Talk:Sonny Bill Williams

message: Whoever made drastic changes to this article to include a fan-site style 'profile' please stop doing so, it is not in the correct wikipedia style and it just looks stupid.
Also listing multiple positions (including....'last man'?) is stupid along with his 'signature move', he's a professional rugby league player not a WWE wrestler.
Tiburon 18:01, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Profile

message: Before anyone tries to change it- yes, his full name is actually Sonny William Williams
Can someone please put in a better picture of Sonny Bill??!!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by William358 (talk • contribs) 00:51, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  His full name 

message: :Image:Sbwilliams nz press.gif 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 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 21:53, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Sbwilliams nz press.gif

message: :Image:Sonnybillwilliams press010.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 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 04:49, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Sonnybillwilliams press010.jpg

message: Think we need to get some refs on his move to the slower code. Can't find anything beyond speculation on Australian sites. I'd imagine its true with the money on offer in French rugby union, but still needs verification.Londo06 08:18, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The slower code? No need for that ;) Yeah we have to be careful not to violate WP:BLP, anything not reliably referenced needs to be removed immediately. There are serious legal issues here, so we can't have unfounded accusations in the article. It seems fine at the moment though. - Shudde talk 08:21, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Slower code, defo in France, it's a forwards orientated game in France. He'd have been better off in Super 14 where he wouldn't have been as cold, but obviously a non-starter as he's moving for the big money. The biggest issue is everyone assuming it's Toulon, that appears to be the biggest problem.Londo06 08:45, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Move to union

message: Here is an apparent copy of the deal , however, st helens have denied making this offer three years ago in today's press, . Surely worthy of inclusion PRONTO.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.172.251.46 (talk) 05:28, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  St Helens deal 

message: He grew up in the Auckland suburb of:
Mount Albert or
Mount Albert  (not sure of the intention here)
: Changed to Mount Albert wcrosbie, Melbourne, Australia 09:29, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Mount city Albert?

message: Speculation about Williams joining the Eels was added for a second time. I think we should stick with the facts not rumours (anything can be speculated). AIRcorn (talk) 12:58, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Personal Life 

message: Hello to anyone. I was just wandering whether the SBW content titles should be further sub-divided? This is because it seems to me as though some of the articles sub-headings are way too long without any further explanatory sub-divisions. For example, his rugby union career seems too long without being sub-divided into the stages of his rugby career based upon for example the yearly accomplishments of his rugby career so far- as was done in the article on Richie McCaw. I hope to hear from someone.Suid-Afrikaanse (talk) 11:50, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Dividing SBW contents titles

message: The article has an elephant-in-the-room omission by not discussing SBWs sex symbol status. He's in a lot of advertising in NZ - usually all playing on his looks/physique. Editors of this article could start with this incident which (in NZ at least) was the most talked about part of the opening RWC match  http://www.stuff.co.nz/sunday-news/news/5602111/Sonny-thrill-for-female-fans 121.73.7.84 (talk) 13:28, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  pin-up status 

message: The latest weight and height I have come across are 108 and 1.94 respectively. These were the figures for his bout against Tillman which were displayed on the Main Event broadcast. You can probably verify this by finding a YouTube video which shows the beginning of the bout. Besides, there are 2 references in the article that already verify his height. I think the other height of 1.91 was probably when he was a lot younger, but for some reason it keeps popping-up here and there.Suid-Afrikaanse (talk) 04:19, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: , Suid-Afrikaanse, mate. Could possibly add refs that would quell this on-going problem? --Shirt58 (talk) 10:04, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Height & weight 

