Talk:Sonny Bill Williams

Profile

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)

His full name

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)

Fair use rationale for Image:Sbwilliams nz press.gif

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)

Fair use rationale for Image:Sonnybillwilliams press010.jpg

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)

Move to union

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)

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)

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)

Is his move similar to a musician switching bands or a CEO switching companies?Fronsdorf (talk) 20:58, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

St Helens deal

Here is an apparent copy of the deal [1], however, st helens have denied making this offer three years ago in today's press, [2]. Surely worthy of inclusion PRONTO. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.172.251.46 (talk) 05:28, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Mount city Albert?

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)

Personal Life

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)

"He is of Samoan descent on his father's side"? But presumably he is at least 75% British ancestry? Or is it only the Samoan ancestry that counts?203.184.41.226 (talk) 06:23, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Non neutral and promotional wording

From the lead:

• .....one of the world's most recognizable athletes

Sourced to a Sydney Morning Herald interview. Australia and New Zealand maybe, but surely not the world.

• He is seen by many as the player who can deliver New Zealand it's first rugby World Cup since 1987.

Same source. Who are the many and why is their opinion important?

• According to a Sky television press release, Williams is also one of boxing's finest up-and-comers.

Of course a press release is going to say this. Do we need to include it?

• ....is expected to become the most sought-after star in either rugby code.

No source. Should probably avoid predicting the future.

I don't see the SMH interview as reliable enough for the claims that are presented here. I would remove them but a fair bit of work has been done on this article recently so thought it best to air my concerns here first. AIRcorn (talk) 03:26, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Also, the header is too long; it goes into unnecessary detail. I've modified the paragraph re sought-after star player, and encourage others to remove non neutral and promotional wording; for example

... most controversial in: "In July 2008 Williams left Australia to join French rugby union club Toulon

cite web | date= 17 January 2011

| url = http://m.smh.com.au/rugby-union/union-news/hold-the-phone-sonny-has-something-to-say-20110116-19sl1.html
| title = Hold the phone, Sonny has something to say
| work = Sydney Morning Herald | publisher = Fairfax  | accessdate= 27 January 2011}}</ref>

cite web | first = Steve | last = Jancetic | url = http://www.foxsports.com.au/story/0,8659,24145484-23214,00.html

| title = Umaga the reason for Sonny's move | publisher = Fox Sports
| date = 07 August 2008 | accessdate= 10 October 2010}}</ref> in the most controversial exit in NRL history.wcrosbie (talk), Melbourne, Australia 06:25, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Went through and gave the article a good copy edit. Thanks for getting this started Wcrosbie. AIRcorn (talk) 10:04, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Nine cites in the lead for one sentence

WP:CITEKILL anyone. More does not mean more reliable. Surely only one or two can be used. It actually looks a bit like a WP:synthesis as none of the headlines says "Sonny Bill" and "offloading in the tackle" or "shoulder charges", in fact only one uses his name. AIRcorn (talk) 00:25, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. I removed this but someone has put it all back in. There are plenty of good reasons to can all this fanwank - common sense, WP:MOSBIO, WP:LEAD better encyclopedic style etc. I'll clean it up again - thoughts from other users would be useful. --BiggerAristotle (talk) 22:49, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Firstly, to BiggerAristotle: mate your edits in the lead are worded as if you are just writing them off the top of your head. They are grammatically quite poor, disjointed and generally not well thought through- unbecoming of an encyclopedia. Secondly, i have put massive effort into improving the wording in this article as a whole from its initial poor state. I have reworded much of it to bring it up to an encyclopedic level. So i take exceptional offence to accusations of making this article a fan web page. Yes i am a big SBW fan but i do not edit this page with the intention of making this a fan page. I edit it only based upon the reliable, explicit facts from provided by references. Lastly, the references regarding SBW being the only athlete to play international rugby and professionally box, as well as his offloads and shoulder charges being benchmarks quite clearly state and support what has been added in the article. Just because SBW's name has not been added to the references titles in no way discredits its appropriateness and applicability to the article. Read these references completely and the edits are backed up by the evidences in these references. Hence, i will be undoing the edits by BA to their original and more professional, factual wording.Suid-Afrikaanse (talk) 03:41, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I have been watching this page since you started and it has improved immensely. However there is still room for improvement. As to the first part (the only athlete to play international rugby and professionally box), although it would be nice to know who the author was, the paper is reliable and in the absence of there being evidence of someone else doing so it should stay. This might be a better link to use for the interview.[3] In the second part the sentence is saying that his offloads and shoulder charges are cited as benchmarks and the evidence for this is the addition of lots of sources showing it being mentioned in other news stories. I am afraid that falls under WP:Synthesis. What is needed is one source explicitly saying that these are cited as benchmarks. The closest is number 6. I would suggest using these sources to create a Playing style section. Then it can be mentioned that Williams is known for his shoulder charges and offloading in the lead with no citation. Benchmark should not be used. Failing that I would just use citation number 6. AIRcorn (talk) 08:21, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Sources

