Talk:The Ultimate Fighter 5

Hey, no spoiler's man. You just spoiled the Corey Hill vs. Gabe Rudeger fight for me. Why?

Uhh, first, you'll notice that there's a spoiler warning at the top of the page, saying don't look any further if you don't want stuff to get spoiled. Second, why did you look here for information? You could've gone somewhere else without it getting "spoiled." Third, it's not like that fight could've been spoiled anyways...did you honestly expect Gabe to have a chance? Fourth, are you expecting an answer to "Why?" from the "man" that spoiled it for you? "Aw yeah, I was just wanting to screw around with you and ruin your viewing experience." Come on dude, think things through a bit.--Blingice 19:21, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Gabe's supporters

"The match was called, and when Ruediger returns to the house, he becomes a pariah with only his friend Andy Wang offering any support."

I did not see Andy giving him any sort of support during the course of the show. In fact, I don't even remember Andy contributing the slightest during this particular show, and it was more Gray Maynard that was helping him out pre-hospital. After he came back, everyone essentially said "screw you." I'm removing the part about Andy Wang unless there was some sort of insider report on the show that someone can cite.--Blingice 19:24, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Minutia

I removed the following, only to have it reverted back:

Team Coach B.J. Penn expresses his feelings about Joe Lauzon in an interview at the training center. He says that Lauzon looks like some kind of psychopath, and suggest names for him including "Creepy Joe" and "Psycho Joe."

At the Team Pulver session, Lauzon's experience is emphasized - especially his knockout of Team Coach Jens Pulver at UFC 63. Pulver tells Brian Geraghty to do one thing for him - forget that Lauzon knocked him (Pulver) out. Geraghty responds that he didn't even know about the knockout until Pulver told him.

Can someone explain to me how this is of any consequence to the show? The first one is a throwaway line by a coach. A coach always comments on a fighter before the fight, I fail to see why this comment is so special that it eclipses all other comments by other coaches about other fighters.

As for the second line, it's also another throwaway line from the same pre-fight vignettes that are not recorded on this page. Clogar, if you want to explain why they are so important, please do, otherwise they should go for cluttering the page. hateless 09:43, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

"Can someone explain to me how this is of any consequence to the show?"

Let me try...

The first part establishes two things: first, it explains the origin of Lauzon's new nickname - you can now see the exact point where it was given, who it was given to him by, and why it was given. Nicknames are important to fighters and their fans (Do you know who "The Maine-iac," "Captain America," and "Rampage" are?). This is a HUGE moment, and deserves to be recorded. Second, it shows Penn's separation from his own team and the deterioration of the relationships there. This is important, especially as it relates to Penn's blowup next episode.

The second part - I don't even comprehend how anyone can want this removed. The revelation that Lauzon destroyed the other team's coach in a previous UFC event establishes him as a major force to be contended with that his basic stats just don't show. That match is referenced a number of times later, it shows a point of contention between the teams, it shows a reason why Lauzon wanted to be on Penn's team, and it is important in helping to understand the importance of the win.

Clogar 04:45, 24 May 2007 (UTC) (Edit: Whoops, accidently cut off your comment when I was quoting. Fixed. :)

Do you have evidence anywhere to say that nickname stuck? For all intents and purposes, his "official" nickname is still J-Lau, and his nickname has no consequences in the show. If you must, and if you find that his nickname was changed, it would be more appropriate to note it on Joe Lauzon, where it would be much more useful to people actually looking for Lauzon info. As for the second point, fighter histories in the UFC are always discussed, esp in this and the last season, and a recap of one's UFC career is always presented. Joe does not get special treatment in this regard. The fact that Joe defeating Pulver is quite remarkable, but in the context of the series, it's really important at all. That victory doesn't show up until the seventh episode and Corey Hill's fight record had more coverage than Joe's win. To me, that's bias. Geraghty's attitude toward that match does not belong there, and if that point stays it should be edited down to just note the win and not the reactions around it. As for "it shows a reason why Lauzon wanted to be on Penn's team", that's synthesis (see WP:OR) and leading the reader to a conclusion. That's not an appropriate material for the encyclopedia if that was the intent. hateless 18:26, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

"Do you have evidence anywhere to say that nickname stuck?" The fact that every major recap of the episode contains the reference shows that it has stuck. When a major name in MMA gives someone a nickname, it is newsworthy (for good or ill). "The fact that Joe defeating Pulver is quite remarkable," I'm glad we agree on this point. :) "but in the context of the series, it's really important at all." Here we disagree. The win was remarkable. The win is talked about by many of the fighters and coaches. As I pointed out in my original message here, it shows a reason why Lauzon wanted to be on Penn's team, and it is important in helping to understand the importance of the win. All of that is important. :) Clogar 08:52, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Um, what? Every episode has not referred to Lauzon as "Creepy Joe." You can mention Joe's win over Pulver, but Geraghty's "I forgot it even happened" is a bit too much still. hateless 07:48, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

now that the season is over, i went ahead and converted the tense of the article to past-tense. feel free to touch up anything i may have missed 67.163.31.216 04:09, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Fight Details

Hateless,

I notice that you've gone through and removed fight details from both my summaries and the summaries posted by others. In fact, you've done this in other seasons of TUF as well. My question to you is: Why? My statement is: Please stop removing facts and citations from the summaries.

