Talk:Rose Namajunas

UFC 217 was won by submission, not by TKO
should be corrected... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:DE:2BC5:7600:79DB:85D9:B629:4EF0 (talk) 18:29, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

TKO is correct
Both UFC official fighter profile page and Sherdog fighter record show the loss as TKO.

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:53, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Rose-namajunas-photos.jpg

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:38, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Rose Namajunas 2017.jpg

Accusations of racism
To summarize what this dispute is about: In the "Personal Life" section, in regards to Rose's communism comments about Zhang Weili, it states that "Her comments were critized by some as being racist or xenophobic". This statement, as of now, is supported by three sources in the article. proposes to delete the statement, on grounds of it not being relevant enough, and insufficiently sourced. Specific reasons for and against were discussed on my talkpage.

To continue the discussion: 178.10.86.25, you're absolutely right that meaww.com is actually a tabloid source - my bad for failing to check that. However, CBS Sports MMA Mania, Cageside Press and Sportskeeda are all reliable sources which have reported on the racism/xenophobia accusations. CBS is literally one of the biggest news outlets in the US. MMA Mania is among the most well-known and reputable sources about MMA news. Sportskeeda and Cageside Press likewise. Middle Easy also belongs to the category of reliable MMA source. The "rumors" part in their slogan refers to specific section on their website, where they publish a series called "Sunday Morning Rumor Mill" on a weekly basis, and in which they discuss things like rumored upcoming fights, rumored fighter comebacks etc. It does not refer to tabloid style rumors about fighters' personal lives or fabricated controversies in the slightest. Neither of these websites are tabloids or sites which would publish cheap clickbait articles. They are all reliable, independent sources according to Wikipedia's standards. All of them verify the info about racism/xenophobia accusations. And, by virtue of it being reported by multiple sources, it is notable enough to mention in the article. Diana056 (talk) 21:40, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

The point is somewhat moot, since respectable news sources also do post exciting or sensationalist trivia and use clickbait headlines.

The guidelines are quite clear in this case:

[] the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment

Given the extreme harmfulness of the accusation, I do not see any appropriate "consideration" here: Providing sources is the absolute minimal requirement, it's not extra careful. You do not make a convincing argument as to why it is important or relevant to include an accusation made by "some people".

Merely the fact that something has been reported is not reason enough to include it in a Wikipedia bio, cf: [] [] []

You mention [], but I think you misinterpret it: It is an argument to mention the incident itself. I have no issue with that: Note that the comments were made by Namajunas, and add a link to the interview. 178.10.86.25 (talk) 10:55, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

@Diana056, I appreciate your serious and honest effort to resolve this, but it seens that we have to agree to disagree on this matter. However, to simply keep the contentious passage in the article and move on is not an acceptable solution to me. I will therefore remove it again. 178.10.86.25 (talk) 11:32, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

, please do not edit the article while the matter is still being discussed on the talk page and consensus wasn't yet reached. It's absolutely not a good etiquette nor does it adhere to policy. I was busy with life and work this week, hence why hasn't had the time to respond to your reply yet. I plan to do so later today or tomorrow. For next time, if I don't respond to you right away, it doesn't mean the issue was dropped or that you can ignore the ongoing discussion and edit the article the way you want without any consensus. Thank you for understanding. Diana056 (talk) 12:43, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

You are having things backwards: You are the one who wants to change the article. You are the one who insists on keeping your change in the article while the matter is still being discussed. As far as I see it, until the discussion is finished, the article should remain in the state before you made the edit in question - but at the very least, the contentious part should be removed. 178.10.86.25 (talk) 14:02, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

No, the one who wants to change the article is you. The edit you take an issue with was made way before you came around and started removing parts of already existing content. So kindly wait until a consensus is reached before editing. Diana056 (talk) 14:57, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

You want to make a change to the article. I do not like your change. This is what this discussion is about. Until the discussion is finished, kindly resist from trying to reinsert your change. 178.10.86.25 (talk) 16:10, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Ok, I'll explain it more simply. I added content to the article on April 28. You first tried to remove it on May 9. You want to make a change to the article - aka remove already existing content, I disagree with the change, we both discuss. Meanwhile, no change should be made to the part of article in question until we reach a consensus, which means it stays the way it originally was, aka before you tried to make the change we are discussing right now. Is that more clear ? I honestly have absolutely no interest in engaging in petty edit wars with you nor do I have time for that, so I won't revert the article anymore. But this behaviour you are displaying is seriously making me doubt you whether you actually want to seek a consensus, or just want to change the article the way you want it, no matter what and without regard for other opinions. Anyway, as was said, i'm gonna reply to your original response when I find the time to do that. Diana056 (talk) 17:40, 29 May 2021 (UTC)