Jump to content

Talk:Mike McCallum

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

Article Style

[edit]

Looking at the article a little more closely, I see a lot of the edits I made are still there. But why remove the descriptions of the fights? And yes, the Toney fights were controversial, at least the first fight. I'm sure if I look I can find a reference.-anon, 3/3/07

I removed the vivid descriptions of most fights because I feel they are not encyclopedic and clash with both the WP:MOS and WP:NPOV guidelines. An encyclopedia could state a fight was 'exciting' but that is merely one POV, someone else may have found it 'enjoyable' or 'boring', hence these descriptions did not conform to NPOV. Even the Toney fights being considered by most to be controversial is only one POV and does not adhere to NPOV. If you do want this in I suggest it be in an explicit sourced quote, making clear it's only one POV.
I believe this was not an edit war and I had no intention starting one. I started on this article about two hours before your edits and when I wanted to submit mine I got an edit conflict, hence I overwrote your changes to see if I could slide them back in after. However in light of the above NPOV concerns I didn't, if you object feel free to discuss with me how we can resolve this though :) --Noira 19:19, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did find a couple of references referring to McCallum being stunned by Jackson in the first round and also with a description of what happened in the Curry fight. I also found another reference saying that the Toney decisions were questionable. I'm willing to be diplomatic and leave some of the grandiose language out of the article, I just feel that some description would be okay. Anyone could look up boxrec and see who fought when and where and who won, but I think just a little detail can make the article a little more interesting, if the descriptions of the fights are cited. We could also say that "some people" thought the Toney decision's were controversial, if that makes the article sound less POV. http://www.eastsideboxing.com/news.php?p=3158&more=1 http://www.eastsideboxing.com/news.php?p=5604&more=1 How about, saying, for example, "McCallum was stunned by Jackson in the first round, but came back to win by 2nd round TKO" and leaving the first source. Then saying "Curry was ahead on points when McCallum stopped him with a big left hook." And leaving the source again. That way it doesn't sound fanciful or opinionated, and just states what happened, with two sources supporting it?-anon 3/3/07

While I still feel that would make this article sound less encyclopedic and more of a news report, atleast leaving those sources would solve most of the POV concerns I have.
This article needs more reliable sources altogether, all I did was basically a rewrite of the original article, fixing gm/sp and POV concerns, working with the BoxRec info I had. So if you have any more sources which can attribute validity to this article they would be more than welcome!
I suggest you give this article an edit, one that you feel would be acceptable for the both of us (keeping in mind the MOS and NPOV guidelines) and then we can work further from there on? --Noira 19:47, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. I only first came on this article yesterday, I figured it should be given more attention. I'll try to make some non-biased edits, without the extravagant language, and I'll cite the sources. Thanks.-3/3/07

I made some edits, and cited the sources. Hopefully it looks okay. Thanks.-anon 3/3/07

Looks way better already, did a minor edit for some MOS changes.
If other people have suggestions on how to improve this article don't hesitate to share or implement them. --Noira 20:43, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Mike McCallum. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:41, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mike_McCallum&oldid=1205128273"