Jump to content

Talk:Dan Henderson

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Dan Henderson. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:58, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Dan Henderson. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:15, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Height

[edit]

Please discuss your issues here on the talk page around what is his height. I note that the UFC page says 71 inches (180.5 cm). Please provide references here to discuss your points of view. Woody (talk) 16:24, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's not an issue. There is longstanding consensus to use data from Sherdog in the infobox. Here is the link: https://www.sherdog.com/fighter/Dan-Henderson-195 I do a lot of editing on MMA pages and you'd be amazed how many unsourced changes to height and weight are made. It's hard enough trying to maintain quality without having to justify sourced material against an IP who only makes one edit to an admin.NEDOCHAN (talk) 16:41, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It is an issue if you are edit warring over it (which you clearly are). I've never heard of Sherdog, I have heard of ESPN (180cm) and UFC (71in). We go off verifiability in reliable sources. If the sources disagree then you discuss it here on the talkpage and not in edit summaries. Woody (talk) 16:51, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The extent to which you have heard of Sherdog is not relevant. FWIW, it's the primary and most comprehensive record for martial arts globally. Tagging @Cassiopeia: - help me out!NEDOCHAN (talk) 16:55, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have now protected the article to prevent the edit war from April continuing with any other editors. I couldn't find a WP:STABLE version given the large number of intervening edits going back to April. Please gain a WP:CONSENSUS here as to what to put in the infobox/article about his height. I have left a note at WP:MMA asking for input. Woody (talk) 19:10, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand it, WikiProject MMA sees Sherdog as the definitive source. Anyone that hasn't heard of Sherdog isn't an MMA fan. That said, the UFC is the only entity of these three likely to have measured Hendo. I don't know where Sherdog gets its info and ESPN probably got their info from the UFC. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) Chris Troutman (talk) 19:33, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The height of Hendo has been the topic of debate for years.[1] As the thread states (and with a Fight Pass subscription one can verify it), even the UFC has billed him with various heights in their pre-fight info sheets etc. For the sake of consistency I'd say the height should be what Sherdog says, as like Chris Troutman already claimed it is the definitive source. Eventually it comes down to the point where we cannot be certain as even the UFC isn't consistent with their measurements. Ticelon (talk) 21:02, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Dan Henderson's ever changing height..."
Agree with the above. In order to be able to verify the information quickly and easily you need a reputable source that has a very good chance to containing the data. Sherdog seems fine.NEDOCHAN (talk) 22:03, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Ticelon: @Cassiopeia: @Woody: Chris troutman I should also point out that the admin who blocked me went out and found the contradictory sources himself. The IP only makes one edit and did not use an edit summary either. The unsourced info is now sitting proudly on the page, immediately contradicted by the instruction following it. I tried to get the page semi protected. Had that happened it would have sorted it. Instead, Woody went and dug out some sources, as he 'hasn't heard of Sherdog', believed those instead, blocked me, locked the page, retained the unsourced info, started two discussions that have already taken place over years and across pages, made no attempt actually to seek out consensus, then blocked the IP who who makes the same edit every couple of days to wind me up. Last time I ask for pp! NEDOCHAN (talk) 09:27, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
He should semi protect the page, block the IP, who's obviously WP:NOTHERE, unblock me and apologise.NEDOCHAN (talk) 09:35, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]


@Ticelon, Woody, Chris troutman, and NEDOCHAN: Good day. I am one of the regular MMA editors in Wikipedia and have created more than 90 MMA event pages and 150 MMA fighter pages i Wikipedia. My understand is that NEDOCHAN requested a page protection for this page and was warned of edit warring. NEDOCHAN reverted the IP edit edit after Admin Woody place a edit warning page on NEDOCHAN's page.

