Talk:Joe Calzaghe/Archive 1

Birth Date

He was born in 1972, can anyone change the box on the RHS of the page?

done --LiamE (talk) 21:41, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

"Anglo-Welsh"

Jesus christ, this website has sunk to a new nationalistic low. Joe Calzaghe is British and nothing else. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.161.138.45 (talk) 22:53, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

The Pride of Wales

To put a stop to the constant editing of the main article how about we have a full discussion here whether Joe Calzaghe is Welsh, Italian or British and then ask a Wikipedia Administrator to rule on what is appropriate to include in the main article. The Encyclopædia Britannica refers to Calzaghe as a Welsh boxer though his autobiography "No Ordinary Joe" is described as "The Autobiography of the Greatest British Boxer of our time" [1]. JoeWiki (talk) 11:24, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, Wales is part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and it's not possible to have Welsh citizenship, and since he was born in London, the capital of the UK, he's definitively and provably British. He clearly is associated with Wales, but there is no such thing as Welsh nationality, or Scottish, or English, or Northern Irish for that matter. It's not a difficult issue, just a very misinformed one because people aren't taught the facts.

Hi, Joe Calzaghe boxes as a Welsh boxer not as a british boxer. He boxes under the Welsh national flag and therefore represents Wales. The edit is therefore justifiable regardless of any bigoted opinion as to the non- existence of the Welsh nation! And I shall re-edtit accordinglyPencerdd (talk) 16:43, 30 August 2008 (UTC)pencerdd

For the editor above that thinks there is no Welsh nationality, perhaps you should take a look at the wikipedia article on nationality. "Nationality can also mean membership in a cultural/historical group related to political or national identity, even if it currently lacks a formal state." The facts are these: Joe was born in England, holds a British passport and identifies himself as Welsh. Saying he is Welsh conveys more information to the reader than simply saying he is British, while at the same time effectively stating that he is British. Therefore Welsh seems preferable to me than British. As his place of birth is clearly mentioned we probably dont need a clarification such as "an English born Welsh boxer" or similar, though I wouldnt be against it as such. --LiamE (talk) 21:59, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

NPOVING

This article needs EXTENSIVE NPOVing. RickK 04:46, May 13, 2005 (UTC)

• I did some npoving. We need to lkeep it on our eyes. Antonio Veit's destroyer Martin 12:30, March 5, 2005 (UTC)

This is about tag cleanup. As all of the tags are more than a year old, there is no current discussion relating to them, and there is a great deal of editing done since the tags were placed, or in some cases it's clear there is a consensus, they will be removed. This is not a judgement of content. If there is cause to re-tag, then that of course may be done, with the necessary posting of a discussion as to why, and what improvements could be made. Better yet, edit the article yourself with the improvements in place. This is only an effort to clean out old tags, and permit them to be updated with current issues if warranted.Jjdon (talk) 22:34, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Joe Calzaghe succession box

Championships can be replaced with a succession box Maya Levy 03:52, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Box added. Hixx

Thank you Maya Levy 04:15, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

MISTAKE ON AMATEUR RECORD:

Joe is only the second boxer in history to win ABA titles at three different weights. He is the only boxer in history to win ABA titles at welterweight, light-middleweight and middleweight. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.252.80.100 (talk) 16:07, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Orthodox fighters

• Right handed fighters are called Orthodox
• Left handed fighters are called Southpaws, not unorthodox (Not necessarily. De la hoya is left-handed, but he uses orthodox stance. There are also some right-handed boxers who has southpaw pose.)

Maya Levy 04:23, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=unorthodox+southpaw&btnG=Google+Search&meta= Calzaghe is an unorthodox southpaw. Hixx

http://www.boxrec.com/boxer_display.php?boxer_id=005364 < clearly states he's a southpaw

Southpaws are generally called southpaws, not unorthodox southpaws

Maya Levy 04:28, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

It's a cultural diference. The term 'unorthodox southpaw' is used quite frequently here in the UK. Indeed the entry for prince naseem bears the same term: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince_Naseem .

point made. since he's a UK fighter I'll leave the term Maya Levy 04:37, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

---

I think perhaps you've misunderstood the overall term and are being too rigid with its use. The term Southpaw relates to those boxers who fight right hand/foot forward and jab with the right. Orthodox refers to those who stand left hand/foot forward and jab with the left hand - What is generally referred to as "normal" or regular stance and one that has been taught since boxing began.

Referring to a Hamed as an unorthadox Southpaw means that he is a southpaw who boxes in an unconventional manner i.e. non textbook, which he did. Calzaghe is very textbook and is just a "normal" Southpaw. The usage of unorthodox means just that, that he is not conventional. Using it in any sort of context to state a fighter's stance is a nonsense. A style, yes. Orbtastic (talk) 16:00, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Robin Reid

No mention of the Reid fight being a split decision as well as controversial?? BoxNut83 19:43, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Isn't every split decision controversial by nature?

The Reid fight wasn't controversial actually. A few people thought Reid did enough...it was close enough for debate of the good kind....Anthony Robbins 21:22, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Image

sort out the image it looks like someone testing photoshop for the first time - badly

www.calzaghe.com has some good images

There would be copyright problems if we were to upload images from the website. You could try this. I haven't looked, but give it a go, by all means. Cheers, Daicaregos (talk) 14:36, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Enzo Calzaghe

The first person who taught him the first boxing lessons was his father, Enzo. Joe was 9 years old. I am adding the link.

• [[2]]

Jack 15:50, 30 Jan 2007 (UTC)

I think it should say something about his dad being his trainer. It makes sense. Michael Dolan

Birthplace

The main article currently has his birthplace as Hammersmith, while the infobox says Newbridge. One of these is perhaps wrong.

