Talk:Forrest Griffin

message: Saying the fight was a controversial decision not only goes against WP:NOT#NEWS, WP:DUE, and WP:BLP. Also Xander756 needs to refrain from making personal attacks as he violated WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL twice by making personal attacks here  in the discussion and here  in his comment while removing the warning for for violating policies by making the first personal attack. The bout was not only a unanimous decision. But if you view the CompuStrike scores Forrest also clearly won. The only person causing a stink about Rampage losing is the one man {Juanito Ibarra} that went on record with the UFC saying he will retire from mma training if Forrest wins. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a newssiteWP:NOT#NEWS, the word controversial does not belong in unanimous decision. I personally am a Rampage fan, but in this case he clearly lost, and he even admitted so after the fight. Agreeeing with CompuStrike and the judges.
*CompuStrike results
:Takedowns
::Griffin   0 
::Jackson   1
*Submission attempts
::Griffin   4
::Jackson   0
*Reversals 
::Griffin   0 
::Jackson   0
*Dominant Positions
::Griffin   2 
::Jackson   0
*Total Arm Strikes
::Griffin  48
::Jackson  67
*Total Leg Strikes landed
::Griffin  51 
::Jackson   3
*Ground strikes landed
::Griffin  46 
::Jackson  14
*Total Strikes landed
::Griffin  145
::Jackson   84
*Judges Scorecards reflect what CompuStrike verified
48-46, 48-46, 49-46. The only possible way for there to be controversial decision would be if the judges went against CompuStrike. Because when you look at the CompuStrike data, the numbers are closely in favor of Griffin when you consider the rules of the UFC. Also Griffin completely controlled round two; Rampage never got an offensive maneuver during that whole round. On top of injuring Rampage’s leg in round two, he secured a take down and landed 44 strikes while Rampage landed none the entire round. Forrest also secured several submission attempts during that round. This round played a key factor in awarding a unanimous decision to Forrest. Rampage strikes did more damage, but the rules do not award points for the severity of strikes. Points are awarded for “aggression” and “octagon control” of which CompuStrike shows Griffin with clear advantage. Also the UFC itself does not think the decision was controversial  even pointing out Jackson stating after the fight that “He (Grifin)whupped my ass,” said a gracious Jackson. “Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose. He deserves it.”Swampfire (talk) 07:12, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The fact the decision was controversial was cited by four references in the article all credible sources. Numbers cannot determine if something is controversial or not. If numbers could do this, I could state that the 2000 United States Presidential Election was not controversial because George Bush got more votes. The people and media determine it by disagreeing with what happened. There is more than enough evidence to support that many disagree. All three policies cited by Swampfire are not applied here, I think that he needs to read them himself (it would not be the first time he hasn't read them if you look at his user talk page). WP:NOT#NEWS does not apply as this is not a news article, WP:DUE does not apply because the sources cited are neutral and credible (Sherdog is an official MMA site), and WP:BLP does not apply because the information is referenced. WP:BLP also does not apply to the very word "controversial" it applies to something that the person in the biography said or did that might be deemed controversial without a source. As for the two sites he listed here, the first one would help further prove my point if you look in the comments there is a flurry of people who are disagreeing with the decision. The second one doesn't mention the controversy at all and was written by a journalist for ESPN. I hardly think that he can be viewed as representative from the UFC. You need to start doing more research, Swampfire. --Xander756 (talk) 15:30, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You need to re-read the policies, because once you actually read the ENTIRE policies you will see the violations. Also you violated the WP:3RR today.  So know not only have you proven you ignore policies such while editting such as WP:NOT#NEWS, WP:DUE, WP:BLP but you have also proven to violate other such as WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL, and now WP:3RR. The only one you might not possibly of broken is 3RR but you are sittin on the edge. Swampfire (talk) 21:11, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: removal of controversial decision