Facts beyond the basic match stats (Competitors and winner) are important to fans and competitors. In a series like TUF, which is part sporting event and part reality drama, they're NECESSARY in order to understand what is going on. Items like Corey Hill's record being a lie, basics of how the matches have gone, Dana White disagreeing with the judges, etc... are items people reading the entry may be trying to learn. Please stop deleting them. :)

Clogar 05:14, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Per WP:NPOV and WP:NOT#IINFO, just because something is true does not mean it should be in Wikipedia. I removed inconsequential information, info that is not necessary for following the plot of the show, and I removed stuff from my own edits as well. If you look at the evolution of The Ultimate Fighter 1 and The Ultimate Fighter 2 to now, you can see that episode summaries are growing. I don't think they need to be as spartan as they were as on The Ultimate Fighter 1, but it needs to be discriminating, as required by WP:NOT#IINFO and WP:NPOV's undue weight provisions. We cannot and should not put everything in there, no matter how true. We should not allow for coverage for certain characters overshadow others where they were given equal consideration in the series, case in point the Lauzon vs. Geraghty match where there was a (relatively) lengthy description of the match whereas most other matches got one sentence. We should watch for biases and unequal coverage and the weight of article should be edited to be as neutral in bias as possible. The article also needs an encyclopedic tone, see this to see an example of a match description that does not have an appropriate tone. The tab on the top says edit this page and not simply add to this page for a reason, there are plenty of good ones provided in WP policy for when material should be removed. WP is an edited encyclopedia, not a data-dump. hateless 18:05, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

"just because something is true does not mean it should be in Wikipedia." We Agree. :) "I removed inconsequential information, info that is not necessary for following the plot of the show," We completely disagree. As I stated earlier, this information is important to fans and competitors, as well as those attempting to follow the show. "I don't think they need to be as spartan as they were as on The Ultimate Fighter 1, but it needs to be discriminating, as required by WP:NOT#IINFO and WP:NPOV's undue weight provisions." "Discriminating" is an interesting term. The summaries, as originally posted, left out a great deal of information - but kept important fight facts and plot information. The details are contained in my earlier post, so I won't hit them again here. :) "case in point the Lauzon vs. Geraghty match where there was a (relatively) lengthy description of the match whereas most other matches got one sentence." That is the fault of the people entering information for the other matches, then. :) Not every punch was entered into that description, but the "highlights" were. If we want one sentence fight descriptions, we should be using Sherdog.com. "We should watch for biases and unequal coverage and the weight of article should be edited to be as neutral in bias as possible." Agreed. Every fight summary should be more than one sentence long.

Clogar 09:02, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

So it's the fault of the other editors that they didn't even out the coverage bias you added to the article? Not a good answer, in my opinion. If you want to expand fight descriptions, expand them all. WP is not a storehouse of indiscriminate information, and WP should not cover every opinion that can be voiced or edited into its pages. The job of WP is to be even-handed. If you can't be bothered to edit even-handedly, then the easiest way to remedy that is to edit out the bias. If you would like to commit to being fair and even handed and expand each and every fight accordingly (along with sources per WP:V), then we won't have to edit out anything. hateless 07:48, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

"So it's the fault of the other editors that they didn't even out the coverage bias you added to the article?"

No, it is your fault for not allowing the articles time to expand properly and editing down entries. :)

"If you want to expand fight descriptions, expand them all."

They will expand. :) Relax and give myself and others time to expand them. Feel free to add content as well.

Clogar 11:35, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I see no evidence that any fight descriptions will expand they way you did for Joe Lauzon's bout, and I been around long enough to know there are only a few fights that can be expanded without getting into tone, neutrality, original research or verifiability problems. Look at UFC 57 to UFC 70 and tell me how many one-sentence fight descriptions there are. If you notice, none of the descriptions have a play-by-play description, at most the descriptions go into detail on finishing or other key attacks or holds. Check out MgTurtle's note below, you still need to convince people the need for lengthy descriptions. hateless 18:11, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