As his own website say, born Hammersmith but raised in Wales - that's where the confusion comes in! Rgds, - Trident13 (talk) 22:34, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Wrong date for Kessler fight

Aa mentioned by a user in the history page, the date of the Kessler fight should be the 4th rather than 3rd. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.243.253.221 (talk) 00:53, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

All press gave the date as the 3rd I think so as not to be confusing to the TV and ticket buying audiences. The undercard started on the 3rd although the fight itself was on the 4th - unless you were watching in the US where it was still the 3rd! --LiamE 13:03, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes the 3rd would be correct then! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.254.141 (talk) 18:47, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Undisputed

Calzaghe Kessler was not a full unification fight and Calzaghe is technicially NOT the undisputed champ so to bad. You can't put it in there. WIKI rules guys.Xman52 (talk) 23:48, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

There are many perfectly good cites for Calzaghe now being the undisputed champion so it can stay. You of course refer to the IBF title which has gone elsewhere. Joe won that title from the man who won it from the man, and despite remaining active was forced to vacate the title or face a guy that simply should not be in a ring with a 10 year world champ as was shown in Steiglitz's next fight, and the next fight of his victor. It is rediculous of a sanctioning body to try and force mandatory defenses onto a champion of fights that cannot be made financially viable as the challenger is barely top 20 material. The upshot of this is not that Joe is not undisputed as champion, it is that the IBF super middleweight belt currently means diddly. Its odd that you don't care whether Joe has the WBU or IBO belts, but seem to care about the IBF belt which has, by its governing body actions, relegated itself to their prestige level. --LiamE (talk) 09:52, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Whatever, He doesn't have the IBF title. Bottom line, He's not undisputed.Xman52 (talk) 16:23, 23 November 2007 (UTC) Also I had to take down the Rocky Marciano reference because 49-0 is not an unbeaten record. Many fighters have gone undefeated for longer then that. He is the only heavyweight champion who retired undefeated. That's totally different. Xman52 (talk) 16:30, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Whatever indeed. Welcome to Original Research. Your opinion on the matter is about as important as mine. MANY repected authorities on the sport can be cited saying Joe is undisputed and few if any saying there is any dissent, so, as far as the article is concerned, he is undisputed. As for the Marciano record people love sticking that everywhere, I for one would not miss it. --LiamE (talk) 16:45, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Here's a few references for him being undisputed champ. [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] Unless you can come up with some decent cite to say otherwise I will revert the article to its previous state in a day or 2. You may not be aware of wiki policy on these matters. Whether your idea about him "only" having 4 of the 5 respected belts the division means he is not undisputed champin is right or wrong doesn't matter at all - what matters is what can be cited, anything else is original research and is not permissable. If you can cite to the contrary we can add a section discussing the validity of his undisputed claim otherwise the article must reflect his undisputed status as it did before. --LiamE (talk) 02:18, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

---

Xman52's talking rubbish again. When Calzaghe boxed Lacy there was no Linear champion, and they weren't the consensus top two in the world. Same with Kessler-Beyer. Before those two fights all 4 were simply title holders. After the two unifications Kessler was as much a champion as Calzaghe was. Calzaghe-Kessler crowned the undisputed champion. It's simple. The fact that the IBF stripped Calzaghe after the Lacy fight is irrelevent.Anthony Robbins (talk) 18:18, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

There is a page "Undisputed Champion" you might want to contribute to. The phrase has a strict meaning, i.e. "recognized by all the [main] sanctioning bodies". In this sense, Calzaghe was clearly not the "undisputed champion". The WBA gives the title "undisputed champion" to a boxer with 2 other titles; in this sense, Calzaghe was "undisputed champion". That's a marginal piece of trivia, though I've mentioned it. Linear champion is not the same as undisputed champion, so that's irrelevant -- though feel free to add a Linear champion article. Journalists also use the term loosely, meaning "unquestionably the best, every true fan recognizes, whatever the corrupt money-grubbing sanctioning bodies might say"; it's relevant to quote lots of such journalists, but putting it in the section header is WP:PEACOCK, as well as misleading. I've summarized the issues and removed the header and I think the article is now better. If you think the article does not sufficiently indicate how superlative Calzaghe is, there are other less contentious ways you might redress that balance. jnestorius^(talk) 06:06, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Well done for finding a year old discussion to tag your comment to. There are a vast number of references for Joe being "undisputed" champion after the Kessler fight. WP:PEACOCK simply does not enter into it, undiputed is not a peacock term nor is it used without significant references. Trying to use Undisputed Champion as justification for your edits does not fly... the page appears to be almost entirely unreferenced and completely disagrees with the only decent source for a definition of undisputed that you have mentioned, the WBA, though for some odd reason you seem to want to ignore that definition and use your own. Do I really need to point out Wikipedia policy on original research to you? As explained by the WBA "undisputed" is the WBA title and 2 others, not specifically the WBC and IBF. In summary, by the only solid definition of undisputed, the WBA, Joe was undisputed. By your definition he was not. If you have anything to add that is not OR please fire away, otherwise I will revert the article in a day or two. --LiamE (talk) 16:38, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, thanks for not auto-reverting. I've updated the Undisputed Champion with what I could find online, and I'll check my library on Tuesday for some more. The WBA "undisputed" tag actually requires only 2 titles, not even the WBA's own; so Calzaghe was "undisputed" in this sense after beating Lacy. Since the newspapers did not describe him as such then, it seems a stretch to say that was the definition of "undisputed" they had in mind after Kessler. In summary, it's unclear what the newspapers meant by "undisputed". In that light, I think it's inappropriate for the term to be used in the section heading, since its meaning there is also unclear. Mentioning the description and discussing it in the text can be done without putting it in the heading.

I can see how, with earlier sections called "WBO Super Middleweight Champion" and "IBF Super Middleweight Champion" it would be good to highlight the culminating fight with a similar label. "WBA and WBC Super Middleweight Champion" is one suggestion. Or, if you change "IBF Super Middleweight Champion" to "IBF/WBO Super Middleweight Champion", then the later one would be "WBA/WBC/WBO Super Middleweight Champion" And possibly remove Super Middleweight from all of these and make it the superheading instead of Professional career jnestorius^(talk) 00:36, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Nationality

True, Calzaghe is considered Welsh on account that his he's from Wales. However, this is to be his ethnic group but it can't be his nationality. Here's why.

About a century ago, Wales, England, Scotland and Northern Ireland joined together to form a country which is the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Therefore, any person who come from either of these places is British. They even all share on one head of state and that is Gordon Brown.

