Talk:World Boxing Organization/Archive 1

The WBO is almost universally regarded by almost all boxing experts as the worst, most corrupt sanctioning body in boxing. This article makes it sound like this organization has no flaws, and is an innocent victim being criticized for unjust reasons. It also fails to mention that the WBC, WBA, and IBF are also criticized by most boxing experts, but instead this article implies that the WBO is singled out and unfairly treated. Of their seventeen Champions, three WBO Champions are recognized as legitimate Champions by the boxing community.

July 22, 2005 >>> a response from the reviser: Thank you for your rational, credible comments. I shared your views before I wrote the expanded edit, but I wanted my additions to give low-bias, encyclopedia-style information, not an editorial. For instance, if I looked up "United States" via online encyclopedia, I could find entries that (depending on the source) read like either bland descriptions or "Why America is the Great Satan" essays. I like Wikipedia because its contributors seems to be more interested in relaying credible data than emotionally-charged rants. I probably tried too hard to be "neutral", and instead came across as either blind to reality or an employee of the WBO's public relations department. After re-reading the entire piece, I have adjusted those areas that strike me as being off-base. -

Well I'm not implying that the article should say "WBO: Worst thing in the history of boxing" but to me it sounded like this article marketed the WBO rather than gave a neutral opinion. But the edits you made are good, and they've improved the article. I'll remove the "POV" tag. Thank you.