This is getting way to convoluted. You can have fight descriptions, but it's not wholly necessary to say things like "and then he did this, when he answered this, and took him down here, and then got out of some sort of hold here" etc. (Clogar, I'm not saying you did this, because I haven't seen any of your edits). However, I think it would be prudent to have something like "The fight was characterized by..." and then describe "themes" (if you will) of the fight. For example, if most of the fight took place on the feet, you can write a sentence about how the fight was primarily a striking game; if most of the fight was dominated by someone who practiced Muay Thai techniques, note that as a key point; if most of the fight was on the ground or in a wrestling modality, that's important. This way, Clogar's problem of having a resource for fighters is solved (because, after all, understanding a fighter's style is more important than studying every single move of their fights), and hateless's problem of wordiness/unnecessary information is solved. Plus, such descriptions are relatively easy to make and can be applied rather fairly to any fight.--Blingice 22:55, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

"I see no evidence that any fight descriptions will expand they way you did for Joe Lauzon's bout, and I been around long enough" You've edited down a large number of entries in many fights by myself and others that have contained this information - I don't see how you can say there's no evidence when the history section indicates otherwise.

To Blingice: "Plus, such descriptions are relatively easy to make and can be applied rather fairly to any fight." Anything that expands the useful information is a good thing. :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Clogar (talk • contribs)

You are doing a bit of selective reading, Clogar. The part of the sentence you left out are: "only a few fights that can be expanded without getting into tone, neutrality, original research or verifiability problems." Well guess what? The parts of the fights I removed had tone, neutrality, OR or verifiability problems. Again, they cannot be expanded because of policy. Policy, policy, policy, policy, policy, I keep pounding on policy and you need to recognize there are rules here that trump your idealism.

Blingice, I think your proposal is fine, but again, if there are any other problematic edits that violate policy, then it should be edited out. An one-sentence description of a match may ideally also need some sort of outside sourcing, ie, from Sherdog or another site, since it could be potentially subjective. hateless 08:42, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Sure, that sounds fine. However, could we agree that a citation regarding the nature of the fight would only be necessary if it was contentious? If 5 people that watched a fight agree that it was a wrestling match and one person says it was a striking match, it doesn't seem like there should be an issue (specifically, for this page, the descriptions of the episodes on Spike give short descriptions, so it should be even less of an issue).--Blingice 20:17, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

No, it must sound neutral if we don't cite others. See WP:NPOV#Characterizing opinions of people's work. If you want to say, Pulver said this about the fight and Penn said this, then that's fine. Right now, the stuff you just added looks like it needs to be edited as such. hateless 21:09, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

The descriptions of the fights are in the official citations from Spike...--Blingice 21:47, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

No, not really. Case in point: "Maynard was the main aggressor, although Melendez showed considerable fearlessness." This is SpikeTV's summary:

Quarter Final Fight #2 - Round One: Brandon Melendez vs. Gray Maynard. The fight starts off with Gray immediately taking Brandon's back. Brandon doesn't panic and fights off a rear naked choke and eventually switches position on Gray. Brandon manages to get to his feet for a second, but then Gray quickly takes him down again and tries to work side control on Brandon. The two finally make it to their feet and exchange blow after blow. Gray then takes Brandon down again and works his ground and pound game until the end of the round.

Quarter Final Fight #2 - Round Two: Brandon Melendez vs. Gray Maynard. The second round starts off with Brandon keeping the fight up top and he manages to get in a few good shots on Gray before getting taken down. Gray is starting to look tired as Brandon gets on top and unleashes a barrage of punches to Gray's head. Gray never gives up and reverses the position to a full mount. Gray punches Brandon as he pushes him up against the cage. Brandon escapes again and gets to his feet. Gray shoots for the take down and almost gets caught in a guillotine choke. After escaping the guillotine, Gray turns the tables on Brandon and catches him with a guillotine choke to end the fight.

If you notice, nothing in there said fearlessness or agressiveness. This is what is called synthesis, taking facts established elsewhere and coming up with new conclusions not cited elsewhere, and it's considered original research. This is the stuff that need citations. See WP:OR#Synthesis of published material serving to advance a position for more. hateless 21:55, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Am I wrong or do sentences such as "The two finally make it to their feet and exchange blow after blow." suggest a reciprocal level of aggressiveness? It's not like aggressiveness is a subjective term, the fight descriptions clearly indicate that both Melendez and Maynard were not backing down. Other key terms: "Brandon doesn't panic" (hmm, fearlessness?), "Brandon gets on top and unleashes a barrage of punches" (sounds aggressive...), "Gray shoots for the take down" (I mean, I don't know if synonyms aren't allowed on Wikipedia or what, but this isn't exactly a description of two pussies fighting), "Gray never gives up," etc. I mean, come on, it isn't "original research" insofar as it's being plainly stated that 1. they weren't backing down (fearlessness) and 2. they were actively going at each other (aggressiveness). I see absolutely no refutation, unless Wikipedia requires plagiarism (which is essentially what you would have to resort to to escape your criticisms, as we could not use synonyms to describe behaviors, only the words that were plainly written by the network).--Blingice 06:23, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Look, paraphrasing is not plagiarism, and neither is quoting sources. You're using words that imply some kind of heroism in the fighters, like the irresistable force (Maynard) against the immovable object (Melendez), but Spike TV presents it as a straight fight. How exactly is the level of fear in Melendez described in the Spike TV description? A lack of panic doesn't denote lack of fear, it denotes a lack of overwhelming fear, per the definition of panic. As for aggression, Maynard is clearly the main aggressor in the first round but it's not clear in the second., If I remember right, I was scoring the round for Melendez until the RNC. Spike TV made no statement whether in retrospect Maynard was the dominant, more aggressive fighter. So, not only do I think you're being too loose with your sources, I don't really agree with the fight description. hateless 17:21, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh well, change it to whatever you want, because I guess I'm not exactly spot on with my descriptions.--Blingice 00:34, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