Therefore, Calzaghe should be referred as British. 61.9.126.41 (talk) 13:10, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

I wish people from outside wouldn't confuse themselves with the complexities of nationality in a UK context. Firstly, Gordon Brown is the UK's head of government; the head of state is Queen Elizabeth II. Wales also has its own First Minister, Rhodri Morgan. The creation of the UK of GB & NI was the result of most of Ireland leaving the old UK of GB & I, but let's not get involved in the last thousand years of history. The UK is a country, and state, but England, Scotland, and Wales (less so Northern Ireland except in some contexts, but let's not go there) are also regarded as both countries and nations, although not as sovereign states. It is quite normal for people from the UK to refer to themselves as "Welsh", "English", "Scottish" and/or "British", and to have preferences about which order to classify themselves; I am firstly Welsh, then British, then from the EU, and it would appear that Calzaghe has the same preferences, at least for the first two. -- Arwel (talk) 14:08, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

I know the argument that under British law (or should this be the Laws of England & Wales) there is no longer a Welsh or English nationality. This might change how you complete your passport application but should we strike all reference to being Welsh and English on Wikipedia. What I was hoping for when I started this discussion is that we should at least be consistent. JoeWiki (talk) 18:21, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

English, Welsh etc are often hard to prove. There are a couple of verifiable ways of doing it. One is by passport, but that means that all those from the Home Nations are British by default. (Doesn't bother me, but it does bother lots of people). Another way, for sports men and women, is to use the nationality they compete under, which is also verifiable. Footballers then represent the Home Nations while racing drivers (for example) represent Gt Britain, because that happens to be the way those sports work. I don't know, but it seems likely that the (various) boxing authorities recognise England, Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland as separate entities.

Meanwhile, someone's edited this article to give Calzaghe's birthplace as Cwmbran, Wales. I'll put it back to London. Cheers. 4u1e (talk) 17:41, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Also why does Italian appear as a nationality? Does he hold an Italian passport as well? (Obviously he has very strong Italian heritage, but that's not the same thing as nationality, surely?) 4u1e (talk) 17:53, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Welsh most certainly is a nationality and Wales is a country. If you want to be really picky it is slightly different to the three other constituent countries of the UK in that it is a principality whereas the others are kingdoms, but I digress. Whether a British person is considered as English, Welsh, Scottish or Irish is really down to personal choice. Some identify with their family origins, some with their place of birth, others with where the grew up or lived for a large portion of their life. Joe is clearly a case of the latter. I changed the article back from Welsh to British earlier as that is what is cited. I'd be happy for the article to say he's Welsh as that is clearly how he sees himself rather than as "English born" despite that being technically accurate. Anyone got a nice cite for him being Welsh? Its an interesting can of worms... I dread to think what nationality the have down for "Aussie" Joe Bugner. I'm afraid to look! --84.92.8.246 (talk) 16:41, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Typical - just because he wasn't born in England, he's suddenly argued to be British! Here's a thought - you can argue where he was born; or you can conclude on what he states himself. Thankfully, the article now states his correct birth place of Hammersmith - but does anyone see him wearing a Union Jack, let alone calling himself British? Plus, his Mum's Welsh and his dad's mostly definitely Sardinian, so under international law he can claim anyone one of three "nationalities" - and he chooses: Welsh! So please, stop changing it around and accept he's only "British" in the eye's of the English. Rgds, - Trident13 (talk) 01:19, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

He was born in England, hence the discussion. --LiamE (talk) 01:38, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Calzaghe should be referred to as a Welsh boxer because that is what he calls himself. Nationality is nothing to do with it - his nationality remains British, since nationality is a legal attribute and the legal description of the nationality of the peoples of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is 'British'. People's description of themselves as Scottish, English or Welsh, on the other hand, is a description of which part of Britain they are from, and, more importantly, which culture they are part of.. But anyone who is Scottish, English or Welsh is also automatically 'British' because England Scotland and Wales are all part of the island of Britain, and anyone from Britain is 'British'. They also have the legal nationality of 'British' - which also extends to those from Northern Ireland. It is a matter of choice for British people choose to use their specific national identity (Welsh, Scottish etc.) ahead of their more general national identity (British). So 'Welsh' is a much more accurate and specific description of Joe's national and cultural identity than 'British' - although both are of course true. This is a particular issue for British people - and more particularly for the Scots and the Welsh- because cultural differences between the 3 countries of Britain - Scotland, England and Wales, have persisted over the centuries. Scotland and England were separate and often warring countries for 800 years before being united in an Act of Union only 300 years ago! Scotland still retains a separate legal system. The Welsh were militarily defeated by the English over 700 years ago but retain cultural differences and the Welsh language. So calling Joe a 'Welsh' boxer more accurately presents his homeland and his culture. It also at the same time represents his more general national identity as British since all Welsh are by definition British, AND presents his legal nationality (British) since all British people have British nationality! So calling him a 'British' boxer, whilst correct, is not so complete and leaves out a crucial part of his national and cultural identity. Whereas calling him Welsh tells us everything. SInce the function of the use of the word 'British', as it currently is in the body of the article, is to describe his national and cultural allegiance, 'Welsh' should be used instead of 'British'. But on the right where there is a specific label 'Nationality', 'British' should be used. davbeau

He's claimed his nationality is Welsh on a number of occasions, even suggesting it as the reason he failed to win British sports personality of the year on the same year he won Welsh sports personality . --Throquzum (talk) 01:38, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

theres these three countries called England Scotland & Wales they make up a big island called Great Britian & the people that were born in this island are considered "BRITISH" o_0 --Tukogbani (talk) 20:52, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the lesson in political geography. Have you considered contributing to the United Kingdom article, as they may not be aware of that either. My edit summary refered to the talk page. It was intended to direct editors to the last section here. The Wikipedia Manual of Style provides the rules within which we should edit artilces - the basic principles and style guidelines. Please do not revert edits that conform to the WP:MOS. I have removed the Union flag in the infobox. WP:MOS FLAGS says: "Do not use too many icons: When icons are added excessively, they clutter the page and become redundant ..." This is not a subjective or WP:POV stance. Joe Calzaghe self-identifies as Welsh, he does not self-identify, or represent, the UK. Consequently, this is reflected in the article about him and in the infobox. Daicaregos (talk) 08:57, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm certain people box under the nationality of British as you fight for the the British Title and box for Britain in the Olympic Games. However people may highlight there ethnicity as 'Welsh', 'English', 'Scottish' or 'Northern Irish'. Carl Froch and Amir Khan are both highlighted as British as opposed to English. (I do have a wikipedia user but can't be bothered to find it, and apologise for pouring salt on an old wound by talking about this again. 01:49 4 January 2011 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.128.137.250 (talk) 01:49, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Here are a few sources noting his nationality as Welsh: Daily Mail, Wales OnLine, Guardian, Independent, Daily Post, Hello Magazine, Swansea University, Welsh Boxers,Millennium Stadium, Sport Minister Alun Ffred Jones. Daicaregos (talk) 10:03, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

It can be either British or Welsh, see the Lennox Lewis article. In all these cases WP:CONSENSUS is the deciding factor. GoodDay (talk) 16:37, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