message: Suid-Afrikaanse has removed sourced information about claims that Sonny Bill William's fight with Botha was fixed without explanation, and left a personal comment on my talk page claiming that I wrongly believe the fight was fixed. Personal opinions are unimportant, what's important are the reliable sources reflecting Botha's and other's views. Please do not remove sourced information from a Wikipedia without prior discussion. Greenman (talk) 17:36, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The editor has again removed the sourced information, and left a comment on my personal talk page saying that they are unable to add edit summaries, as well as making it clear that they don't understand Wikipedia policies. I have raised the issue at the Wikipedia:WikiProject Boxing page, but will not get further involved in what appears to be an edit war by a single-issue user.  Greenman (talk) 07:13, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: To clarify for Suid-Afrikaanse and others new to Wikipedia, Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth is a policy making it clear that one " 'may not remove sources' views from articles simply because they disagree with them.". Greenman (talk) 07:20, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you can include that Botha says he was not aware of the time reduction in the sentence that was already there, but I am not sure we should give the match fixing claims much weight. At least at this stage, I think we need more than a losing boxer and a few fans. AIRcorn (talk) 07:33, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Thankyou Aircorn. Yes, this is what i have been arguing on Greenman's talk page, if you desire further detail for the reasons for my edits. Thanks.Suid-Afrikaanse (talk) 09:18, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Suid-Afrikaanse, your comments on my talk page made no such argument. Please keep your responses to this page so that others can follow them. You said there "I stated very clearly - but let me repeat - that i removed the edits because they have been proven as false." "Botha claimed that the fight was fixed" is not false, it's reliably sourced that he claimed this, and is part of the controversy. "The fight was fixed" is a different matter entirely. Your comments suggest you are confusing the difference between the two. I will suggest again that you read Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth, as your comments on my talk page make it clear you have not read or understood it. AIRcorn suggests that claims of the fight being fixed are too fringe, which is reasonable, but that Botha's claim he was unaware of the time change should be restored. Now you are agreeing with AIRcorn and accepting that Botha's claim he was unaware of the time change should be restored? I am struggling to follow your logic. The article, in its current state, does not reflect the majority of independent observers unhappiness with the fight, nor the more fringe opinion (and reliably sourced opinion is perfectly entitled to exist in a Wikipedia article) that the fight was fixed. It also unquestioningly accepts the claim that Williams is now the WBA boxing champion, which is in doubt (again, reliably sourced) since the fight was shortened, there are claims of no WBA representatives at the fight, and the unregistered jurisdiction the fight was held in. I am not interested in edit warring, but all of these are sourced in the deleted references and can be restored if anyone wishes to correct the article's deficiencies. Greenman (talk) 14:07, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Again let me explain my point: you claim "Botha claimed that the fight was fixed" is not false, it's reliably sourced that he claimed this". Well, Botha can also claim that the earth is flat...Should we then include such an opinion if it's reliably sourced? Of course not. Why? Because such an opinion is nowadays indisputably false. Likewise, Botha can claim whatever he likes about the fight, but his own camp have denied his own match-fixing claims. If you are so desperate to add his claim then add it on his article page - not on SBW's. People can also claim that the title wasn't WBA sanctioned e.t.c. but the fact of the matter is none of these other claims are yet proven. So likewise, since these claims are not grounded in fact or certainty yet, people do not have a right to add it in the articles yet, no matter which source is speculating e.g. the Wall Street Journal, The Telegraph e.t.c. The only things that have been proven so far is that there was no match-fixing and that Botha tested positive to banned substances. Therefore, they have been included. Thankyou.Suid-Afrikaanse (talk) 01:09, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry Suid-Afrikaanse, but the fact that one of the two fighters has claimed the match might have been fixed is significant enough to warrant inclusion, even if this is later demonstratably proved false. Just like we don't yet have confirmation that it was a WBA title fight. It is a fact that Botha claimed the fight was fixed, it is not a fact that the fight was fixed. That is something that we just don't know. Mattlore (talk) 01:18, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: No offense Mattlore, but i don't see how just because Botha claimed something we then have to add it into SBW's article. If people want to add it then why don't they add it in Botha's article? They can even open a new sub-heading titled "Quotes" and add it as one of his quotes. But i don't see why it has to be added anyway. Just because someone says something doesn't make it necessary or even appropriate to add. If Botha had claimed that the person he was fighting was an SBW-double, should we then add it in SBW's article because "one of the two fighters has claimed" it? This really makes zero sense. False statements shouldn't be given any weight on Wikipedia - especially on the article page of the people they seek to defame. I think the fact that it already states that Botha was not informed of the round reduction by his camp is enough and proper.Suid-Afrikaanse (talk) 02:35, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

text: With the amount of bullshit that seems to follow boxing I would argue that the significance of a fighter saying they lost a match because the fight was fixed is quite low. Anyway the only quote I found "There's this whole damn match fixing thing going on here, isn't this match fixing?", is quite poor. It seems more to be questioning the shortened rounds than saying that the whole thing was fixed. I don't think the fans perspective should be included at all, shit there would be huge write ups after every NRL game if we reported fans claims of match fixing. AIRcorn (talk) 01:57, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

