Talk:Nik Lentz

Nik Lentz and violation of NPOV and BLP
(Moved here from User talk:Amatulic)

You've locked this page with violations occurring on it, you should at least roll the wiki back to before the material was added, least you are just an accessory to itWhatzinaname (talk) 09:36, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Please see The Wrong Version, which shouldn't be used as a reason to unprotect or make changes. I can't roll back based on just an assertion without seeing clear and unambiguous evidence of BLP violations. I protected the article after the most recent revert by an established editor to a prior version. If you want a change made to the article while protected, use the editprotected tag with your request on the talk page. I observe that there is currently no talk page discussion, which may lead to an extension of the protection if the parties don't start talking. ~Amatulić (talk) 14:49, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * the user in question is pretty belligerentt, and talking to him is usually creates more problems than it helps. It's quite clearly a violation of BLP since he has added a negative comment to the article, yet the source he has supplied does not verify the comment. He is intentionally adding netagive commentary, since the fighter is american and he just beat a british fighter. He has done the same in other incidents invovling british/american fighters. it's a pattern with him.Whatzinaname (talk) 16:30, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * As I said, if you want to make a change to a protected article, that's what editprotected is for. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:08, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * You locked it, man. I didn't. BLP says "Since protecting the most current version sometimes rewards edit warring by establishing a contentious revision, administrators may also revert to an old version of the page predating the edit war if such a clear point exists". Clearly you could go back to that "point". I'm not intersted in making the request, as it will just bring in trolls from MMA websites to troll that page, as I have seen in the past.Whatzinaname (talk) 17:22, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * That's fine if a clear point exists, but I can't see that it does. Until you can give me a specific point or diff to revert to, and explain exactly your rationale other than asserting vague things about the edits and personalities of others, it will remain locked. I'm happy to consider a rollback if it's clear there's a BLP violation, but you have given me nothing specific. Propose something specific on the talk page using editprotected and other administrators will consider the request. Or propose a specific editprotected request to me here, and I will consider it. Until that happens, nothing else will happen. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:04, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nik_Lentz&action=historysubmit&diff=383838395&oldid=383824139 that added there, that blaims Letnz for a boring fight, basically. But you can't blame one guy when there are three people involved in the fight in question. All the cite says is the fight lacked action or something along those lines, it does not blame lentz for it. He, the editor Paralympiakos does. Notice that the other fighter in question, who happens to be british I should add, is mentioned in the same sentence, yet if you go to Andre Winner's wiki page, mister Paralympiakos hsd not added this criticism to his wiki. That's no accident. Again, he does this all the time. See the wiki pages for Josh Koscheck and Paul Daley-- especiially the talk page for daley. He is edit warring in the koscheck wiki ATM though. Doesn't seem to like the concept of NPOV. Basically, he knows the truth and you are an idiot if you think otherwise, your cites notwithstanding. Whatzinaname (talk) 18:23, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * That's it, blame it on xenophobia. Jeez, grow up. I've added sources, so what's your problem?  Paralympiakos  (talk) 18:42, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm going to address the concerns in full actually. The Lentz edit summary you've quoted, fair enough; however, in future edits, I added more sources, so you can change that edit summary as it's no longer valid. Lentz has been widely derided in the media for having a boring style (lay and pray). Now, the mmajunkie source says the fight was criticised for a lack of action, because that website remains completely neutral. However, other media sources have criticised him. Winner tried to fight, whereas Lentz just lay on top of him. Now, currently, there are perfectly valid sources, so your argument has no basis. As for why it's not in the Winner page, why would it be? It's to do with Lentz' style, not Winner's.
 * As for the Koscheck, matter, grow up. Xenophobia isn't at all present, that's just your own personal attack. Currently, you're adding other unsourced commentary to the page and I'm removing it. These are the facts, the replay showed zero contact and showed that Koscheck cheated. This much is admitted by most media sources, but it's just you who has a problem with it. Now, I suggest you stop waving policies at me, as I'm not violating any, nor am I edit warring. Move on.  Paralympiakos  (talk) 18:50, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Just as a source for Amatulic to back up the Koscheck matter: http://www.fanchants.com/football-videos/josh-koscheck-fake-and-the-koscar-goes-too/ - watch the video.  Paralympiakos  (talk) 18:59, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Now that there's another participant in this discussion, it's more appropriate here rather than on my personal talk page.

