Talk:Dana White/Archive 1

Grammar Problems
Whoever wrote the last paragraph left a bunch of grammatical fallout. There's missing punctuation marks and weird sentence structures. Someone want to fix it? (I'll fix some of it myself.) Also, some of it seems, *ahem*, unrelated. For example, some of the challenges detailed in the last paragraph don't seem pertinent to Dana White.

Untitled
This article is not about the UFC or MMA. This is specifically about the person Dana White. This is also not a depository of quotes, for that there is Wikiquotes: Dana White. Quotes should be converted to a sentence format that pertains to Dana White's life before being placed in this article. Shawnc 17:49, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

"Ballet dancing" will be removed unless citation is provided. Shawnc 17:56, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Boxercise
Can anyone verify the authenticity of this photograph? This does not look like Dana White, and there should be far better publicity stills available than this overexposed action shot.
 * A reply on Sherdog suggests that it is authentic: "Yes it's a legit pic. He was an amateur boxer when he was young, then he owned some gyms and was a boxercise instructor. Became a manager of some mma fighters, bought the UFC with his friends the Fertittas, and was instituted as manager.". Shawnc 06:50, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it seems to be legit, but nonetheless a better picture should be up here. SubSeven 18:14, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Here is a different and better picture, Should the picture be changed to this?

http://www.knucklepit.com/_tDana%20White%201.jpg Rhythmic01 00:51, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * An issue is that if the boxercise picture is available for free, then we shouldn't use any copyrighted images because free images take precedence. I'm not sure the boxercise pic was actually taken by the user who uploaded it though. Shawnc 16:53, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Isn't that a picture of Antonio Banderas?75.197.12.92 07:11, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Antonio Banderas? lol, no its definitely him, and the picture shown on his WP page IS him, but I agree, its a crappy picture, and i vote that we change it to the one on the link above Takedashingen620
 * It's a moot point. We already have a free, public domain pic of White and we don't have rights to the image above, so we cannot claim fair use for that picture. Unless there's another free pic out there, we're stuck with the one we have right now. hateless 04:38, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Ref: "Tito Ortiz Discusses Dana White & The UFC" has to be deleted
The reference is never used and it doesn't exist, two wrongs don't make a right.