The discussion section is bigger than the article now. LOL! Clogar 04:02, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Paragraphs?

Anyone else notice that this is the only season of TUF that has the complete details of the fights and what happens in the house? Why is that? Shouldn't this season be written up like the other seasons?(MgTurtle 15:40, 27 May 2007 (UTC)).

Because of new editors, see the discussion above. I don't necessarily think new editors are in the wrong, I think TUF1 episode summaries were a bit bare and probably should be expanded. Also, it seems like the level of drama in the show has exploded, especially this new season. It might be time to expand the Results section to a proper list of episodes with a short description in paragraph form...key word short. hateless 07:48, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Rhetoric

In the description of the 8th episode, I noticed that there seems to be a sort of dialectical/colloquial sort of jargon going on:

"White and Penn draw up the same fights, but Pulver disagrees, and accuses White and Penn of working together to screw his team."

"Gamburyan reckons that all the fights are horrible, apart from his fight with Wiman."

"White thinks that Miller has the ground advantage, and Lauzon has the standing advantage, but he reckons the fight will be on the ground, and reckons that Miller will win."

I don't know if "reckons" or "screw" are effective terms here. They seem rather regional or age-oriented (although I'd imagine anyone that cares about this entry understands them perfectly fine).

Just thoughts. --Blingice 07:20, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

"Screw" is improper, per WP:BETTER. It's not businesslike language. As for overusage of "rhetoric", I think it's merely just clumsy writing and can be replaced at any time with brilliant prose. hateless 07:50, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Episode by Episode Guide

I removed the Episode by Episode Guide for the following reasons.. A) I feel that it ends up being 90% of the article, giving it undue weight over encyclopedic information. The episodes themselves would not survive notability, because the fights are not sanctioned by the Nevada State Athletic Commission, do not go on a fighters permanent record, and are a target for Original Research.I would not mind a listing straight out of who fought whom in the tournament (like the graphic brackets that are already in the articles, though. That is a statement and doesn't require OR. SirFozzie 15:22, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't necessarily agree with your position. This entry is about a television show - as such, basic information about what occurred during a specific episode is important. :) Example: If I want to know during which episode the UFC fighters got into a real-world fight, I could look it up easily in this entry. As to the fights not surviving notability, I also disagree. An example is the Sanchez/Kosheck fight in UFC 69, the basis of which was their match in TUF. Having said all this... I'm not going to particularly fight for episode guide inclusion, either - we've wasted too much time on this discussion page as it is. :)

Clogar 20:17, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Fights are sanctioned by the NSAC, which is why Keith Kizer weighs all fighters, the refs wear NSAC shirts, and the officials are all from the NSAC. The NSAC also posts the results of each fight online on their site after the completion of the series. They are sanctioned as exhibitions, which is probably where you were confused. hateless 01:50, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Spoiler tag

I removed the spoiler tag from the section marked "Results" because it seems superfluous. The Results section can be expected to discuss the results. --Tony Sidaway 00:26, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Rob/Robert Emerson

Can someone fix the Rob Emerson's name in The Ultimate Fighter box at the bottom of the page? I know that his full name is Robert Emerson but the page that the link goes to is not the same Rob Emerson. I don't know how to change it myself.Thank you (MgTurtle 20:13, 15 June 2007 (UTC)).

Fixed, designated Rob Emerson for the mma fighter and turned Robert Emerson into a disambig page. For reference, templates can be edited via Template:The Ultimate Fighter 5. hateless 20:41, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Octogon Size

Is it me or was the octogon used for this show smaller than the ones that the UFC typically uses?

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on The Ultimate Fighter 5. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070209190907/http://www.forbes.com:80/prnewswire/feeds/prnewswire/2006/12/20/prnewswire200612201130PR_NEWS_B_MAT_NY_NYW099.html to http://www.forbes.com/prnewswire/feeds/prnewswire/2006/12/20/prnewswire200612201130PR_NEWS_B_MAT_NY_NYW099.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:38, 20 February 2016 (UTC)