The contentious line (in the diff provided by Whatzinaname above) is "The fight was largely criticised for Lentz' lack of action." This sentence makes a claim that isn't supported by the first source, but it is supported by two more sources added later, in the current version under protection.

The only problem I see with the sentence is the word "largely". I don't see a BLP problem with including that one sentence, with the sources it has now, if "largely" was removed. That's a weasel-word term that should be avoided. If it's OK with both of you, I can remove it. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:09, 14 September 2010 (UTC)


 * With largely, without, I'm happy. I'm just keen to avoid censorship. As an encyclopedia, we should include fact. I didn't include the info/sources as an attack, merely as a representation of real life events. Cheers for the step-in.  Paralympiakos  (talk) 21:13, 14 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Not exactly You would have to directly quote hardy, not use a general phrase, who I think is actually a teammate of Winner and hardly an ubiased source of information, and the other article does not criticize Lentz for the fight, only mentions a plodding style. Plodding is actually an action, not an inaction. So you can include direct criticism from hardy with a direct quute, but the other cite does nothing for the case being made. Whatzinaname (talk) 22:03, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

We're making progress here. It would be best if the personal attacks from both sides were absent from this discussion. Continuing that way is a WP:NPA policy violation, and therefore a blockable offense. Other venues exist for pursuing allegations of objectionable behavior (like WP:ANI and ArbCom). On this page, can we please just concentrate on only the article, and not on each other?

All right, given that there are three sources, one characterizing the fight as lacking in action, and the other two basically attributing that lack of action to Lentz, how would you propose to phrase the sentence to represent the sources fairly? It should probably be kept to a single sentence, as going further than that seems like WP:UNDUE weight. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:22, 14 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Absolutely, I've removed the personal attacks again. It's very hard communicating with people who decide to launch personal insults. I think the sentence is fine as it is and Amatulic seems to agree.  Paralympiakos  (talk) 22:26, 14 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Paralympiakos, you're misunderstanding something. First, you have made your share of personal attacks (see above "Grow up" comment). Both of you can consider yourselves warned.
 * Second, I'm mediating here. I'm not taking sides. If I take sides, I can't take administrative action to edit this article. The point isn't for me to agree with any version. I can make suggestions. I can evaluate what I see based on the sources and make comments, as I have done. But I have no stake in the outcome. In the end you both have to agree before I'll make a change. I want to give Whatzinaname an opportunity to suggest something specific using the sources provided, if Whatzinaname objects to the change I suggested. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:41, 14 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Telling someone to grow up in light of xenophobia claims is far different to being called xenophobic and insinuating im a disruptive editor. In no way can I be warned for NPA.  Paralympiakos  (talk) 22:44, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

The page reads that he was largely criticized for the fight. it's simply not true and not backed up by the sources. The best you could do is describe the fight, which has already basically been done. I suppose tou could start by saying something akin to "lentz used a plodding style to breakdown Winner". I've seen everyone criticized in this fight, Winner, Lentz, and the reg who didn't do enough to seperate them. The claim that Lentz was largely criticized is innacurate complete nonsense. In this case it took 3 to tango. Also, because something is described as plodding, for instance, does not mean it was being critizide. That's a opinion. Whatzinaname (talk) 22:33, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Who criticised Winner? Who criticised the ref? I've seen nothing like that. As per usual with issues with you, I've seen refs that are perfectly valid and I've seen you remove them.  Paralympiakos  (talk) 22:35, 14 September 2010 (UTC)


 * It appears to me that both of you agree that the word "largely" should go. So I have removed it. Other than that, Whatzinaname, can you suggest an alternative sentence? ~Amatulić (talk) 22:46, 14 September 2010 (UTC)