It says Lennox Lewis is British, As it does for David Haye. In the international community you are seen as British, and own a British Passport. Also, England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland aren't on the List of countries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.128.137.250 (talk) 20:47, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Undisputed disputed

You can't say Calzaghe is the undisputed champion when he only has 3 belts. You can't say him and Sven Otteke both have world title defense records when they both claim to be defending the same title in the same division at the same time. Neither 1 of there records are valid. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.30.156.157 (talk) 19:52, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Nonsense. Calzaghe is Undisputed & Linear Champion. Xman52 should be banned again. Fucking idiot.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Anthony Robbins (talk • contribs) 08:54, February 7, 2008 FU, you stupid british tea bagger. How the hell can Calzaghe and Otteke both have defense streaks in the same division at the same time. Because there both a joke thats how —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.30.156.157 (talk) 01:58, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Please see above for a dozen references to him being undisputed smw champ. Either cite a source that says different or just go away. Dont confuse that with him being undisputed for his entire reign. He became undisputed after beating Kessler, which was a numebr of years after Ottke's retirement. Ottke on the other hand never became undisputed champ. As for 2 boxers in the same division having streaks at the same time, that will always be possible as long as there is more than one belt. What you cant have is 2 undisputed streaks. That has not happened. --LiamE (talk) 18:54, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

---

Someone ban him please. He's nothing but a vandal. Anthony Robbins (talk) 16:45, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Edited above for civility. Dont let it get to you Anthony, its only the interweb. --LiamE (talk) 19:02, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Spin, spin, spin,. Calzaghe and Otteke's "streaks" don't deserve to be mentioned in the same breath as real champions like Larry Holmes and Joe Louis. Joe Calzaghe is nothing but a WBO belt holder who just became the super middleweight champion recently.

I totaly agree the Louis' 25 defenses of an undisputed title is a class apart. Again Holmes' record is outstanding - he was the main man for most of his reign though there was some politicking going on and one could agrue it wasnt a great time for the division. However the article at no point tries to claim that Calzaghe's reign is superior to these, it merely states fact as to how long he has held the WBO (and recently other) belts. Value judgements as to the importance of the WBO belt have no place on wikipedia. The links are there for people to make up there own mind as to how important a title it is. The facts are he has held the WBO belt for a long time and defended it 20 or so times. As long as the article sticks to those facts what is your problem? --LiamE (talk) 18:55, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

This article is totally biased. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.30.156.157 (talk) 00:33, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I suppose that must be true as the article does not conform to the agenda that you have been single handedly pushing for some time now. Sorry that isnt how it works. You have made no effort to discuss any changes and it is clear your motives in editing this article are purely to denigrate the subject, not to improve the article in terms of copy or accuracy. Either try and discuss what changes the article needs and what needs improvement in an adult manner or find something else to do. Either way bear in mind that this article MUST conform to WikiBIO standards and everything must be sourced. You seem to have a bee in your bonnet about whether Joe is the undisputed champ or not. I have provided a dozen or so good sources to say he is, whereas you havnt found one that says he isnt. Until you do you wont have much joy getting anything into the article saying he is anything other than the current undisputed super middleweight champion of the world. I must warn you your boorish bahaviour on this page could be considered tantamount to page disruption. Please try and be constructive. --LiamE (talk) 22:51, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Oops, looks like my warning was a bit late. See you in two weeks no doubt. --LiamE (talk) 23:09, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Copyright violation

The section on Calzaghe's win over Hopkins is a blatant copyright violation. Can someone please recrtify this? Thanks. LuciferMorgan (talk) 04:19, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Records

I made this comment on ITN but it may be useful to editors here... [14] & [15] suggests the world record for undefeated matches by a pro boxer is 49 held by Rocky Marciano (who was a heavyweight champion). The other significant record appears to be that of world title defenses by Joe Louis at 25. Whatever the case, Caljaghe has virtually no chance of getting the most wins of a professional boxer given the large number of fights boxers of previous eras participated in e.g. Harry Greb Nil Einne (talk) 08:03, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

It would be wrong to suggest that 49-0 is the record for any pro boxer to go undefeated. It is the record for a world champion at heavyweight to retire undefeated on. Off the top of my head Julio Cesar Chavez went to 86-0 or so at one point. Joe Louis' 25 defenses at heavyweight is an all weight record as his his length of championship tunure. Although Calzaghe is closing in on that, the two are not really comparable as Louis was undisputed for the whole reign whereas Calzaghe held one of several titles for most of his. --LiamE (talk) 01:35, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I think that this reference to his so called 'ranking' should be removed: Calzaghe is rated by Boxrec as the 11th pound-for-pound best British boxer of all time.[6] To those who know a lot about British boxing JC is one of the best if not the best British boxer ever. The former boxer and pundit Barry McGuigan said that JC was the best British boxer ever and I feel that should be reflected in the opening paragraphs rather than this stupid BOXREC thing which rates Lennox Lewis as the best British boxer ever - I mean come on! 86.6.106.166 (talk) 12:08, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Ring

A boxer cannot be the Ring champion in two weight divisions at the same time. Calzaghe therefore cannot be both the super-middle and the light-heavyweight champion simultaneously. If he becomes the Ring's light-heavyweight champion, he will automatically vacate the supper-middleweight Ring title. Please wait and see what The Ring actually do about this (keep him as super-middleweight champion? move him up to light-heavyweight?) before changing this - note [16] still lists Hopkins as LH champion as of this message. I think he will be moved to Light-Heavyweight champion, but if he is, he will automatically vacate the super-middleweight Ring title - but wait and see. Neıl ☎ 12:05, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I have a suspicion they will make Joe ring champ in the division he decides to fight in next. --LiamE (talk) 16:48, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I actually don't think there is any "automatic" stripping of titles. Much like Ring ranks fighters in two divisions when they are champions in one weight class but campaign at another weight, I think they would list Calzaghe at both SM and LH if he said he would campaign at both. Calzaghe probably won't do this, but to say that "a boxer cannot be Ring champion in two weight divisions at the same time" isn't supported by anything published by the Ring.MKil (talk) 02:55, 22 April 2008 (UTC)MKil

Ring don't rank anybody in two classes. Ring never rank anybody in two classes simultaneously. Look for yourself. Neıl ☎ 15:20, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but you are simply wrong. I have a copy of the ratings from the December 2006 issue. Ricky Hatton is the Jr. Welter champ and he's also the #4 welterweight. You have no basis upon which to proclaim Ring's rating's policy. Calzaghe clearly won the LH championship in his fight with Hopkins. Rafael says so and Buffer said so in the ring after the fight. There is no need to wait for Ring to update their page.MKil (talk) 15:35, 22 April 2008 (UTC)MKil

