Talk:The Rumble in the Jungle

message: I noticed that suddenly every reference to Ali in the Rumble part is now Hardiman. It seems pretty consistent so is there a reasoning for this or is this some sort of vandalism?
- Wackjum 03:57, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ali changed to Hardiman? 

message: I don't know too much about this, but isn't there some controversy over whether Ali won legitimately?
If you've explored the subject you are aware that there was overwhelming support for Ali, and little for Foreman in that particular region.  "Ali, kill him" became a common chant in the days before the fight.  Also, if you watch the original footage, you'll see that foreman gets up immediately after having been punched.  Perhaps they had different rules over there, but isn't there supposed to be a count?  I would like to see an analysis over whether the support for Ali resulted in an over enthusiastic audience, which may have altered the reaction of those responsible for deciding the match.
- Seg 22:36, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The legitimacy of the fight 

message: Anyone can slap a npov tag on anything, but it is really not useful if the npov claim is not explained. --Ezeu 23:37, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Explain npov claim 

message: It was to Ali's advantage that the people supported him. And also, Foreman did not get up immediatly. He may have got up right before 10, but it was too close. He would of been knocked out later anyways.
:  --Nugneant 06:59, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As noted elsewhere in this thread, I've run a stopwatch many times on the film of the fight, and the best I can come up with is that Foreman was down for at least 11.1 seconds. Most readings, I get 11.2 or 11.3 seconds. Famspear (talk) 03:10, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  How? 

message: theres no doubt he deseved to win and it would of happened anyways
This is an illegitimate comment. May the wikipedia community ignore it. --Zpobric 07:00, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you a Royal Prince? --Nugneant 07:01, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  ALI WON 

message: I'm not a boxing fan, just someone who likes sports trivia. It's my objective opinion that this article was an abominably written trainwreck. One uses the past tense when covering sporting events (unless one is captioning or annotating a photo-stream). It read sort of like one of those "Greatest Sports Heroes" books one would buy for $1.00 - the ones that are about the size of a baseball card and written for 3rd graders. And beyond all this, it's definitely biased towards Ali. 
Anyway. I went in and did my best to change it to past tense, as the present tense was majorly annoying - but let prosterity show that yes, this article needs clean-up. --Nugneant 07:06, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And you've done a nice job!  I believe that some judicious snipping here and there of over-the-top comments about Ali are in order.  The article is entirely too long on breathless description and short on historical data.  I'll come back to this later this week and trim it a bit.  I am looking to add some internal links as well to try and tie the Fight in with important world events and culture.  Nugneant deserves out thanks. Lisapollison 21:59, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  May 9th Minor Cleanup 

message: The image used in this article is very strange. It seems to bear no relation to the article's contents. Clicking the image leads to an explanation that it is a video cover, but even so I don't think it illustrates the article at all well. Bobo12345 15:01, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image 

message: :Image:Ali-Foreman.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 04:38, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Ali-Foreman.jpg

message: :Image:When We Were Kings.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 15:33, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:When We Were Kings.jpg

message: 10 line intro with 7 lines about the promotion for the fight? That should be further down the article in my opinion, with more on the background to the fight or how it panned out in the intro. You know, stuff about the actual sport of boxing. 72.201.194.38 (talk) 21:36, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intro 

message: <BLOCKQUOTE>It has been called "arguably the greatest sporting event of the 20th century"</BLOCKQUOTE>
..in an obscure American sports blog. Why is this there? Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 08:29, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I have found two reliable sources for the quote, Jay Caspian Kang and Christopher McDougall. It appears Kang was already referenced in the article years ago, but was removed, so I restored the Kang reference while also adding McDougall. Maestro2016 (talk) 18:19, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV claim 

message: The claimed viewership of over 1 billion is both frequently found and dubious in the extreme, as the global population at the time was only 4 billion, many of whom had no access to, nor likely interest in, ways to view the fight. The sources linked to support this claim are a passing and unsupported mention in a 1995 issue of Jet magazine and a retrospective article in USA Today, neither of which offer their own sources or substantial explanations. In fact, viewership numbers for the event have never been verified, and the only primary reference to the number comes from Don King, viz: “More people will see Foreman and Ali mix styles than any previous sporting event in history. A “total audience at more than a billion people is not a gross exaggeration.” (Cited in Erenburg, L.A., "The Rumble in the Jungle," 2021). Since King, particularly at the time, could hardly be considered impartial enough to project realistic viewership figures, let alone before the fight was even held, the figure should be struck from the page unless a more reliable, independently verified source is given. WhampoaSamovar (talk) 18:42, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: You make some convincing arguments. Has any reliable source made these arguments? For what it's worth, Don King stated that 1 billion people watched, after the fight too.--Jahalive (talk) 22:32, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Viewership numbers 

message: I think the idea the Ali was seen as a symbol of the people struggle needs better evidence. Foreman as destructive champ had a lot of local fans. 47.60.43.78 (talk) 22:41, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revisionist history 

message: Foreman's height is listed as "6 ft 11 in (211 cm)" and that has to wrong. On his Wikipedia page he's listed at "6 ft 4 in (193 cm)" which is more realistic. 209.102.199.3 (talk) 14:34, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  George Foreman's Height 

message: I looked this article up to see who won, and I still don't know. 2A00:23CC:4D80:1101:90AF:4FC6:8593:90CE (talk) 21:26, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who won?