  1. I have a look on Dan Henderson history page - here and notice that NEDOCHAN indeed reverted the IP edits over a number of days, but has not violate WP:3RR guidelines. (kindly point out to me if I have calculated the edits vs. time NEDOCHAN made incorrectly and if so I apology).
  2. For all MMA pages in Wikipedia, we use Sherdog.com as the source in the fighter fight table and the infobox unless those parameters are not found on Sherdog MMA fighter profile pages or new content such as "fighting out of" / "Team" as the fighter move to another city or fight team. For such cases, we will add the content and support them with source.
  3. Sherdog.com is the largest and most comprehensive MMA fighter database in the world follow by Tapology then Fight Matrix. We use Sherdog as for the reason just stated. Most sport fans would not heard about any Sherdog and few casual fans might know it as well. Sherdog is extremely well-known by all MMA fans who follows MMA for years/closely just as most people have not heard about Boxrec (Boxer database) if they only watch a few heavyweight title bouts a year or know about Rugby League Project if they are not a hard core fan of Rugby League. ESPN secured the broadcast right for 7 years with UFC starting from 2020 and they just collected UFC fighter data since. Thus I here confirmed Sherdog is the source we use for MMA fighters in Wikipedia. Pls see/check List of current UFC fighters for all 610 +/- fighter pages for verification. For Dan Henderson - here, his height is 6'1". Stay safe everyone and best. Cassiopeia(talk) 10:26, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@NEDOCHAN: As mentioned on your talkpage, the block is about your actions. You seem to be putting across that finding sources is a bad thing? This is a content dispute, not a case of vandalism. Semi protection would block one side in a content dispute and not the other which is plainly not the right thing to do. You state "started two discussions that have already taken place over years and across pages". Could you please show me where the WP:RSN discussion, RFC or other centralised discussion that Sherdog is a reliable source or that it is to be taken as the only source for any information in infoboxes? Could you please show me the discussion about this particular issue ie his height? Could you please show me where you tried to discuss this issue with the other user? At no point have you involved in any discussion with this editor other than in edit summaries or a hidden note. That is not how consensus works. Woody (talk) 12:18, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@CASSIOPEIA: WP:MMA does not operate in isolation. Theses articles fall under the five pillars the same as any other article (namely WP:V and WP:RS etc). Same question as above: Could you please show me where the WP:RSN discussion, RFC or other centralised discussion that Sherdog is a reliable source or that it is to be taken as the only source for any information in infoboxes? The source page on WP:MMA has it as an unsorted source (noting that the sources guidance hasn't been edited in a long time). More to the point, how would an IP or any other editor not familiar with Wikipedia know about this unwritten MMA guidance? Woody (talk) 12:18, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Way forward

[edit]

The link provided by Ticelon shows that this is a long held issue across MMA fandom but this is not made clear in the article in any way. A potential compromise on this page would be to source it to Sherdog (or UFC/ESPN, I don't care) in the infobox and then add a note as an explanation as to why there is a disparity.That way, this issue should be avoided in the future. Woody (talk) 12:18, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox

Height=6ft1in[1][note 1]