text: As an aside if we are going to say that he dominated most rounds, we should probably also say that he was shaken in the tenth (or something similar). I doubt there would be as much controversy if Botha did not look so much better towards the end. AIRcorn (talk) 02:02, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Completely agree that fans opinions are irrelevant. I think these sources are quite clear with him claiming it "amounts to match-fixing" and his camp seeking it to become a no contest - but yeah if you want to include the questioning of the shortened rounds but not use the term match fixing I think thats fine too . Mattlore (talk) 02:11, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I doubt this is the end of it in any case. Sport in Aussie is taking a beating at the moment so I figure it will get a decent investigation. AIRcorn (talk) 02:35, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of sourced information on claims on fixed fight 

message: What exactly is the WBA International Heavyweight Championship? As I understood it, the WBA heavyweight champion is Povetkin, and Klitschko, who holds all other heavyweight titles, is the WBA Super champion. My question was also motivated by surprise that a fight between such an aged boxer and a relative novice could in any way be considered a title fight.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.149.166.148 (talk) 03:38, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Some of the sources that have been removed by the editor above deal with this issue as well, as there is doubt about its status due to the controversial shortening, and doubt whether any WBA officers were present. Greenman (talk) 07:20, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I came here to say something similar. I have little interest in boxing, but being a Kiwi couldn't help about reading this fight particularly the subsequent controversy. I had heard before he won some sort of title, I always assumed it was perhaps a Asia-Pacific title or something similar. Today I read it was a WBA international heavyweight title. This lead to World Boxing Association and more searches leading to a surprisingly lack of information. I did come across  and similar results about the possible lack of WMA officals which Greenman mention. After a long time I ended up at  and after some confusion worked out it seems that WBA may have an international heavyweight, world heavyweight, super world heavyweight (and others). Povetkin is the current world heavyweight, Klitschko the super world and Sonny Bill Williams may or may not be the international. I don't know whether it's because of the controversy or what but the official WBA site  doesn't seem to mention Sonny Bill Williams (or Francois Botha) at all. Whatever the international title is, it doesn't seem to be particularly significant even for the WBA, whoever now holds it. Nil Einne (talk) 07:19, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I was just as confused as you and did some looking as well. It does appear that there is an international heavyweight belt, plus a whole heap of other heavyweight ones for the WBA. On top of that there are four major organisations that award heavyweight belts, most of which call themselves "world" or "international". Spots seem to be vacated for various reasons (changing divisions, refusing to fight certain opponents etc). To be honest it looks like a complete mess. I think Williams may well be the International heavyweight champion of the world, but I have no idea what that means in terms of boxing rankings. I would say that it is all about the Benjamins, i.e. it sounds better to promote a fighter as the International champion even if there are a dozen or so others with a similar title. AIRcorn (talk) 00:20, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it is very messy indeed. But don't hold your breath for the day boxing gets its act together. If anything, one suspects that there will only be more "titles" added to the plethora that already exist. Very sad and disheartening. Apparently, Boxrec has SBW ranked 100 in the world. Why couldn't he just stick to rugby?! :) .Suid-Afrikaanse (talk) 06:04, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  WBA International Heavyweight Championship 

message: I realise he's come back to league but the infobox could do with stating his position(s) when he played union. Red Fiona (talk) 16:57, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Position in Rugby Union 

message: I am confused by the reference to Mr Williams' ethnicity. How is "John Williams" a Samoan? That sounds like a perfectly standard English name. All the ethnic Samoans I know have Samoan names.Royalcourtier (talk) 00:15, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ethnicity 

message: I think it is now relevant to mention his sending off in tonight's game, only the third time an All Black has been sent off in an international and first case since 1967. 222.152.58.183 (talk) 10:34, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Currently mentioned. AIRcorn (talk) 19:57, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 1 July 2017 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Sonny Bill Williams. 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/20081122092330/http://www.foxsports.com.au/story/0,8659,24145484-23214,00.html to http://www.foxsports.com.au/story/0,8659,24145484-23214,00.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) 11:25, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified