Talk:Sergey Kovalev vs. Andre Ward

Edit warring by User:SWF88
Issues

1. The title of the first subsection ("Ward vs. Kovalev fight and controversy") you keep reinserting is redundant, as the title of the article itself is "Sergey Kovalev vs. Andre Ward."

The proper title for this section would be something along the lines of "Fight," "Main event," etc.

2. The word "controversy" in the title of the first subsection violates Wikipedia guidelines—"Sections or article titles should generally not include the word "controversies". Instead, titles should simply name the event, for example, "2009 boycott" or "Hunting incident". The word "controversy" should not appear in the title except in the rare situations when it has become part of the commonly accepted name for the event, such as Creation–evolution controversy." Criticism—and cannot be included.

3. The claim "Many experts and fans alike are saying that this is the biggest robbery since the 2012 fight between Manny Pacquiao vs. Timothy Bradley" is also problematic and needs to be excised. It is a classic example of weasel words and thus violates another Wikipedia canon: Avoid weasel words. If notable people are making that claim, they need to be identified with specificity, not with vague references that are impossible to substantiate.

Furthermore, the phrase "many experts and fans alike" goes far beyond what is asserted in the source provided. The source says merely "some fans," not "many experts and fans alike." What's more, the author himself suggests some skepticism as to the substance of the claim, writing "I don't know that (sic) disagree with that."

Finally, the single source provided (Boxing News 24) for the statement is a somewhat obscure website that contains numerous spelling, grammatical, and typographical errors and appears to be of dubious reliability. Reliable sources

4. There is no source provided for the assertion that Kellerman scored the bout 115-112 for Kovalev.

5. The complete omission of any sources who had Ward winning gives a one-sided and misleading impression to the reader. There are many reliable sources—The Ring, NY Post, LA Times, Sky Sports, Yahoo! Sports, Paulie Malignaggi, etc.—who had Ward winning and they needed to be included to maintain NPOV. The best way to deal with this issue is to create a section for unofficial scorecards and list those that can be collected from sources that meet Wikipedia's guidelines on reliable sources, allowing the reader to draw their own conclusions as to the closeness and legitimacy of the decision rather than editorializing for them.

-Vartan Dadian (talk) 04:11, 21 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Ward won, albeit controversial decision, it's in the article. I also added other score cards. SWF88 (talk) 04:13, 21 November 2016 (UTC)


 * That's a start, but you still haven't addressed some of the other issues outlined above. Also, there is another redundancy issue in the "Fight details" section: the last sentence of the first paragraph notes Ward won a unanimous 114-113 decision after being knocked down in the second round, and the very next sentence—the first sentence in the "Reaction" subsection—notes the same exact thing.-Vartan Dadian (talk) 16:09, 21 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Regardless of the fight itself, you cannot dimiss a core WP policy as it regards to the section heading, per WP:CRITS. The article and that subsection is about the fight itself, not the resulting controversy. The latter can be expanded upon, with NPOV, in the prose, but not by using loaded terms in the section heading. Also, accusations of Ward being my "homeboy" are baseless. This is an encyclopaedia—I have no horse in this game, as they say. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 04:25, 21 November 2016 (UTC)


 * This also applies to the Andre Ward article and the section on the Kovalev fight—stop introducing loaded terms like "controversy" in section headers when WP explicitly discourages it. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 04:48, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

possible sockpuppets issue
a lot of users with very few or no posts on other pages keep blanking/reverting the page. many of these are just IP addresses and old red users, example User:Vartan Dadian, with a very limited of posts throughout the years. SWF88 (talk) 04:18, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Attribution of unofficial media scorecards
There is a distinction between media members who score the fight on behalf of their publication, and those whose scorecards are merely personal. In the former case, the scorecard should be identified with the outlet rather than the individual, since the individual in that capacity represents the editorial voice of the outlet; in the latter case, the scorecard should be identified with the individual, since he is speaking only for himself.

For example, Dan Rafael keeps the official scorecard for ESPN.com. Though ESPN.com has other boxing journalists and commentators who keep their own personal scorecards (e.g., Brian Campbell, Steve Bunce, etc.), Rafael is the only one who speaks for ESPN.com. That is why Rafael's article conspicuously notes, "ESPN.com scored the fight..." (emphasis added). As such, the scorecard should be attributed to "ESPN.com," not "Dan Rafael, ESPN.com."

Same with Kevin Iole and Yahoo! Sports ("...the same score Yahoo! Sports had."). Likewise Tim Dahlberg and the Associated Press ("The Associated Press had Kovalev ahead 116-111."). Same with USA Today, Boxing Monthly, etc.

I have made the appropriate changes.-Vartan Dadian (talk) 21:52, 29 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I just think there's too damn many of them. Reading the list quickly makes it look as though every man and their dog gets their scorecard mentioned. Obviously several of the high-profile ones are essential, but I suggest the list be culled significantly to include only those journalists and sites which have WP articles. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 22:09, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Never mind. I seem to be remembering this ridiculously long edition, which thankfully has been trimmed. Now it looks fine. If that list gets added back, I'll revert. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 22:12, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I am in agreement with your concerns about the potential length of the list and the obscurity of some of the sources that have been offered, and also agree with your proposed standard for inclusion. I had added Thomas Hauser and a writer from The Plain Dealer just prior to reading your comments.  I will leave them in only because Hauser is sometimes considered "the dean of boxing writers," and both Hauser and The Plain Dealer have their own WP articles. Vartan Dadian (talk) 04:16, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * What's important is that a neutral balance of scorecards for each boxer is displayed. That's where it may get a bit tricky—deciding how many to include, and if the balance starts swaying one way or the other. At the moment it's an even 5–5 split for both Kovalev and Ward in the Editorial section, but is that intentional? What we don't want is a trickle of editors casually inserting an exponential amount of media scorecards just to "prove" either boxer should've won. There has to be a limit. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 04:32, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Not intentional, no. Those were just the most notable editorial outlets I've been able to find and that happens to be the breakdown.  Only a handful of major publications and outlets still have their own reporters covering boxing; most simply publish the AP writeup for major fights or ignore boxing altogether.  If it was up to me, I would include only "editorial" scorecards, and only from the 5-10 most prominent media outlets that cover boxing.  Ideally, those sources would be uniform across boxing fight articles so as to avoid issues of cherrypicking, with only slight variations necessitated by the changing media landscape over the years.  I would omit individual "journalist and commentator" scorecards altogether from the "Unofficial media scorecards" section, as I feel that's where the dangers of cherrypicking, limitless length, and lack of notability are greatest.  A sampling of individual journalist and commentator opinions is probably better presented in the "Fight reaction" section, in prose and with quotes where appropriate.-Vartan Dadian (talk) 17:31, 30 November 2016 (UTC)