1. after a Halstead offload reminiscent of Sonny Bill Williams at his best.[4]
2. and his offload out the back door, alá Sonny Bill Williams [5]
3. England's answer to New Zealand's Sonny Bill Williams? I assume this is in relation to his size. [6]
4. with a reverse left-handed pass out of the Sonny Bill Williams manual to give Bath a 17-3 interval lead [7]
5. as his Sonny Bill Williams-style lay-off in the tackle [8]
6. Williams's off-loading – off-loading of the ball, that is, not the off-loading of a shoulder straight into Kankowski's jawbone – has been the talk of international rugby for some months now. This is the best one [9]
7. Offloads are a hot commodity in rugby and their poster boy is Crusader Sonny Bill Williams [10]
8. At the start he tended to try the Sonny Bill Williams shoulder charge [11]
9. Sullivan attempted to recreate one of former Bulldogs’ Sonny Bill Williams’ bone rattlers [shoulder charge] [12]

Re SBW being the only athlete to play RU and box at the same time, the article reads "He might be the first man in history to be courted by the All Blacks and the only sportsmen to be simultaneously pursuing boxing and international rugby careers" (emphasis mine). So it says he might be. This could of course be rhetorical, and mean that he is the only one, but we can infer from the first part of the sentence - "the first man in history to be courted by the All Blacks" - that this is not the case. He certainly isn't the first man in history to be courted by the All Blacks, so this should be removed.

Suidafrikaanse, taking offense at my criticism of your writing is just missing the point. There's no question that you have done a lot for this article, and I understand why you would be protective of it, but your efforts do not give you ownership of it. You seem to have contributed almost exclusively to this page, so perhaps don't have a range of experience across other articles, and so lecturing about what is 'unbecoming of an encyclopedia' is probably a mistake. If the word 'fanwank' offends you, then perhaps you are a little too emotionally invested in this article and should take a step back, letting others contribute to it without just reverting it to your preferred version.

(In my opinion at least) the 'benchmark' statement in the lead, with the excessive citations, makes this read like it has been written by a fan, not an objective writer. So I broadly agree with Aircorn - we should state in the lead that he is known for his offloading - this is well known and uncontentious, so it doesn't need one source, never mind nine. Being known for shoulder charges is a different story - countless big/fast RU/RL players could have the same thing said of them - it's pretty meaningless. I don't think there's any need for a 'Playing style' section, because he doesn't have a particularly distinctive playing style, he's just well-known in RU for his excellent offloading ability, characteristic of a very good RL player. There would also be very few good quality citations for this (as opposed to the type of passing mentions already used.) --BiggerAristotle (talk) 11:09, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Thankyou for your constructive and prompt response AIRcorn. I understand your reasoning regarding the statement on SWB's offloading and shoulder chargers. But don't all the above references reinforce the fact that they are benchmarks? That is to say; all these references mention that a particular athlete did a shoulder charge or offload and the articles compare it to SBW's as if SBW is the pinnacle (or benchmark) of comparison. This is why i do not believe the benchmark status requires removal. However, i am very open to your idea of creating a new section specifically detailing SBW's playing style. I think that is a great idea. I would like to see what other people think of the idea, but i am definitely for it. Thankyou.