So anyway, why can't I delete it myself? I have been a member of this community long enough. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Astrodogdog (talk • contribs) 19:54, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Controversy
This really doesn't need to be it's own section on Dana's page. You might as well add onto this section like people add what they're doing on Twitter. The guy does something highly controversial every time a new UFC event comes out it seems. EvolutionarySleeper (talk) 01:59, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm taking this section down since it isn't relevant. This is wikipedia, not a tabloid blog. Not to mention no one has responded in the talk section about this since I posted about it a month ago. EvolutionarySleeper (talk) 04:49, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * "The guy does something highly controversial every time a new UFC event comes out it seems": but none of those small things get picked up on by ESPN, Yahoo, Fox Sports etc. (also TSN.ca, Vancoversun.com) in the same way this was, which is why we don't mention them. This was the subject of multiple articles and was a major issue at the time, so I definetly think it should be mentioned as it's far from "irrelevant" IMO. -- aktsu (t / c) 12:54, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree. Actually, I think the section should be expanded and a preface to the section would be good. ESPN E:60 called him the most controversial executive in sports, something to that effect with sources should be added. I think if the section were to establish his habit for mouthing off, the attack on Hunt would work as the most notable example. hateless 16:05, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm a little torn on this. Dana White is a controversial media figure.  Irregardless of whether a major (or several major) media outlet pick up on it.  Why cherry pick this one controversial act to expand in to an entire section?  If there is to be a Controversy section I think it should include a broader range of what makes Dana White controversial.  --Drr-darkomen (talk) 22:42, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * As it stands, his biography is far too short to reject such widespread controversies such as this. To really make a case against any of this, we would need a much longer article to actually evaluate the weight of these events.  Btw, irregardless is not a word, I think you may have been shooting for regardless or irrespective. Jonhan (talk) 07:46, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Dana White is an aggressive businessman, which perhaps has contributed to the success of the UFC, but it has also created enemies. Almost all of his major business transactions have involved "controversy", from negotiations with Fedor, Couture, Tito Ortiz, to the purchase of Pride, he likes to be verbally abusive and domineering. Many successful business leaders, athletes and media personalities behave this way. For example in sports: Don King, Terrell Owens, Lance Armstrong, in business: Donald Trump, Bill Gates, "Chainsaw" Al Dunlop, Jack Welch, in media: Mel Gibbson, Sean Penn, Whoopi Goldberg, Bill O'Reilly, etc. I really don't think this incident is noteworthy, beyond what it says about his behavior in general. Thus, I changed the entire section. What do yall think? Lattefever (talk) 18:59, 26 August 2009 (UTC)Lattefever
 * I definitely see where you are going with this, Lattefever. The source you included, however, does not match what you are trying to describe him as.  Additionally, specific examples of each controversy would have to be cited, otherwise the description of him can be cited as POV or even slander. If you were to find a legitimate article of an analyst criticizing Dana White for his business practices or choice of professionalism etc., we would have to at the least insert who specifically is criticizing him and for what reasons. Jonhan (talk) 23:55, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * To expand on what I stated earlier, Dana White's article is also extremely short when compared to every other article you've listed. Many things are not included in those articles justifiably because of the space allotted for WP:Undue Weight.  Dana White's article is much too short. If it were to be expanded much much longer, I could see how a case could be made for undue weight. Jonhan (talk) 00:05, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that undue weight is being given to this "issue". The media reports on several things Paris Hilton or Britney Spears do. That doesn't make any of it notable. Just because it can be referenced doesn't mean it should be included. The "controversy" has limited to no relevance to anything outside of the career of a writer of little significance. If wikipedia documented every time someone famous says something negative about a writer covering their field the list would become endless. We should remove the entire section. 58.110.88.153 (talk) 09:40, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The two examples you gave don't have articles that are 10 sentences long (after removing controversy). If you can go ahead and expand Dana's article, I can see how you can make the same case as 'Hilton and Spears.' Dana appeared to give it some relevance by making a public apology. Jonhan (talk) 10:53, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * This article being small is no reason to give undue weight to trivial issues irrelevant to his notability. He is not Notable because GLAAD released a press release and used their media machine to get several stories published. He is not notable because he criticised a writer for something they wrote. He is notable because of his involvement in the UFC. The criticism section is written in a way which doesn't indicate a neutral point of view and promotes the view that there is something controversial about swear words. It also takes out of context what was said. He wasn't saying something anti-gay, he was taking issue with the journalist. The way he expressed it included words that refer to sexuality but were not directed at any sexuality in particular. The "incident" sparked a few stories at the time GLAAD caught onto it and complained, but that all quickly died down and is no longer relevant. Every time an activist group does something doesn't make their view point notable, even if it was published. As it stands, the section gives undue weight to something irrelevant to the person's notability and does not take a neutral point of view. I would remove it myself but the page is protected. 58.110.88.153 (talk) 15:26, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * What is this "He" you keep talking about? I disagree that the article being short does not play a role in how it is viewed on the page; as it stands, it appears to be more emphasized than it probably is in reality only because there's virtually nothing on the page. Try not to imagine it as Dana White saying it, but some other celebrity with a page that has 10 sentences on it -- who had to consequently publicly apologize to an organization due to mounting pressure. The sources on the article appear to present gravity to the situation here, here, here, here, and the rest that you stated is WP:OR. The public reception, backlash and apology is more notable than the actual tirade. Jonhan (talk) 21:40, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

"founder and co-chairman of the UFC"
He's listed as this under the "known for" section, but he is neither of these. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.148.43.208 (talk) 14:32, 16 November 2009 (UTC) Agreed. Please change to President of the UFC. Brainchasm (talk) 21:12, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Actual date of birth?
On the bottom of this page, it lists "1969 births". On the page, it says he's born in 1971. Whats the correct one. In an article done immediately after TUF 1 finale, it read he was 34 years old. The article was done approximately June of 2005 which leads you to believe he was born 1970-1971. In an article done after TUF 3 finale, it read he was 36 years old. This article was done mid 2006, which leads you to believe he was born in 1969-1970. Can anyone get an official date? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.82.34.35 (talk) 04:16, 22 December 2006 (UTC).