 * The part about it being attributed to Lentz. Dan hardy is just an MMA fighter, not a journalist or commentator. He is also a personal friend and trains with Andre Winner; his opinion is only his opinion, and if included could only be included as "dan hardy's opinion". The one cite says that "lentz used a plodding style". Then it also says, Lentz landed takedowns and mounts. then it closes by saying that nothing else happened in the fight. So what did winner do? According to that article absolutely -- nothing-- So I could argue these cites blame Winner because he did nothing. so lentz might have been slow, but winner did nothing. withc one of these qualifies as inaction according to the dictionary?.Whatzinaname (talk) 22:48, 14 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Except we know that he tried to get up, but was forced down by Lentz effectively lying on him. It was Lentz doing nothing. Hardy's opinion is as valid as the next man's.  Paralympiakos  (talk) 22:51, 14 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Nope. The cite tells the whole story, dontcha know? According to cofield, winnder did not do a a single thing that entire match except have his spirit broken.That's according to the cite! there is a typo at the end of that article though that could confuse it. Pretty obvious he meant "wasn't".Whatzinaname (talk) 22:55, 14 September 2010 (UTC)


 * "Lentz scored the mount with a minute left in the fight but didn't do much with it"


 * "Lentz (20-3-2, 3-1 UFC) had zero interest in trading punches and kicks with Winner"


 * Seems pretty one sided to me. <SPAN style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #73C2FB"> Paralympiakos </SPAN> (talk) 22:59, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

So, would you both be okay with "The fight was criticised for lack of action."? The sources don't disagree with that statement, although one or two of the sources do seem to attribute that lack of action to Lentz. But I have to ask, is that detail about attribution really that important? ~Amatulić (talk) 23:01, 14 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Well yeah, it is frankly. Winner isn't to blame for the lack of action. He tried to get up, but Lentz' takedowns were too powerful to overcome. From that point, you're left with two things, Lentz is supposed to work for submissions or to advance position/punch. Winner is supposed to attempt to get up. The thing is, the latter was fulfilled, the former wasn't. Placing the blame on Winner is factually wrong. <SPAN style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #73C2FB"> Paralympiakos </SPAN> (talk) 23:03, 14 September 2010 (UTC)


 * i don't have any problem with that. "The fight was criticized for lack of actions" seems fine to me. As a side note check out this summary of rounds: "letnz was relentless" and "lentz was pushing the pace with his wrestling" and "lentz was always pushing the pace", meanwhile he critcizes winner: "Winner really needs to improve his takedown avoidance ". http://insidefights.com/2010/08/28/ufc-118-live-results-and-play-by-play/Whatzinaname (talk) 23:06, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Reliable sourcing goes out of the window then. I've heard of plenty of MMA websites, but never that one. <SPAN style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #73C2FB"> Paralympiakos </SPAN> (talk) 23:08, 14 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Cause if you've never heard of it, it doesn't exist, right? It's an entirely legit news cite. And as a bonus, it's not a bunch of bloggers pretending to be journalists confusing wikipedia editors.... Whatzinaname (talk) 23:18, 14 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I have to admit that does look like a reliable source; pretty comprehensive coverage of fights as far as I can tell (and I know nothing about the subject, I don't follow fighting sports).
 * I would say we have a neutral source (the first one), a couple of sources that attribute a lackluster event to Lentz, and another more detailed source that contains praise for Lentz's pace. That last source acknowledges that the fight lacked action at the end: "Both fghters are exhausted, the fight has slowed down to a standstill. Lentz is doing just enough to stay busy but the fight is stuck. The crowd are not happy, booing heavily." The "doing just enough" could be interpreted as lack of action on Lentz's part, but we shouldn't synthesize conclusions from what sources say.
 * One could survey all the sources to see if there's a clear consensus about who is to blame for any lack of action. However, is there a need to place blame at all? Does it matter? Given what we have here, the only consensus I see among the sources is that the fight lacked action (and the audience apparently agreed). ~Amatulić (talk) 23:41, 14 September 2010 (UTC)