Further evidence that Ring does indeed rank fighters in two weight classes from here [17]: "In the immediate aftermath of his middleweight victory over Felix Trinidad on May 14, 2005, Wright told The Ring that he intended to drop back down to 154-pound to defend his junior middleweight belt. Therefore, we continued to recognize him as the junior middleweight champion and also installed him as the number-two middleweight contender." And in 2003 Roy Jones was LH champ and ranked at heavyweight[18]. Back in 1982, in fact, Sugar Ray Leonard was recognized by Ring as both JM champ and welterweight champ[19]. MKil (talk) 15:49, 22 April 2008 (UTC)MKil

I'll be damned. Ring have updated their ratings and gone against their own rules ("The only three occasions when a fighter will lose his championship status are when he retires, moves to another weight division, or is defeated in a championship bout"). Neıl ☎ 17:23, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Not to belabor the point, but you are misinterpreting their rules. They never said what you claimed they said. A fighter can campaign at two different weights. If he permanently decided to fight at only one weight the Ring will recognize that decision and rank him accordingly. They never strip champions. They merely recognize when a champion relinquishes his title.MKil (talk) 17:39, 22 April 2008 (UTC)MKil

Personal Information

Can you add his official website to this? www.calzaghe.com

According to his profile information on www.FamousHookups.com, Joe is married to a model named Jo-Emma Larvin. This two boys' names are Joe Jr. and Connor. --KTJackson (talk) 19:07, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

With regard to his height is states on his website he is 6ft not 5ft 11.5 he also was stated as being 6ft against hopkins see http://www.joecalzaghe.com/stats.asp —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.17.107.96 (talk) 10:41, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

There are good cites for both 5'11.5" and 6'. Personally I would leave it at whatever it is out of those two, the fact is measuring of height is not that acurate and either figure is supportable. His site has 6', boxrec and others 5'11.5". --LiamE (talk) 23:57, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I think it is woth noting that Boxrec now have Joe as number 1 pound4pound fighter in the world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.61.96.249 (talk) 06:50, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Wrong name for ex wife ---- Joe's ex-wife is called Mandy. They are divorced and she is the mother of his two boys - Joe Jr, 13, and Conner, 10. His girlfriend is called Jo-Emma Larvin. They are not married nor engaged. http://www.dotspotter.com/news/814411_Joe_Calzaghe_with_girlfriend_Jo_Emma_Larvin_and_sons_Conner_and_Joseph http://icwales.icnetwork.co.uk/news/wales-news/tm_objectid=16833203&method=full&siteid=50082&headline=book-will-hold-the-truth---calzaghe-s-ex-mandy-name_page.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.252.80.100 (talk) 16:03, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi Adam, the calzaghe.com website is the first listing under the External links section. Cheers, Daicaregos (talk) 14:41, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Cool, my bad for not noticing it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adam Heayberd (talk • contribs) 14:44, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Relinquishment

When will Calzaghe relinquish the super-middleweight titles? He beat everybody he needed to beat at that weight, it's time to move on to the rest of the light-heavyweight division.--69.131.125.222 (talk) 01:58, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

He has said he is only likely to fight once more, and the likely opponent would be Roy Jones. Although that fight would be huge in any event by not vacating the titles Joe leaves options open such as fighting Jones at 168 for multiple titles or if that were to fall through maybe someone like Kelly Pavlik, again for the 168lb belts. He would be mad to vacate any titles before he had to. In any case he beat the concensus number 2 at 168lb jsut 6 months ago, so most bodies would not push a mandatory defense on him for a few months yet. --LiamE (talk) 04:50, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Fight Against Kelly Pavlik

Although some claim that this fight will happen, it is not certain yet. Calzaghe himself still has to agree to the bout. In my opinion he will probably choose to fight Roy Jones Jr in which would probably be both their last fights. Taking the Roy Jones Jr option would also give Joe more chance of keeping his unbeaten record. But, he still might take the challenge of a fight with Pavlik, because he loves challenges and is a very gutsy fighter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ezlangley6 (talk • contribs) 12:57, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

CBE

He's been awarded the CBE in the latest Honours List. (Source: BBC) Not sure whether it takes effect immediately, though, so am not editing for now. 86.149.0.189 (talk) 23:36, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

---Wrong name for ex wife ---- Joe's ex-wife is called Mandy. They are divorced and she is the mother of his two boys - Joe Jr, 13, and Conner, 10. His girlfriend is called Jo-Emma Larvin. http://www.dotspotter.com/news/814411_Joe_Calzaghe_with_girlfriend_Jo_Emma_Larvin_and_sons_Conner_and_Joseph http://icwales.icnetwork.co.uk/news/wales-news/tm_objectid=16833203&method=full&siteid=50082&headline=book-will-hold-the-truth---calzaghe-s-ex-mandy-name_page.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.151.112.61 (talk) 00:47, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

World Titles

He only Relinquished the WBC title.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/boxing/7489353.stm

He's relinquished all of his SM titles

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/boxing/7638453.stm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.32.110.42 (talk) 21:26, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Chasing Marciano

he's still undefeated but he's now just 3 wins behind Rocky Marciano. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.189.21.176 (talk) 19:21, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Marciano 49-0; Calzaghe 46-0. Yep, 3 to tie. GoodDay (talk) 22:56, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism

Seems to be a spate of petty/childlike vandalism on the article at the moment. If it continues it may be worth seeking semi-protection for the page, 'till things die down. Any thoughts? Daicaregos (talk) 16:18, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I think there's a good argument to be made in favour of having some form of protection. This article seems to be getting vandalised every other day Notjamesbond (talk) 23:32, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Picture

In this picture, Calzaghe looks like a total woos. Maybe put a tougher looking picture. In this picture, he looks like a wee willy weak sauce whoopin' boy. TacoElf31 (talk) 12:00, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Don't tell Joe, that. GoodDay (talk) 22:54, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Next challenge

Why has the article of joe calzaghes next challenge been removed? It was both accurate and relevant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.214.14.10 (talk) 19:00, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

No, it's just speculation about his future.MKil (talk) 22:26, 17 November 2008 (UTC)MKil