From posts on the Underground Forum (UG), confirmed by Tito Ortiz and other persons who have first-hand knowledge of Dana, his birthdate is July 28th, 1969.

the slanderous claim that his wife be 13 must me changed immediately —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.101.35.178 (talk) 23:45, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

It says he grew up in Las Vegas, Texas. Is there such a place, or did he grow up in Las Vegas, Nevada —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.234.214.116 (talk) 20:05, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Names of children
From WP:BLP: Editors should take particular care when considering whether inclusion of the names of private, living individuals who are not directly involved in an article's topic adds significant value. The presumption in favor of the privacy of family members of articles' subjects and other loosely involved persons without independent notability is correspondingly stronger. I don't think naming White's kids adds anything of value, and it goes against WP:BLP's spirit to err on the side of privacy. I'll remove the names if there are no further objections. hateless 03:18, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

If you're going to take them off his page why don't you take them off everyone's page? I think the names are important and they're cited so why not put them on his page? The names of other people's children are on their pages!I'm just saying. (MgTurtle 23:52, 19 October 2007 (UTC))
 * Because it only occurred to me to do so after looking at this page. I intend on removing them from MMA bios wherever I see it from now on. As for citing, WP:BLP makes it clear that just because something is citable doesn't mean it should be included. Sorry, I know you've been adding these names to MMA bios here for awhile but I don't think it is a good idea or allowable by policy to do so, especially for names of children. (I'll leave names of spouses/so alone.) hateless 01:02, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

The names are listed in the cited source so Dana doesn't care if they're public and he legally owns his kids so they don't get a say. I think you're just trying to be a cunt and over rule Mr. White and say no, your children deserve privacy you bald, big-nosed cunt. But the source still has their fucking names in it so you've done nothing except make yourself feel good. Even without the names in the article, even if you found a different source, the names are still in the original interview. Dana will bring them up in other interviews, he will occasionally mention them on television, and whether his name is on wikipedia or not, people are going to at least ask, is Dana White III the son of the UFC guy?

By the way my son's name is Halim he is 7 and he likes pancakes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Planetstasiak (talk • contribs) 12:43, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Added Info (will an editor please add this)
(will an editor please add this, since i don't have an account now; it has some quotes but i don't think they're out of place; edit as uc2...)

Public Face of the UFC

In his role as president of the UFC, Dana White has been a prominent, charismatic, and sometimes controversial figure, engaging fans, fighters, media, and politicians as the public face of the organization. By any account, White has been at the helm of the sport's explosion of popularity in the United States and its continued expansion worldwide.

In his role as executive, he has taken an untraditional route, one which highlights his personal love of MMA as well as his raw, expressive personality. Far less filtered then the stereotypical CEO, White has a widespread reputation for saying what is on his mind, often with quick, profanity-laced remarks. In a interview with ESPN reporter Ryan Hockensmith, White was asked, "Let's say companies, big, mainstream corporations all over the world, start calling you. And let's say you have to start putting together board-room pitches and wearing suits and speaking to executives—aren't you going to have to clean up the language, the wardrobe…clean up you, basically?" And White replied: "God, I hope not. God, I f—ing hope not." Rachelle Leah, host of UFC's All-Access series, said of her boss: "What you see is what you get with him. He doesn't keep anything away from anyone. There are certainly a lot of f-bombs flying around, though." And White commented about his uncharacteristic persona: I'm not your typical head of a sports league...I say exactly how I feel. I don't hide it. I don't lie. And I swear a lot. Some people think I'm a classless moron. Other people think I'm this monster that screws my fighters over. And other people like me. You can't make everybody happy. But you gotta understand too, in this business, I'm the promoter. My role is I'm always gonna be the fucking bad guy. No matter what I do. Or how many great things I do for people. Or how many fighters I make millionaires. Because if you're a fight promoter, and if you make a fucking dollar, you're a scumbag. You shouldn't get that money, the fighters should...I'm the bad guy. Always going to be the bad guy. I get it. I accept that role. I do the best I can. White has not shied away from blunt or disparaging comments about competitors or contract disputes, sometimes leading him into public spats with fighters or organizations. These included a contentious feud with UFC hall-of-famer, Tito Ortiz as well as business competitors like entrepreneur and Affliction co-founder Mark Cuban. Of his then business competitor White remarked: "[Cuban] really thinks he's going to beat me?... I eat, sleep, breathe and live mixed martial arts. I love this shit. It's what I do. But look, at the moment, this thing we have is still really pure. It's not all fucking dirty like boxing. I know that day is coming. And when it does, I'm gone. But I love a good fight and, seriously, I really do have secrets and reasons for the things I do. So he's never going to beat me. Never, ever.