message: -http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2008/writers/josh_gross/07/08/mailbag.0708/index.html
-http://thetandd.com/blogs/?p=769
-http://www.sherdog.com/news/articles/griffin-snatches-ufc-title-with-controversial-win-13564
-http://mmamania.com/2008/07/06/forrest-griffin-vs-quinton-rampage-jackson-judges-scorecards-revealed/
-http://www.mmaweekly.com/absolutenm/templates/dailynews.asp?articleid=6639&zoneid=2
-http://sports.espn.go.com/extra/mma/news/story?id=3475512
-http://www.sherdog.com/news/articles/ufc-86-fallout-possible-protest-rematch-13575
-http://www.osirisshoes.com/news/2008/07/07/forrest-griffin-defeats-quinton-rampage-jackson/
-http://www.mmarated.com/blogs/blog/20080714/forest_griffin_quinton_jackson_controversy-298.html;jsessionid=D579B37D24C37C6CCA37B1AEEF242747
-http://sports.yahoo.com/mma/news;_ylt=Am1V_Ucduvm1SyTzsU7.W__Zn414?slug=dm-ufcscoring070708&prov=yhoo&type=lgns
-http://www.mmaopinion.com/2008/07/10/fightmetric-breaks-down-jackson-vs-griffin-at-ufc-86/
-http://www.mixedmartialarts.com/?go=news.detail&gid=115479
-http://www.mmamadness.com/insight/article/337
-http://www.bloodyelbow.com/2008/7/7/566083/forrest-griffin-vs-rampage
-http://digg.com/other_sports/UFC_86_Forrest_Griffin_Wins_Light_Heavyweight_Title
-http://ufcblogger.wordpress.com/2008/07/07/whats-next-for-quinton-rampage-jackson/
Here is an interview in which Jackson says he knows he won: 
-http://fiveouncesofpain.com/2008/07/16/quinton-jackson-video-last-known-interview-prior-to-hit-and-run-arrest/
While this by no means is a complete list of all media reports on this topic, it clearly shows that it's not just a "small minority" who believe that it was a controversial decision if it is being so widely reported as such. Take into consideration these journalists echo the publics general view of the fight, not simply listing their own (in most cases). You could list all your sources that try to say it is not controversial but it wouldn't prove a thing because it would just further fuel the fact that it WAS controversial if there are people who are trying to argue it. Hopefully this list which includes sites such as Yahoo Sports, Sherdog, ESPN, Sports Illustrated, and various MMA websites is enough to convince any reasonable person here that it was indeed a controversial decision and should be noted as such on wikipedia. --Xander756 (talk) 04:52, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: And your point is? Controversial was not removed it is in there, infact it now has it's own subsection about the whole thing. The point is, it can stay in as long as the whole thing is represented and not just the fact that someone says controversial. Even Aktsu pointed that out to you early on. You are beating a dead horse no one removed controversial but it was expended on as needed to represent both sides with valid references. Fell free to add to the new subsection.Swampfire (talk) 05:12, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There are not two sides. If there were sides it would be that some people think it is controversial and others do not. But by definition that is what controversy is so again, there are not sides to this issue. If you are conceding that it is controversial I propose we remove the section and simply revert to the original article with the mention of it. --Xander756 (talk) 05:17, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: List of sites mentioning the controversial decision

message: I was contacted by  to check this discussion out, to see if I could be of help. Read the discussion, and finding that I kind of agree with both parts. In these cases, can't an intermediate solution be found? I agree that calling someone a fool sounds like a personal attack. If the bout was that important, maybe it needs its own article? -- ReyBrujo (talk) 06:21, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There is also a disagreement on whether the article should be kept as short/compact as possible, not using unnecessary space to describe something that could be summed up with "it was controversial". I think by now everyone agrees that the result was controversial, so what remains is do agree on how much info is needed. (This probably goes for all MMA-related articles, so I'm thinking it should be discussed on WT:MMA.)  --aktsu (t / c) 06:29, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is going on? 

message: After reading all of the above, I think a solution to this is actually pretty easy.  While flat out calling it "controversial" would be wrong, it would also be wrong to disregard reliable sources saying it was controversial.  It being controversial is a matter of opinion, so we can't just call it a controversial decision.  Personally, I would have been shocked if Jackson had won the decision after watching that fight, and it seemed obvious to me that Griffin won. The way this sentence needs to be phrased is "Griffin won the fight by decision, a result several sources reported to be controversial" or something to that degree.  That is the only way we will get a 100% truthful statement, since to some the fight was controversial and to some it was not. I honestly don't think WP:BLP or WP:UNDUE even apply here, it certainly isn't a BLP violation to include if it was controversial or not.  Anyway, I hope everyone can agree to this wording, as it allows the reader to decide rather than taking a stance that it definitely was or wasn't controversial. VegaDark (talk) 08:12, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well according to several definitions of the world controversial, something is controversial if it is "marked by or capable of arousing controversy; giving rise or likely to give rise to public disagreement; A controversy or dispute occurs when parties actively disagree, argue about, or debate, a matter of opinion." So it's not decided to be controversial or not if you or I think it is, it is controversial as fact simply by definition of the word (as obviously the decision has arisen controversy in the public). So one example would be maybe you don't disagree with the decision, but that wouldn't mean it wasn't a controversial decision. Anyway, I think that the problem was solved.--Xander756 (talk) 15:28, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