WBC WBA Super middleweight champion

Someone had put on here that calzaghe was the current WBC and WBA super middleweight champion. These titles however i believe are held by mikkel kessler and carl froch i have therefore removed the section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.214.152.35 (talk) 13:03, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

You're correct. Kessler & Froch are the current title holders. GoodDay (talk) 21:06, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Apparently false Cite error message

I notice that the error message Cite error: ref tags exist, but no references/ tag was found appears at the article's foot. Yet the references are OK, gathered by a Reflist template. Does anyone know what the problem is, and how to fix this? Cheers Bjenks (talk) 02:17, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

• Fixed, if you placed the references in the "References" section, in future: place them within the text next to the statement they are backing up. The reflist template is automatic and these references will appear in that section once you've used this format: <ref>[http://www.url.com Title]</ref> Cheers. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 02:27, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks and, yeah, it does look fixed. I really do understand how the refs work, and had only adjusted a couple while copy-editing. (The one you moved was not one of them, so I'm still a bit puzzled :) Cheers Bjenks (talk) 02:50, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi Bjenks. It wasn't your edit that caused problem. It was earlier anonymous revision by 209.103.213.254 as of 23:26, 2 February 2009 that introduced the cite error. Hope that explains it. --SallyScot (talk) 19:03, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Pronounciation

How is 'Calzaghe' pronounced? It would be a good idea to add that to the lead paragraph - it's a pretty uncommon name. Terraxos (talk) 03:02, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

It's Sardinian. An Italian would say it like kaltz-'argay (hard 'g', stress on 2nd syllable). The boyos in Wales probably render this as kalz'argee, but let's await confirmation from Cymru, eh? Cheers Bjenks (talk) 03:56, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Proposed merge of related articles

At Talk:Newbridge boxing club, I've proposed pulling that article together with Team Calzaghe for the benefit of both articles. Not a huge deal, but some of you might like to get an oar in on this. If/when we do this, I'd also like to capitalise the name 'Newbridge Boxing Club'. Cheers Bjenks (talk) 06:57, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

OK, no consensus, I've withdrawn that proposal. Bjenks (talk) 05:53, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

The Hopkins fight

I'm sorry, but the notion that Joe's victory over Bernard Hopkins was "highly controversial" is rubbish! You could have written controversial, but the guy who wrote it is obviously either a Hopkins fan or not a big fan of Joe, tho that seems strange if he bothered to write an article about him. Anyway, it's not true. Joe won that fight clearly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mahkala (talk • contribs) 23:41, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Wii Ad.

Is he not in a Wii advert for a a Boxing game with his son? Is this note worthy? Saladin Bakr (talk) 10:15, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

"English Born"

So if Christian Bale is "Welsh" born so should he. Also see John Rhys-Davies. What I originally used in the Edit summery, it seems fair enough. Hi's nationality is already mentioned as Welsh which I agree with. But then Bale sees himself as English. And if someone is unhappy about this because they are a Welsh nationalist Anglophobe, I’m pretty sure we can discount there opinion as non-NPOV.--Hawklin (talk) 21:45, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

The correct factual terminology would be "English-born Welsh boxer". --Jimbo^[online] 21:47, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I know!--Hawklin (talk) 21:56, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

The subject has been discussed on this page before (see the 'Nationality' section above). He was born in London, and that fact is noted in the infobox and is in the first sentence of the biography section, which is as it should be. Neither of his parents is English and he self-identifies as Welsh. That he is English born is not notable enough to be in the lead paragraph. Using terms such as 'a Welsh nationalist Anglophobe' contravenes WP:AGF and Wikipedia:Civility Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines, please don't. Daicaregos (talk) 09:46, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Christian Bale identifies as English, and neither of his perants were Welsh. So i think you can understand my objection?--Hawklin (talk) 11:06, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

This is the talk page for Joe Calzaghe, not Christian Bale.--Frank Fontaine (talk) 11:30, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

There is nothing to state that putting "English-born Welsh boxer" is against any Manual of style points. It is factually correct. His parents both being Welsh has nothing to do with getting over the fact of what country he was born in. I have to echo the above point raised about Bale - nowt to do with Joe Calzaghe. --Jimbo^[online] 11:35, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Where he was born is not notable enough to be in the lead paragraph. Daicaregos (talk) 11:50, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

As per what criteria/guidline? The criteria at WP:MOSNUM#Dates of birth and death states it shouldn't be included with the date of birth in the lead, but "given subsequently rather than being entangled with the dates" i.e. in the brackets. --Jimbo^[online] 11:56, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

As per notable. i.e. why does it make any difference where Joe Calzaghe was born? It is already noted in the infobox and in the first sentence of the biography section that he was born in London, which is enough. Daicaregos (talk) 12:03, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

There's nothing mentioned in WP:Notability about place of birth's in leads, that's a guideline to define who is notable for an article on Wikipedia. Infoboxes and the lead are just a general summary of content in the main prose, and so it should be mentioned in both to summarise the content. --Jimbo^[online] 12:45, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)You're right about WP:Notability being a guideline to define who is notable for an article on Wikipedia. My bad. Re: WP:MOSNUM#Dates of birth and death 'Locations of birth and death are given subsequently rather than being entangled with the dates.' This does not say it should be part of the lead paragraph. However, Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies)#Opening paragraph says:

The opening paragraph should give:

1. Name(s) and title(s), if any;
2. Nationality;
3. What the person did;
4. Why the person is significant.

Where a person was born is excluded from the Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies)#Opening paragraph guidelines. The question: why does it make any difference where Joe Calzaghe was born (and therefore make it notable enough to be in the lead paragraph)? remains unanswered. Daicaregos (talk) 13:30, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

True, put into the second paragraph of the lead where it talks about his heritage. --Jimbo^[online] 15:25, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I reiterate the question, for the third time: why does it make any difference where Joe Calzaghe was born (and therefore make it notable enough to be in the lead paragraph)? He has no English heritage, so why mention it in the part about his heritage? I simply don't understand how it would enhance a reader's understanding of Calzaghe - as a person or his deeds. Please enlighten me. Daicaregos (talk) 20:56, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Info Box

I have reinstated the Welsh flag in the infobox. WP:MOS FLAGS says: 'Subnational flags (e.g., England rather than UK) are traditionally used in some sports, and should not be changed to the national flag without consensus.' Daicaregos (talk) 15:03, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

It also says that flags are discouraged in sportspeople's individual infoboxes. Mgmvegas (talk) 02:26, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