Personally, White has been described as a tough, charming, hard-working, business-savvy, deeply loyal person who responds with animus to those who cross him. ESPN reporter, Michael Woods recalled a particular scene in May of 2009 when White showed his intolerance for threats of betrayal: White stops at his suite in the Palms for a shower and brief meeting before heading out to dinner. He is exuberant, both because the [MMA] event is shaping up and because he slept four solid hours last night. But his buzz is killed when his security guard jokes about writing a tell-all. The boss fails to get the joke.


 * "Are you f--ing kidding me?" White spits. As he stands, his fists ball and pectorals bulge.


 * "Sure," the man continues, thinking White is playing along. "What would you do about it?"


 * "I'd sue you. I'd sue everyone around you, until you didn't have a f--ing dime to your name," White says with tightly controlled rage. As he abruptly turns to exit, the security guard slumps.

Despite, or perhaps because of his dogged yet unpolished approach, White has remained at the forefront of the UFC's success.

I don't really see where this fits within the article. It's too interview-ish, and POV. The factual information (if any) would need to be distilled out first IMO.Brainchasm (talk) 00:45, 20 January 2010 (UTC)


 * You will need to clean this up before anyone will add it in, it also hints a bit of bias.
 * --Eidetic Man (talk) 22:14, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Additions
Fixed his infobox up and added in a few more things like net worth, flagicon and occupation. I added in the section about his feud with M-1 Global, this is a huge part of his relationship with external organisations over the last 3 years. Also elaborated on charity work which is something he is frequently involved in. Updated his accomplishments section. --Eidetic Man (talk) 22:23, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The M-1 section is mostly useless. He has had feuds with many people and other organizations, including Randy Couture, Ken Shamrock, Showtime, HBO, and so on. I don't see his feud with M-1 being any more notable than his many others. Maybe a few lines can be added in the "Controversy" section about his various feuds and outrageous statements. -Luckydevil713 (talk) 17:40, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, much of the information is more about Fedor than Dana White. His undefeated streak is irrelevant to Dana White's life and to their feud. The listing of fighters claiming Fedor to be greatest ever is irrelevant on a page about Dana White and should possibly be on Fedor's page, instead. If this section is to remain, it should be strictly about M-1 Global and Dana White's controversy, not about how great Fedor was. I also don't think that a "tweet by tweet" review of the twitter back and forth is appropriate for an encyclopedia. Possibly it can be summarized in a few sentences instead, which I tried to do in my previous edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dana_White&oldid=419238611 The whole section as it is now needs to be rewritten, I think, which I tried to do, but you reverted. -Luckydevil713 (talk) 14:58, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * What you fail to understand is that this is the biggest feud he has ever had, in fact it has touched the entire MMA world and has much debate surrounding it, just from the references you can see that there have been a plethora of articles written about Fedor and Dana White in correlation. The passages about Fedor's greatness are not irrelevant, please think before writing comments like that. Dana White has constantly said that this man is a below average fighter and has failed to acknowledge the accomplishments of Fedor, this is well documented, that's why it is necessary to show a juxtaposition of professionals and experts against Dana to demonstrate the varying opinions. An article cannot be biased and nor shall it be in this case, it needs both angles. This section has been up for months and nobody seems to have a problem with it except for yourself. Please refrain from removing bits and pieces at your own volition.Eidetic Man (talk) 11:15, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not trying to fight with you. It was up for 3 weeks before I saw it... sorry, I don't check Dana's article daily. I am only objecting to it's placement on the page and the weasel words about Fedor. There are many Wikipedia guidelines about weasel words, you can look them up yourself. Calling fedor a "legend" and "greatest ever" is just not what you do in encyclopedia articles. I don't disagree with the assessment, but it doesnt belong here. I also don't think moving the whole section into "Controversies" should be a problem. It is a controversy, and it doesnt need it's own section. But I'll let someone else fix it, because you are clearly not willing to compromise. -Luckydevil713 (talk) 21:56, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * There's no need to be rude about it, and you don't need to preach to me about guidelines, i have been here for a long time, i know what they are. These are not weasel words but facts demonstrating the varying opinions relating to the subject matter, just because you don't like it that does not mean that it is invalid. Nobody else has a problem with it except for you, when more people voice their opinions i will gladly take action accordingly, but one person objecting stubbornly without cause such as yourself does not warrant an entire write up. Eidetic Man (talk) 23:01, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I changed the section which might hint slight bias, i think this should suffice. Eidetic Man (talk) 23:10, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm trying to come to a compromise, as evidenced by leaving all your writing and removing parts that were unneccessary to the immediate topic of their feud. You have flatly and completely rejected and reverted everything I have tried to contribute, and gone as far as to call it vandalism for trying to contribute. As nothing about the section has been changed, my objections to it stand.-Luckydevil713 (talk) 03:35, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * For example, in the first sentence you paint Dana White as brash and a loose canon. Then you spend the entire rest of the article talking about how much of a legend Fedor is. How is that not biased?-Luckydevil713 (talk) 03:56, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * You deleting entire paragraphs is NOT a contribution, that is vandalism and is highly unproductive, so please stop singing your sob story as though you wrote a whole article and it was removed. You added in ONE sentence after around 6 edits where you constantly just kept deleting the section. I spent the whole paragraph highlighting the feud he had with M-1, not talking about Fedor solely. If Fedor is in the feud then i will gladly mention him. Eidetic Man (talk) 05:29, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Feud with M-1 Global
That entire section either needs to be re-written or completely scrapped. It is incredibly biased and not encyclopedia-material at all. Do we really need several text messages and statements like "Despite the fact that the majority of fighters in the world consider Fedor Emelianenko a true legend of MMA, or the greatest fighter of his time if not the greatest ever," in an encyclopedia article? It's obvious it was written by someone who was offended by Dana's comments about Fedor. It doesn't matter who you agree with between the two, you don't need to edit someone's Wikipedia article to make them look bad. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.0.20.55 (talk) 21:13, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree. I personally attempted to fix this section, but was met with an edit war by the original author. I propose this section is greatly edited down, glowing references to Fedor removed, and then moved into "controversies". Right now it looks like it was written for a gossip column by a Fedor fan. My previous attempt at editing this page/section can be found at this link: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dana_White&oldid=419238611 -Luckydevil713 (talk) 18:06, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

This section needs help. Tweets have been removed for now, but more work should be done. Please talk about any further changes here.69.116.73.246 (talk) 03:44, 14 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree that the section needs a rewrite. The same information can still be explained without the need for each and every "tweet" and insult given. I also agree that the entire section is biased. NJZombie (talk) 02:52, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah it was written by an IP, i searched the history, i agree that it needs a re-write but these fools that keep blanking the section are very unproductive, re-write it but no need to delete it as i do believe it is an important section that is worth a mention. Eidetic Man (talk) 03:01, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, since I posted this, I gave a shot at a rewrite which seems to have stuck so far. NJZombie (talk) 03:16, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I was wondering if there was any consensus of whether or not this needs it's own section. It seems that this could easily fit into the "Controversies" section. Have one sub-header for Loretta Hunt and another for M-1 Global. This way future controversies can be added under a common section, instead of each getting their own section. -Luckydevil713 (talk) 02:27, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Ethnicity
Does anyone have verification of what his background is? I've read half-Chinese, and Jewish - as well as others, but I cannot find any reputable sources.