Notes
  1. ^ Henderson's height is listed as 5ft11 by the UFC.[2] MMA site Sherdog lists his height as 6ft 1in.[3] Both heights have been used by UFC in different fight cards eg UFC XYZ,[4] UFC XZZ[5]
References
  1. ^ Sherdog reference
  2. ^ UFC reference
  3. ^ Sherdog reference
  4. ^ UFC XYZ fight card ref
  5. ^ UFC XZZ fight card
To me the suggestion above by Woody makes sense and I would support it to end the dispute. However, there are probably dozens or even hundreds of early mixed martial artists whose billed heights can vary a lot. It's stemming from the time when the sport was in its' early, unorganized and very informal state so measuring was so-so at best. Maybe the convention should be mentioned in the WP:MMA infobox notes? Ticelon (talk) 12:41, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A)there is already a note. B)I can't make the change as you blocked me. C) A brief look at the IP's edit history evidently shows that they're not here to build an encyclopaedia.NEDOCHAN (talk) 12:43, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And never once did I say finding sources was bad, what I said was that adding unsourced info was bad and an admin taking it upon themselves to support that practice is poor administration. As is templating a regular. Consensus is clear and obvious and doesn't have to take place in a single discussion. Had you simply looked at the IP's edit history, concluded the obvious and semi protected the page this could have been avoided. NEDOCHAN (talk) 13:00, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have responded on your talk page for editor specific issues. Can we keep discussion on this page on how to improve the page? There isn't a note that is clear to our readers. If there is a discrepancy with his height (that is clear from Ticelon's link that it isn't isolated to Wikipedia) then we need to explain this to the reader. The encyclopaedia is here for the reader: for a variety of different readers, often not MMA specific fans, to gain some information from. We do them a disservice by not displaying that information. The use of explanatory notes in the article body is standard across the featured content on Wikipedia. Woody (talk) 14:36, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Can you not see the issue with the UFC as a source? It's so blindingly obvious that it's problematic as most fighters aren't on the site and they're not in the UFC! So you need a source that most fighters are on. The most comprehensive is Sherdog. And there's a link to Sherdog in the infobox. And the infobox isn't compulsory anyway. Jeepers creepers just semi protect the page or find another admin to look at this. Your proposed solution is far worse than mine (use Sherdog in the infobox). NEDOCHAN (talk) 15:32, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I can't see the issue with using the UFC as a source for a champion fighter in the UFC no. Nor using ESPN or any other source. Who says that Sherdog are the most reliable (note reliable, not comprehensive). This issue (ie the height) is specific to this article. You want to use one source yet Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered (see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view). Where there is no discrepancy, use Sherdog. In general, I have no issue with Sherdog as a source. It seems reliable in that it is a published by Evolve Media LLC which has a large number of individual brands, it is a secondary source and relatively neutral (noting the accreditation issue in 2010). I think my compromise solution best services the reader (though that is for consensus to decide, not me). Woody (talk) 15:57, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Dan Henderson isn't in the UFC anymore and was never a champion. A single IP making the same edit continually isn't the best argument that there isn't consensus, particularly given this discussion, which essentially endorses everything I have said and which the IP, predictably, has not participated in. Not one editor has disputed the relative merits of the source I used. The IP didn't use any at all and didn't use edit summaries either. You've done this on their behalf and involved several editors' and your own time, which could have been used more constructively. And the fact that you still haven't unlocked me and enabled me to seek a remedy is, frankly, a disgrace.NEDOCHAN (talk) 16:23, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Woody:, I could not find Sherdog or ESPN listed in WP:RSP. Any new editors, registered or IP, would know about most Wikipedia guidelines including any WikiProject guidelines and most new and IP editors would not know where to look for the note section as it will be shown on the bottom of the page but at the bottom of the infobox has already stated info and is collected and linked Sherdog. Since you have no issue to use Sherdog as the source, then as long as it is a consensus after the closing of this thread we would use Sherdog for consistency. Stay safe and best. Cassiopeia(talk) 13:09, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ESPN has been discussed a number of times as has sherdog on RSN but they aren't at WP:RSP If you want to use Sherdog as a source for all MMA then a way forward through all of this would be to have an RFC on Sherdog and how it meets WP:RS and get it added at WP:RSP which would almost entirely prevent this from happening in the future. I do not think that any new editors would know about most Wikipedia guidelines and definitely wouldn't know what wikiprojects are. (In reality, if they did they would probably be suspected of being a sockpuppet or alternate account). Why would a casual reader have a clue about the myriad of project pages on Wikipedia? This is why we add welcome templates to new users, why we offer a sliding scale of warnings to new users. We don't bite the newbies and we assume good faith from our new users.
I also utterly disagree with the notion that new editors would agree that "at the bottom of the infobox has already stated info". Most readers would look to a footnote for a reference, not at the bottom of a different section of the infobox (which doesn't make it clear that the whole infobox is sourced to it). Please see Duke and Duchess of Windsor's 1937 tour of Germany for how notes are used in other articles. Most readers know to click on a note called note (just as they click (or hover) on the number for a reference).
If the consensus of this talk page is to only show sherdog then fair enough, that is the point of consensus. I would disagree with that opinion but that is the nature of opinions and the nature of consensus. Consensus needs to be based on wikipedia policies and guidelines though, a consensus based on ILIKEIT isn't a consensus at all. No-one who is insisting we only use Sherdog as a source is giving an explanation as to why it is a reliable source iaw with the policy.
This miserable little saga and initial heated discussion (which continues to concentrate on a wiki project's unwritten opinion and not on the content and how a reader would see it) is the reason why so many people lose or have lost faith with the editing process and Wikipedia as a whole project. Woody (talk) 20:01, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Alright (though I don't think much of your edit summary). The simple point, regardless of (humorous) essays such as ILIKEIT and BOOMERANG, is that the actual policy of WP:V was followed by me (as the info was sourced) and was not followed by the IP. Your course of action would be more understandable were any of the changes made by IPs sourced or discussed. Anyone who wants to discuss sourced changes (and make them) is welcome to do so, and if there's a disagreement to discuss it.
What's actually happened here is that an unsourced edit has been reverted in favour of sourced information. A discussion has been opened by an admin who reviewed the request to semi-protect the page and decided instead to lock it completely while retaining the unsourced and unexplained info. The editor (or any other) who added the unsourced information without an edit summary has made no attempt to discuss. Those editors who have contributed to the discussion seem content that the sourced information comes from a reliable source and, for the sake of consistency, reliability and WP:VERIFY is a perfectly adequate inclusion in a (non-essential and project-created) infobox.
Other than an IP whose edits are here, who incidentally hasn't contributed in any way to this conversation, this issue appears to be fairly easy to solve were it not for the admin's involvement in it.
I would suggest unlocking the page (which makes it impossible to reach WP:COMPROMISE anyway, increasing the time we're wasting). Following that, I would allow careful editors to continue to use sourced information. Rather than decry the 'miserable little saga' that you have created, perhaps support careful editors who contribute a lot of their time to it in favour of those who don't? Or promote information from RS rather than that from none at all (other than the ones you found retrospectively on behalf of a series of IPs who haven't ever made any other contributions to the encyclopaedia between them)?
I won't wipe my hands of editing altogether, partly because of the support I have received here and elsewhere. I will wipe my hands of requesting page protection, though. I am flabbergasted how an admin fails to appreciate that this editor, whose edits consist at their best of WP:OVERLINK and at their worst as flat-out wrong, and who has has never left a single edit summary, or discussed any edit, anywhere, ever, is WP:NOTHERE. For that same admin then to begin lamentations as to the state of those who agree with an editor who's trying their best is a far better reason to lose faith with the editing process than those used by the admin concerned.
We all get things wrong. I have here many times. Respectfully and impersonally, I think you have got this wrong, Woody.NEDOCHAN (talk) 22:08, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Is the irony not lost on anyone else that this section is titled 'Way forward' when the page is locked? There is no way forward as the page can't be edited. Please unlock the page.NEDOCHAN (talk) 10:59, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Woody good day. We have thousands of MMA fighter pages in Wikipedia where by the infobox set up years ago to use Sherdog as the source so editors would use other sources to change the information as they please to prevent edit warring. I was wrong on my comment that "ESPN collect MMA fighter info starting from 2020". I did a little research found out that since 2007, Sherdog partnered with ESPN, providing extensive MMA content and fighter database to ESPN - see here - 1. There is also discussion on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard regarding Sherdog as a reliable source - see here - 2. Since Sherdog partnered with ESPN and ESPN is considered reliable then Sherdog info should be considered reliable as well. Stay safe and thank you. Cassiopeia(talk) 13:49, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please could someone make the edit and remove the pp template? NEDOCHAN (talk) 08:16, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Height edit

[edit]

Given the lack of discussion on the merits of the edit I have made this edit that adds an explanatory note about his height differing amongst reliable sources. As per WP:RS: Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered (see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view).. Sources clearly differ as to his height. This solution uses an explanatory footnote to explain to the reader that the sources differ. For the avoidance of any doubt I deem this edit to make me WP:INVOLVED and I will not be carrying out any admin actions in relation to this article. Woody (talk) 10:15, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Wikiman122112: I have reverted your changes to the footnote surrounding his height based on the note about WP:RS above. Please note that where two reliable sources conflict, we have to show that conflict in the article. We can't choose which one we prefer, we only go off what the sources tell us. In this case they tell us two different things which is what is reflected in the article. Please note that your edit also wasn't formatted correctly and broke the reference templates. Woody (talk) 09:35, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to revert Dan Handerson page to last stable version about height + ending all discussion relating to Dan Handerson Height

[edit]

I am here to suggest a clear way to end all discussion related to Dan Henderson height, revert "note edits" as this make no sense being posted next to height. Dan Handerson height is 6"1. Dan Handerson page been reviewed/improve for more 9+ years with 6"1 height. The uncalled for heavy page protection locked regular MMA editors away from regularly improving Dan Handerson page. The "small issue" was suppose be small not become big. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dan_Henderson&oldid=973683812 < - This is the last stable version as viewed. Kent Bargo (talk) 06:46, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No. If you could link to a Wikipedia Policy or guideline about this then that would be useful. It is patently obvious that his height is not a clear-cut point. As described above, we have to follow the sources not our own opinions or deductions. Looking at the article history of this page, there isn't a stable version and his height has been a constant point of contention. Consensus evolves as do articles. Get involved in the discussion, cite your sources, cite your policies and let a consensus form. Woody (talk) 08:54, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The proposal is meant to overwrite "edit" to last stable version which is the one i linked. Per WP:NOT Wikipedia is not "admin" controlled battleground and WP:5P "Wikipedia is free content that anyone can use, edit, and distribute". No notes needed. The page was "admin protected" locking out regular mma editors from fixing and improving the page temporarily. This "Dan Handerson" page been reviewed and improved more than 9+ years with 6"1 height under project WP:MMA. Kent Bargo (talk) 18:08, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This has nothing to do with an admin controlled battleground. The article was protected to stop an edit war and to force discussion and consensus on the talk page. So far half of that has worked (the edit war stopped). This article isn't owned by anyone or anything (ie editors or WP:MMA). As you say, this article falls under the 5 pillars. Under those pillars the note is needed as several reliable sources disagree over a point. The 9+ years is irrelevant: many articles are wrong and don't meet our policies and have done for years. The trick is to make sure that are rectified when the issue arises. Woody (talk) 18:54, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dan_Henderson&oldid=1207618567"