As far as Wikiproject Boxing is concerned, there is no consensus regarding the use of flags in infoboxes. However, it is not only quite usual to have a nationality flag in the infobox of boxers' pages (e.g. Joe Louis, Sugar Ray Leonard, Steve Bendall, Robert Lloyd-Taylor, Ted "Kid" Lewis, Terry Marsh (boxer), Alan Minter, David Price (boxer), Frank Bruno, James J. Corbett, Steve Bendall, Robert Lloyd-Taylor, etc., etc.), it is unusual for there not to be a nationality flag in the infobox of boxers' pages. Further, of the 3 articles on boxers to have achieved WP:FA, Michael Gomez has a flag icon (Susianna Kentikian has dual nationality (so one flag would be inappropriate) and Simon Byrne has no infobox). Daicaregos (talk) 10:17, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Another example is Lennox Lewis. It can be either the British flag or the Welsh flag. In such cases as this WP:CONSENSUS is the deciding factor. GoodDay (talk) 16:33, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Nationality problem

Discussion here is superceded by the one Snowded has opened at the discussion page of WP:MOSBIO, so no need for it to continue here. Mabuska (talk) 09:54, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Welsh is not a nationality in the sense of how its meant to be used in the infobox. Joe cannot be a citizen/national of Wales, he can only be a citizen/national of the United Kingdom and thus British. The lede should also state British according to WP:MOSBIO as it should state his nationality - not regional identity. Mabuska (talk) 10:53, 18 July 2011 (UTC) Welsh is a nationality, not a regional identity. Please keep your trollish, POV insults off this talk page. There is no 'nationality problem' here. Please read WP:UKNATIONALS, which is relevant here. Your battleground seems to be thataway. Daicaregos (talk) 12:25, 18 July 2011 (UTC) His nationality is Welsh (he belongs to the Welsh nation) but his citizenship is British (he is a citizen of the United Kingdom). The infobox has a field for nationality and a field for citizenship. ~Asarlaí 01:56, 19 July 2011 (UTC) Daicaregos there is absolutely no need for that personal attack which is totally uncalled for. And your attempts to bring up another article to try to deride my comment is a serious ad hominem attack and quite a lame one at that as it appears you've never read the whole talk. I was never aware of WP:UKNATIONALS, so rather than making accusations and insults you could of simply provided that link and how it met Wikipedia:UKNATIONALS#Changing_an_existing_UK_nationality. In fact you should strike those insults as they are utterly uncalled for. Mabuska (talk) 10:46, 19 July 2011 (UTC) Just for the record WP:UKNATIONALS makes a mockery of WP:MOSBIO when you actually take into account point 3.1. It would be highly interesting to see editors try to prove how Welsh/Scottish/English etc. are nationalities (citizenship meaning of the word) according to UK nationality law. Anyways its hardly trollish or insulting to state that Welsh is a regional identity especially when it is a regional identity within the United Kingdom, a "sub-nationality" even of the UK. Mabuska (talk) 23:24, 24 July 2011 (UTC) Sub-national is a very provocative term. On the UK census, applicants are asked what nationality they are. British, Scottish, English and Welsh are all options. FruitMonkey (talk) 22:01, 31 July 2011 (UTC) How is that relevant? I'm talking about nationality as in citizenship nationality (which WP:MOSBIO states should be used) not cultural/ethnic nationality as the UK census is using. That is how WP:UKNATIONALS makes a mockery of WP:MOSBIO as the UK has only one nationality (as in citizenship not cultural/ethnic identity). I'm not denying that Welsh is a nationality (cultural/ethnic sense of it), of course it is, in all technicality the successor of a very ancient one that once covered all of England as well, however citizenship wise within the UK it doesn't exist. "Sub-nationality" is only provocative if you take it out of context, but then again so can anything. Just for the record incase someone thinks otherwise, i'm not persueing changing Joe's citizenship, just stating how Daiceragos vindication for it is a mockery of the overall guideline on the issue. As this topic no longer is about Joe Calzaghe at all there is no real need for it to continue. Mabuska (talk) 10:26, 1 August 2011 (UTC) Welsh is a nationality in boxing. You can win the Welsh title and are ranked as Welsh for titles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ruairí Óg's (talk • contribs) 19:13, 4 August 2011 (UTC) Ruairí Óg's is mistaken, Welsh is what Wikipedia call "ethnicity", correct nationality for Joe Calzaghe is British, per WP:OPENPARA, which is really clear on this point. Those are Wikipedia rules which dictate how articles should look like if we like it or not. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 23:17, 8 August 2011 (UTC) I've just realised and been informed that WP:UKNATIONALS is only an essay not a guideline or policy, and that it was a failed attempt at getting a policy for the issue, thus it has no authority at all so to use it as if it is a policy is a misleading and deceptive arguement. Mabuska (talk) 12:09, 9 August 2011 (UTC) I am certainly NOT wrong. Wales is a distinct nation in boxing and they send a Welsh team to the world championship, much like Wales complete in football as a seperate nation. You first can become the Welsh Champion in amateur boxing and then later in professional boxing also become the Welsh champion as Jeff Evans recently did.--Ruairí Óg's (talk) 14:53, 9 August 2011 (UTC) You should know by now Ruairí Óg's that nationality in this context is referring to citizenship not cultural or country of representation - and in that regards there is only one option unless they have become a citizen of another sovereign state. Boxing "nations" don't overrule WP:MOSBIO rule 3.1 Mabuska (talk) 21:08, 9 August 2011 (UTC) Having stated that, i think we need to include in the lede that he represents Wales. It is notable and shouldn't be left out. Mabuska (talk) 21:14, 9 August 2011 (UTC) I dont see a breach of WP:MOSBIO rule 3.1. It works within it.--Ruairí Óg's (talk) 08:12, 10 August 2011 (UTC) So your saying that according to UK nationality law that you can be a Welsh citizen? Mabuska (talk) 09:59, 10 August 2011 (UTC) Welsh is a nationality, and Wales competes as a nation in various sports. The convention is to work with self-identification per WP:MOSBIO use of "most" not "all" cases --Snowded TALK 08:27, 10 August 2011 (UTC) Where in MOSBIO does it state this convention? I can't see it all unless your talking about what name the boxer is called? Mabuska (talk) 09:59, 10 August 2011 (UTC) It doesnt say ALL its says MOST. Inter-GB nationality, citizenship and ethnicity is a complicated issue and doesnt fit a catch-all that you want. --Ruairí Óg's (talk) 10:26, 10 August 2011 (UTC) That doesn't back up Snowded's claims that WP:MOSBIO says go with self-identification which i can't find in that guideline. Anyways please read the entire sentence your quoting and try to explain how it backs up your opinion especially when you take into account UK nationality law and the fact the nationality parameter refers to nationality as in citizenship not ethnicity. Mabuska (talk) 10:40, 10 August 2011 (UTC) WP:MOSBIO is neutral on the position. Further many many articles on politicians, sports people, actors use the convention of self-identification. There have also been multiple discussions on articles such at Neil Kinnock all of which have supported self-identification. I have raised the issue for clarification at the appropriate forum so please respect WP:BRD --Snowded TALK 12:20, 10 August 2011 (UTC) Hence why the Neil Kinnock article states British in both the lede and infobox? Then again that is what he is pure and simply if we follow WP:MOSBIO, which yourself said is neutral. So what arguement is there against it? Anyways to show what an actual NPOV opinion on the matter is i will provide a possibly viable arguement for stating "Welsh" in the lede that meets the WP:MOSBIO guidelines without need for self-identification - however there is no case for the infobox as Welsh is not a citizenship within the UK. Context (location, nationality, or ethnicity); 1. In most modern-day cases this will mean the country of which the person is a citizen or national (according to each nationality law of the countries), or was a citizen when the person became notable. 2. Ethnicity or sexuality should not generally be emphasized in the opening unless it is relevant to the subject's notability. Similarly, previous nationalities or the country of birth should not be mentioned in the opening sentence unless they are relevant to the subject's notability. Not all articles actually state a persons nationality (citizenship), rather many just have location of birth. This can be interpreted as meaning we don't have to state their nationality in the lede. Secondly point 3.2 can be used as an arguement for Joe Calzaghe for if he identifies as being Welsh and it is relevant to the overall article and his career then you can argue that his ethnicity nationality is relevant to the article and thus should be stated in the lede. In that regard the lede can state Welsh (even though it doesn't mean British can't be mentioned as they aren't mutually-exclusive). On the infobox, there in only one option according to British nationality law. Thus to further show i am adhering to a NPOV on the issue, i'd propose the above as a compromise as it is technically not wrong - Welsh for the lede and British for the infobox. And if you have raised the issue at the appropriate forum then please be courteous and provide a link for the rest of us. Mabuska (talk) 10:11, 11 August 2011 (UTC) Just to state, even without that compromise idea, i'm not against Welsh in the lede if it meets 3.2 anyways, my real concern is the erroneous value in the infobox. Mabuska (talk) 10:23, 11 August 2011 (UTC) Different rules apply for politicians elected to the British Parliament, as they are clearly representing the United Kingdom. Alex Salmond, on the other hand, who's an MSP, is correctly described as Scottish. If Kinnock was a Welsh AM (or whatever they're called now) and not a British MP, it would be proper to call him Welsh. JonChappleTalk 11:09, 11 August 2011 (UTC) I moved your comment here as it was right in the middle of my comment which could confuse people into thinking the rest of my comment was yours. Mabuska (talk) 20:49, 11 August 2011 (UTC) I don't know how things work on boxing-related articles, but on WP:F1 we use the home nation in the lead and British in the infobox. I believe it would be appropriate to do the same here, although Welsh should link to Wales, not Welsh people, as WP:MOSBIO makes it clear it should be nationality in the infobox, not ethnicity. JonChappleTalk 11:06, 11 August 2011 (UTC) I have sort of suggested that as a compromise above, and how point 3.2 of WP:MOSBIO can be met so that ethnicity can be mentioned. Mabuska (talk) 20:49, 11 August 2011 (UTC) Apologies but I thought it was obvious that the discussion would be on the talk page of WP:MOSBIO. --Snowded TALK 21:38, 11 August 2011 (UTC) That only applies to the article ledes, not infoboxes. The infobox question is less clear cut hence the request for clarification at its infobox. Mabuska (talk) 10:14, 15 August 2011 (UTC) So that makes four locations where the discussion is taking place? Ever heard of forum shopping? --Snowded TALK 11:25, 15 August 2011 (UTC) Oh so asking for clafirication on the infobox at its template discussion page (which is different from the article lede) is forum shopping especially since you raised the issue at WP:MOSBIO which is for article ledes and not infoboxes? The infobox does need clarification anyways as its description is very poor. Mabuska (talk) 11:58, 15 August 2011 (UTC) Yes it is. This issue is general to many articles and subject matters so its inappropriate to try and get an agreement on one template when this affects many. The discussion is open on that at WP:MOSBIO which has discussions in information boxes as well. Discussions should take place on one place. --Snowded TALK 12:20, 15 August 2011 (UTC) So what happened your arguement of using precedent? Surely if we sort the issue here we could use precedent elsewhere then? Anyways you opened the discussion as WP:MOSBIO asking for clarification, i opened one at the infobox template dicussion asking for clarification (and nothing more other than expanding the description in the documenation) - which i opened before you notified me where you opened one at (i assumed WikiProject Wales, obviously i was wrong). Two different facets that don't affect each other and hardly forum shopping as i wasn't trying to impose one opinion over another and never knew where you opened your request for clarification at even though you asked for clarificiation on a different facet. I am fully justified in seeking clarification on the infobox as all infoboxes are different. Some have a citizenship parameter, some don't. Some don't have that or a nationality one (such as footballer infoboxes). Each infobox is different and shouldn't all be treated the same when they aren't the same especially when some editors use the "sporting nationality" arguement, which is fruitless in regards to an author etc. Mabuska (talk) 11:58, 15 August 2011 (UTC) So rather than make lame accusations can we try to focus on the issues at hand at the repsective place/s? Mabuska (talk) 12:48, 15 August 2011 (UTC) Very happy if you are prepared to stop making lame accusations. Opening up parallel discussions on the same subject is not as you know only too well good practice. I'll assume it wasn't sharp practice. We have long standing practice here and a discussion has opened up in respect of that. You want to change practice, go to that discussion and contribute. --Snowded TALK 13:08, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 19 March 2012

Boxing is one of the few sports where as a nation Britain is united. As Joe Calzaghe is the penultimate symbol of british boxing, making many british boxing fans proud of their british nationality. I personally am partly welsh, scottish and english but more than that I am british. Would it not be more accurate in terms of the sport (which usually regards fighters as british not/welsh/scottish/english) and the sportsmen to recognise him as british? 86.185.53.153 (talk) 14:51, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. We can only say what reliable sources claim. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 01:42, 20 March 2012 (UTC)