--unabashed and full-blooded redneck, from the complete body of evidence at hand. 99.155.110.163 (talk) 00:59, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

So you know a lot of rednecks from Connecticut who are worth over $100 million? Anyway, judging by his name, appearance, and birth place, my guess would be that he's mostly Irish or English. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheyCallMeTheEditor (talk • contribs) 02:56, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

he bounced back and forth between Boston and Maine
Is en.wikipedia meant for usa only ? How is this even relevant ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.109.25.33 (talk) 22:53, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Sexuality
Sooooo whats the deal? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.14.192.49 (talk) 06:54, 7 December 2010 (UTC) He's married with three kids. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mark9oodwin (talk • contribs) 09:26, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Undue weight
I feel that the article gives undue weight (WP:UNDUE) to the controversy sections. Dana is a pretty straight-forward guy, so a lot of his comments may be deemed offensive to some people, but I don't think that putting an indiscriminate collection of information is useful here. The controversy section does not help us learn more about Dana White. I'll wait a few days for a reply. Best, ComputerJA (talk) 00:42, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Lack of Content
How come this article doesn't include information on his feud with Tito Ortiz or cover his work in turning around the UFC. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.135.124.155 (talk) 21:50, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You do know YOU can add things too right? Find some sources and expand the article if you feel that something should be added. (pinchet (talk) 01:20, 2 December 2009 (UTC))

Added by an anonymous reader 12/2012: There's almost nothing in here about Dana's life? The article omits 90% of his past. What about the book his mother wrote on his life? “Dana’s fans love him and think he rocks for what he has done with the UFC and MMA,” she wrote “I’m sure that will not change for him, but I am tired of stories about his life that aren’t anywhere near the truth. Dana was very loved and cared for growing up, and he was a sweet, loving, and special little boy. When he got older, Dana was a good friend to many people and a good son for many years. What changed him, I can only wonder. I am just disappointed in my son, my only son, my oldest child, the President of the UFC, the King of MMA.” Some consideration should be paid to what his family is saying and his history or we should simply boil every other person that has a Wikipedia page down to this brief Dana White template. The page is negligent in the way of information to say the least.
 * If you have any sources on his past, please post them here on the talk page so we can all check them out, especially the one from his family. You can also just post them in the article without consulting the talkpage, though. ComputerJA (talk) 02:57, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Amateur Record
Does anyone know what Dana's amateur boxing record was? 0=0 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.235.148.66 (talk) 08:09, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Reference 22 Removed
The reference did not mention that Dana White is an Atheist.

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Dana White. 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://web.archive.org/web/20090731110120/http://mmajunkie.com:80/news/15646/dana-white-honored-as-sportsman-of-the-year-while-250k-awarded-to-the-caring-place.mma to http://mmajunkie.com/news/15646/dana-white-honored-as-sportsman-of-the-year-while-250k-awarded-to-the-caring-place.mma

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 03:36, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Steve Mazzagatti
I would think that his hatred of Steve Mazzagatti would be in here under feuds. Vyselink (talk) 06:50, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Whitey Bulger item
There needs to be more to this to warrant inclusion than just some claimed anecdote related by White in a Fox Sports item. At the very least it should be condensed into a single half-line sentence JohndanR (talk) 16:54, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 May 2021
Change "16th-century Japanese Katana" to "17th-century Japanese Katana". In the television show to which this passage refers, the restorer states, "This sword was made in the early 1600s", placing it in the 17th century. 73.94.206.241 (talk) 20:40, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅. &#8209;&#8209;Volteer1 (talk) 22:08, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Should the Accomplishments section be Awards?
It looks a little strange. Boscaswell  talk  08:05, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 January 2023
Add the word "former" before "New England Patriots star Tom Brady". CloutFisher (talk) 19:20, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: why former? Lemonaka (talk) 09:34, 30 January 2023 (UTC)