Talk:Bob Baker (boxer)

message: This language is completely speculative:  "That rematch was considered a draw by many. It has been said that International Boxing Organization ran by Jim Norris and Arthur Wirtz did not want Baker to face Patterson for the heavyweight title." There is no reason to include it unless you have some sources to back up this assertion.  Just saying it was considered a draw "by many" and "it has been said" violates the NPOV standards of Wikipedia.
As far as poorly written language, this sentence is a golden example:  "After defeating another leading contender John Holman in Miami Beach Auditorium, FL, May 9th, UD 12/12 (Holman defeated Bob Satterfield who in turn defeated both Baker and Valdez) he lost a rematch with Hurricane on September 26 1956."  I tried to clean it up, but you revert it. As you write it, there are a variety of grammar and syntax errors.  
As far as this sentence, "The Grinder, Bob Baker is remembered as a good technician and is placed in the top 10 fighters of 1950's boxing. He was rated #1 boxer at least 3 times in 1955 and 1956 by National Boxing Association. (original nba)" One, parentheses go inside a sentence. Two, who rates Baker in the top 10 fighters of 1950's boxing? He ranks up there with Marciano, Robinson, Fullmer, et. al.?  I don't think so.
And this:  "Baker who was 45-5 had a very good/respectable record, at the time, that was the best record in the heavyweight division, meaning Baker only lost 1 in 10 fights."  So that was the best record in the division?  Better than Marciano's record?  This sentence is also poorly written and is simply an opinion.  MKil 21:16, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Boxingwear, you might benefit by checking up on the Neutrality page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view ):
Attributing and substantiating biased statements
Sometimes, a potentially biased statement can be reframed into an NPOV statement by attributing or substantiating it.
For instance, "John Doe is the best baseball player" is, by itself, merely an expression of opinion. One way to make it suitable for Wikipedia is to change it into a statement about someone whose opinion it is: "John Doe's baseball skills have been praised by baseball insiders such as Al Kaline and Joe Torre," as long as those statements are correct and can be verified. The goal here is to attribute the opinion to some subject-matter expert, rather than to merely state it as true.
A different approach is to substantiate the statement, by giving factual details that back it up: "John Doe had the highest batting average in the major leagues from 2003 through 2006." Instead of using the vague word "best," this statement spells out a particular way in which Doe excels.
There is a temptation to rephrase biased or opinion statements with weasel words: "Many people think John Doe is the best baseball player." But statements of this form are subject to obvious attacks: "Yes, many people think so, but only ignorant people"; and "Just how many is 'many'? I think it's only 'a few' who think that!" By attributing the claim to a known authority, or substantiating the facts behind it, you can avoid these problems.
MKil 22:44, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Neutral POV