text: I don't think it being controversial is matter of opinion. An opinion would be thinking Forrest clearly won or that Jackson should have won. It is controversial because many disagree. If several sources reported it to be controversial, why not simply call it that? Or how about something along the lines of "the decision created some controversy within the MMA-world as many felt the fight was much closer than represented by the judges scoring"? (Just better written etc. :D) --aktsu (t / c) 15:54, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As Xander756 stated this matter has already been resolved. The problem using the word was in the placement as related to context. If you simply state a fight is controversial it gives the indication that the majority of people view the fight in this way. Which is not the case, as pointed out by Yahoo Sports reporter Dave Meltzer. So while there could be controversy over which way Forrest won the bout. It would not be a fair represntation of the majority. which is where WP:DUE comes in, because wiki is an encyclopedia. When all is said and done that is the main thing to remember. But again why is this being brought up again? Lets just move on to helping other pages in the MMA projectSwampfire (talk) 16:05, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm glad it's being brought up because I don't particularly like the way it's right now. The "Championship controversy" section should be integrated with the paragraph above, preferably by a sentence we can all agree on, simply because it wasn't such a big deal it needs its own section. As of now there are only two sentences related to the controversy (that there was, and the Ibarra thing), and I don't see any reason why it can't be integrated with the rest. Also, I don't think Ibarra needs mentioning at all. If we can agree on a sentence then that should do. Happy to see someone else actually take the time to chime in on this btw :D --aktsu (t / c) 16:29, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not see a way it can be summed up in one sentence because just stating controversial is not an accurate representation of how the majority viewed it. Which is why I think we should view as history dictates. And it should just state he won by unanimous decision, because this is current but in 10 years no one will care if a few people thought it was controversial. But from and encyclopedic POV if stated it needs to be quantified. Also I could expand on the controversy section and make it more than  the few sentences it is, but I chose the keep it to the simple basicsSwampfire (talk) 16:48, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: When I said the matter was resolved I meant the argument about it. I'm not going to try and vehemently argue that it should be changed any longer as I can live with the way it is now, though I would much prefer the re-write Aktsu suggested above. I would prefer that the controversy of the fight is simply noted as a sentence in the fight's section and I was never a fan of having Ibarra mentioned on Griffin's article, either. --Xander756 (talk) 17:27, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I am perfectly fine with it staying as is, The part about Ibarra helps to quantify along with the reason it wasn't filed because NSAC denoted the clear winner would still remain and the reasons. As I stated I could of went into to further detail over the matter. I do not think there is a away to state it in one sentence while at the same time quantifying it.Swampfire (talk) 18:46, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

text: Only if the re-write quantified the entire situation. Simply stating "some thought it was controversial" doesn't really do that.Swampfire (talk) 18:43, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The section does not quantify it as it is so I don't understand this request. I don't see anything about numbers as there shouldn't be. You can't really quantify controversy. --Xander756 (talk) 19:48, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not about quantifying the word controversial. It's about quantifying the use of the word. And yes the use of the word can be quantified. Swampfire (talk) 20:26, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Solution

message: For some reason, a credit for a movie role was removed.  It doesn't matter to me because I had never heard of Forrest Griffin before I read the article, I just thought you might like to know.  He's playing a police-officer in the Spring 2009 film I hope They Serve Beer in Hell.  Here's the source: http://fiveouncesofpain.com/2008/08/15/5-oz-exclusive-forrest-griffin-mac-danzig-play-cops-in-tucker-max-movie/ 82.27.254.160 (talk) 21:23, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  TV/Movie Career 

message: It looks like this page has been edited in accordance with my wishes after I gave up on it. I wonder who could have fixed it and then defended it from Swampfire's assault? It kind of pisses me off to see that this page was later edited correctly as I tried to make it but yet nobody came to my assistance when it kept getting vandalized. I will await an apology here. --Xander756 (talk) 16:52, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Well, well, well 

message: Why do people keep trying to change the outcome of his fight to submission? On UFC.com it states that he lost by TKO, it was announced at the fight that he lost by TKO, and directly afterwards in his interview with Joe Rogan he bluntly stated that he did not tap, that he was just flailing from the punches. Other evidence to indicate that it was not a submission is that there was no submission of the night honors because there were no submissions. If Forrest had submitted, it would have been the submission of the night. --Xander756 (talk) 20:37, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Submission @ UFC 92 

message: Someone add something to the page about Griffin being in the new game and also being the cover fighter.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.188.29.77 (talk) 00:13, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  UFC Video Game 

message: 74 in is about 1.88 M, 75 in is about 1.90 1/2 M and 77 in is about 1.95 1/2 M.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.219.166.18 (talk) 19:43, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The conversion was not wrong per se, it was just that (as I just discovered) it takes the precision of the input into account. I added a .0 to the input to make it more equal. --aktsu (t / c) 19:58, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  The reach conversion on wiki is wrong 

message: "Forrest is married to Paulus." Paulus who? Maybe its vandalism, I cant find anything about any Paulus in the referenced article.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.41.209.138 (talk) 14:14, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The vandalism was removed. —LOL T/C 16:03, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Personal Life

message: All it says is "He is married". Does that even warrant a whole section?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.117.222.238 (talk) 20:15, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Looking through the history, I found that there was a slightly longer section there, but it got removed due to "not significant" by an IP. The old section is here:  NotAnonymous0 did I err?|Contribs 06:06, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Personal Life" 

message: Someone should add info on his new book.
http://www.forrestgriffin.net/news/?jid=60  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.212.232.167 (talk) 23:59, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  New book 

message: Should his two books be added as sections here? danhgilmore  —Preceding undated comment added 23:48, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Author 

message: Forrest Griffin just recently got his black belt. In the introducing lines, please change "brown belt" to "black belt".
http://www.bjpenn.com/profiles/blogs/photo-forrest-griffin-earns?xg_source=msg_user_blogpost
Thanks!
HyperdUb (talk) 06:14, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm afraid that blog is not a reliable source.  Do you have anything better than that?  The change could be made if something more reliable than a random photograph in a blog were availible.  See WP:RS for an idea on sources generally regarded as reliable. --Jayron32 06:32, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Done, thanks.  There was already a ref in the infobox so I added that to the lead.  The current wording is a bit awkward as I'm not sure who he was training with when he was awarded the black belt.  Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 16:14, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request from HyperdUb, 15 November 2010 

message: An image used in this article, , has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations 
;What should I do?
Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.
* If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
* If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request
This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 00:15, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: File:TUF1Griffin.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Forrest Griffin. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927222922/http://www.nokaut.com/?id=12&solo_news=949&lang=e&cur=eur to http://www.nokaut.com/?id=12&solo_news=949&lang=e&cur=eur
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111003182911/http://mmajunkie.com/news/25026/ufc-134-medical-suspensions-griffin-nedkov-assuncao-and-loveland-out-up-to-six-months.mma to http://mmajunkie.com/news/25026/ufc-134-medical-suspensions-griffin-nedkov-assuncao-and-loveland-out-up-to-six-months.mma
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:04, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 14 external links on Forrest Griffin. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080720222803/http://www.fight3r.com/topics/Forrest%20Griffin to http://www.fight3r.com/topics/Forrest%20Griffin
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081030073050/http://www.ultimate-fighter.ca/blog/2007/forrest-griffin-interview-exclusive-to-ultimate-fighter-discussion/ to http://www.ultimate-fighter.ca/blog/2007/forrest-griffin-interview-exclusive-to-ultimate-fighter-discussion/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080708194914/http://www.forrestgriffin.net/news/news_8.html to http://www.forrestgriffin.net/news/news_8.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080730224437/http://www.forrestgriffin.net/bio.html to http://www.forrestgriffin.net/bio.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080708194906/http://www.forrestgriffin.net/news/news_7.html to http://www.forrestgriffin.net/news/news_7.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120405145048/http://www.sherdog.net/forums/f7/forrest-griffin-arm-break-ko-435696/ to http://www.sherdog.net/forums/f7/forrest-griffin-arm-break-ko-435696/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080708195034/http://www.forrestgriffin.net/news/news_3.html to http://www.forrestgriffin.net/news/news_3.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081206003537/http://martialarts.about.com/od/news/a/ufc62.htm to http://martialarts.about.com/od/news/a/ufc62.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070226063013/http://www.nokaut.com/?id=12&solo_news=719&lang=e&cur=eur to http://www.nokaut.com/?id=12&solo_news=719&lang=e&cur=eur
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071020041531/http://ufcmania.com/2007/10/16/report-forrest-griffin-to-have-shoulder-surgery/ to http://ufcmania.com/2007/10/16/report-forrest-griffin-to-have-shoulder-surgery/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080818230359/http://mmajunkie.com/news/4741/griffin-jackson-guillard-and-miller-earn-60k-ufc-86-bonuses.mma to http://mmajunkie.com/news/4741/griffin-jackson-guillard-and-miller-earn-60k-ufc-86-bonuses.mma
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090815205311/http://mmajunkie.com/news/15802/handful-of-medical-suspensions-follow-ufc-101-tamdan-mccrory-needs-doctors-clearance.mma to http://mmajunkie.com/news/15802/handful-of-medical-suspensions-follow-ufc-101-tamdan-mccrory-needs-doctors-clearance.mma
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110210031102/http://mmajunkie.com/news/22382/ufc-126-medical-suspensions-griffin-and-ellenberger-facing-potential-long-layoffs.mma to http://mmajunkie.com/news/22382/ufc-126-medical-suspensions-griffin-and-ellenberger-facing-potential-long-layoffs.mma
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090926034436/http://www.fiveknuckles.com/mma-news/Forrest-Griffin-married-girlfriend-over-the-weekend.html to http://www.fiveknuckles.com/mma-news/Forrest-Griffin-married-girlfriend-over-the-weekend.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:21, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified