Talk:Facing Ali (book)

More References
1. http://www.theboxingglove.com/2015/09/tbg-book-review-facing-ali-15-fighters.html

2. https://www.kirkusreviews.com/book-reviews/stephen-brunt/facing-ali/

3. https://www.kingstonwritersfest.ca/festival-author/stephen-brunt/

4. http://www.quillandquire.com/review/facing-ali-the-opposition-weighs-in/ Soham321 (talk) 15:02, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

5. http://variety.com/2009/film/reviews/facing-ali-1200475338/ (This is a review of the film Facing Ali, but it does tell you that the film is based on this book.) Soham321 (talk) 15:11, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

6. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=122490919

Relevant extract from the article at the npr.org link given above:"ROBERTS: That's George Foreman talking about The Rumble in the Jungle in Zaire in 1974 from the documentary, "Facing Ali." The documentary is based on the book, "Facing Ali," 15 fighters, 15 stories by Globe and Mail journalist, Stephen Brunt.

An award-winning filmmaker, Pete McCormack, made a new film telling the untold stories of 10 of the boxers featured in the book. The film recently won the audience choice award for best documentary at the Vancouver International Film Festival and was short-listed for nomination for best documentary at this year's Academy Awards."

7. http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2008-06-08/news/0806060273_1_boxing-hip-hop-george-bellows

Relevant Extract from the article at the link above: "I felt, on principle, that I ought to pause and go back to an earlier book, the equally splendid -- but very different -- "Facing Ali: 15 Fighters, 15 Stories" (Lyons Press, 2004) by Canadian journalist Stephen Brunt. Brunt tracked down the first 15 professional boxers who squared off against Ali, interviewed them and then wrote neat, tight little profiles of each one: Their lives then, their lives now, and what the distance between the two says about sports and life and dreams. The big names are all there -- George Foreman, Joe Frazier -- but it's the other guys, the obscure ones, who you remember, because their biographies are the essence of the fight game. It's a brutal, ludicrous, controversial sport, but for some, it's a ticket out of the bleakly unpromising circumstances into which they were born. Judge them at your peril.... ...Brunt's deft charcoal sketches of fighters' real lives in "Facing Ali": the work, the pain, the double-crosses, the paydays, the entourage, the comas. Of George Chuvalo, Ali's third opponent as a professional, Brunt writes, "Nothing about his face betrays the fact that he fought ninety times ... and faced all of the top heavyweights of his era. (Though, thanks to Joe Frazier's left hook, there is that little piece of plastic inside his face that holds one of his eyes in place.)"" Soham321 (talk) 12:43, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

8. http://www.si.com/vault/2003/02/17/8096313/champs-and-chumps-entering-the-ring-against-muhammad-ali-served-to-testand-to-revealcharacter Soham321 (talk) 21:04, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Discrepancy in Main article
There is a slight discrepancy in the main article. One of the sources ( http://www.publishersweekly.com/978-1-58574-829-7 ) has been deleted, by the editor who has put the notability tag on the main article, while the detail of Jurgen Klin working at the sausage factory after having fought with Ali a day earlier has been retained. This detail about Klin had been gleaned from the deleted source.

From what i am able to understand, the allegation is that publishers weekly is a pay-for-review publication (see the tag that has been placed on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_Ali:The_Glory_Years ) which is why it is being deemed unacceptable to cite as a reference. My view is that even if they follow a pay-for-review system, Publishers Weekly would have given a poor review if the book was poor, otherwise they would not have been deemed a respectable publication as seems to be the case (see Publishers Weekly). Once notability of the book has been established, it should be permissible to use the Publishers Weekly review of the book as a reference. Soham321 (talk) 18:12, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Clarification
It has been clarified that a book review published in Publishers Weekly can *not* be used to establish notability of that book; however, it *can* be used as a reliable source in a WP article about the book. See here: | Publishers Weekly Clarification Soham321 (talk) 04:18, 8 September 2016 (UTC)