioning at all. If we can agree on a sentence then that should do. Happy to see someone else actually take the time to chime in on this btw :D --aktsu (t / c) 16:29, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I do not see a way it can be summed up in one sentence because just stating controversial is not an accurate representation of how the majority viewed it. Which is why I think we should view as history dictates. And it should just state he won by unanimous decision, because this is current but in 10 years no one will care if a few people thought it was controversial. But from and encyclopedic POV if stated it needs to be quantified. Also I could expand on the controversy section and make it more than the few sentences it is, but I chose the keep it to the simple basicsSwampfire (talk) 16:48, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
When I said the matter was resolved I meant the argument about it. I'm not going to try and vehemently argue that it should be changed any longer as I can live with the way it is now, though I would much prefer the re-write Aktsu suggested above. I would prefer that the controversy of the fight is simply noted as a sentence in the fight's section and I was never a fan of having Ibarra mentioned on Griffin's article, either. --Xander756 (talk) 17:27, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am perfectly fine with it staying as is, The part about Ibarra helps to quantify along with the reason it wasn't filed because NSAC denoted the clear winner would still remain and the reasons. As I stated I could of went into to further detail over the matter. I do not think there is a away to state it in one sentence while at the same time quantifying it.Swampfire (talk) 18:46, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I didn't realize the issue had been resolved since looking at the edit history there are a lot of recent reverts etc., but I guess that was for other sections. Plus, there wasn't really any closure to the issue on this talk page. Reading that section now it looks decent, but I agree a re-write would be beneficial. VegaDark (talk) 18:08, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Only if the re-write quantified the entire situation. Simply stating "some thought it was controversial" doesn't really do that.Swampfire (talk) 18:43, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The section does not quantify it as it is so I don't understand this request. I don't see anything about numbers as there shouldn't be. You can't really quantify controversy. --Xander756 (talk) 19:48, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's not about quantifying the word controversial. It's about quantifying the use of the word. And yes the use of the word can be quantified. Swampfire (talk) 20:26, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Two points: 1) CompuStrike is crap and should not be used to judge fights. 2) Rampuke is a liar. He may say that he won, but we should not take his hilarious statements into account. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.214.205.63 (talk) 12:58, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

TV/Movie Career[edit]

For some reason, a credit for a movie role was removed. It doesn't matter to me because I had never heard of Forrest Griffin before I read the article, I just thought you might like to know. He's playing a police-officer in the Spring 2009 film I hope They Serve Beer in Hell. Here's the source: http://fiveouncesofpain.com/2008/08/15/5-oz-exclusive-forrest-griffin-mac-danzig-play-cops-in-tucker-max-movie/ 82.27.254.160 (talk) 21:23, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Forest Griffin acted in 'Unrivaled'2009 directed by Warren Sonoda - his character name is listed both as Landon Popoff and Gregor Popoff Forrest Griffin Talks Unrivaled (video) Cinema-enthusiast (talk) 21:08, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, well, well[edit]

It looks like this page has been edited in accordance with my wishes after I gave up on it. I wonder who could have fixed it and then defended it from Swampfire's assault? It kind of pisses me off to see that this page was later edited correctly as I tried to make it but yet nobody came to my assistance when it kept getting vandalized. I will await an apology here. --Xander756 (talk) 16:52, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply] 

 Please grow up.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.145.224.34 (talk) 19:03, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Submission @ UFC 92[edit]

Why do people keep trying to change the outcome of his fight to submission? On UFC.com it states that he lost by TKO, it was announced at the fight that he lost by TKO, and directly afterwards in his interview with Joe Rogan he bluntly stated that he did not tap, that he was just flailing from the punches. Other evidence to indicate that it was not a submission is that there was no submission of the night honors because there were no submissions. If Forrest had submitted, it would have been the submission of the night. --Xander756 (talk) 20:37, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

UFC Video Game[edit]

Someone add something to the page about Griffin being in the new game and also being the cover fighter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.188.29.77 (talk) 00:13, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The reach conversion on wiki is wrong[edit]

74 in is about 1.88 M, 75 in is about 1.90 1/2 M and 77 in is about 1.95 1/2 M. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.219.166.18 (talk) 19:43, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The conversion was not wrong per se, it was just that (as I just discovered) it takes the precision of the input into account. I added a .0 to the input to make it more equal. --aktsu (t / c) 19:58, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Personal Life[edit]

"Forrest is married to Paulus." Paulus who? Maybe its vandalism, I cant find anything about any Paulus in the referenced article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.41.209.138 (talk) 14:14, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The vandalism was removed. —LOL T/C 16:03, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Personal Life"[edit]

All it says is "He is married". Does that even warrant a whole section? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.117.222.238 (talk) 20:15, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I totally agree.. "Griffin is married" is a waste of a section. If the name of his wife, or perhaps more personal info can be added this would be an appropriate section. Info from his book may have many things to add but a 3 word sentence warranting a whole section seems a bit too much. Put this in the very beginning of the article would be better if more personal info can't be added. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.229.241.171 (talk) 05:59, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looking through the history, I found that there was a slightly longer section there, but it got removed due to "not significant" by an IP. The old section is here: [9] NotAnonymous0 did I err?|Contribs 06:06, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New book[edit]

Someone should add info on his new book.

http://www.forrestgriffin.net/news/?jid=60 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.212.232.167 (talk) 23:59, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Author[edit]

Should his two books be added as sections here? danhgilmore —Preceding undated comment added 23:48, 4 August 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Edit request from HyperdUb, 15 November 2010[edit]

{{edit semi-protected}} Forrest Griffin just recently got his black belt. In the introducing lines, please change "brown belt" to "black belt".

http://www.bjpenn.com/profiles/blogs/photo-forrest-griffin-earns?xg_source=msg_user_blogpost

Thanks!

HyperdUb (talk) 06:14, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid that blog is not a reliable source. Do you have anything better than that? The change could be made if something more reliable than a random photograph in a blog were availible. See WP:RS for an idea on sources generally regarded as reliable. --Jayron32 06:32, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done, thanks. There was already a ref in the infobox so I added that to the lead. The current wording is a bit awkward as I'm not sure who he was training with when he was awarded the black belt. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 16:14, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:TUF1Griffin.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion[edit]

An image used in this article, File:TUF1Griffin.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations
What should I do?

Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 00:15, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Forrest Griffin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 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) 07:04, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 14 external links on Forrest Griffin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 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) 07:21, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Forrest_Griffin&oldid=1198828084"