Now on to BiggerAristotle once again. Please i do not respect your depiction of me as an obsessed SBW fan with maniacal emotional investmemt in this article. Yes as i already said and clearly and openly state, i am an SBW fan. However, i try my utmost to be fair and to source my information. Based upon your edit history, how would you like me to accuse you of being overly emotional AGAINST SBW. Because from your edit history you only seem to be editing SBW and his good friend Anthony Mundine with unhelpful and unrequired edits. Of all the people you could have edited it just happened to be these 2 friends who do not even live in the same country! However, what you do to the Mundine article does not concern me because it does not interest me in the least. so you see i could also question your emotional intentions. But i will not focus on that because it is not constructive. So please cease your unnecessary, repetitive edits and engage in constructive discussion with such people as myself and AIRcorn please. Thanks.Suid-Afrikaanse (talk) 11:47, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Suid-Afrikaanse, your response shows exactly why you need to get a little perspective on this. You have reverted every single edit I have made to this article and have failed to address the substantive issues in your reply to me above, instead simply attacking me for questioning your edits and suggesting you have issues of ownership relating to this page. (See WP:OWN)

I did not portray you as an "obsessed SBW fan with maniacal emotional investmemt" - this is your over-reaction to my post. I have edited far more than the two articles you mentioned, but I have done it as an IP editor, and have just recently created an account. On the other hand, you have said on your user page that "the overwhelming majority of my edits have been on Sonny Bill Williams."

You could accuse me of whatever you like, but it's clear from my edits to this article that I have nothing against Williams at all. I have just tried to improve this so it reads like an encyclopedia article, not like a fawning page written by someone who is clearly a big fan of the subject, has contributed very little else to the encyclopedia and so perhaps isn't best placed to judge the tone required.

To reiterate, I agree with Aircorn. There is no basis for saying he is a benchmark for anything. SuidAfrikaanse, if you would like to reply to my points above on the content, it would be useful. --BiggerAristotle (talk) 12:24, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

S-A, I'm not sure what your objection to my re-wording of the first sentence is, with regard to Williams' name. As 'Sonny Bill' is not a stage name or pseudonym, the MOS (WP:MOSBIO) is pretty clear on this - "It is not always necessary to spell out why the article title and lead paragraph give a different name. Care must be taken to avoid implying that a person who does not generally use all their forenames or who uses a familiar form has actually changed their name. Therefore, a lead that reads "Johnny Reid "John" Edwards (born June 10, 1953) ..." is preferable to one that states John Edwards was born with the name Johnny Reid Edwards." --BiggerAristotle (talk) 12:31, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I read the "might" as applying to the courted by the All Blacks (which should not be included) not to his boxing/rugby career. I see how it could be interpreted the other way though, so a better worded reference would be nice. The nine references might be justification for someone to write a paper or newspaper article saying that Williams offloads and shoulder charges are the benchmark, but we don't have that privilege here. We can only really repeat what is written, not interpret it. If someone has come out and said they are a benchmark then we can say "according to such-and-such Williams offloads are seen as the benchmark". Ideally nothing we add should appear to come from us. I still think a playing style section or similar could be useful. Everyone has a playing style, even if it is not much different than other players. Off the top of my head I recall there was an adjustment phase in his tackling (I think he was yellow carded in France for a shoulder charge in one of his early games) and it could also mention his lack of speed and kicking skills. Its not something I personally want to write, but a paragraph should not be too difficult. Everything in the lead should ideally be repeated and cited somewhere in the articles body anyway. BTW I prefer the Sonny William 'Sonny Bill' Williams opening to the article, although it is not something I would edit war over. AIRcorn (talk) 02:12, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

That "might be" is grammatically unambiguous - it applies to both subsequent phrases. It is the only verb which relates to "the only sportsmen..." To have a different meaning, the sentence would need to read something like "He might be the first man in history to be courted by the All Blacks and is the only sportsmen to be simultaneously pursuing ..." More importantly, this is a trivial point to include in the lead - if it were genuinely significant, it would appear in a lot of sources.

Re a 'Playing style' section, I'm not too stressed either way. I don't think he has a particularly distinctive style (and while everyone in every sport could be said to have their own playing style, in most cases there are only minor differences in each) but if someone wants to write a succinct and well-sourced few sentences, avoiding original research, I don't have any objection. Either way, there's enough consensus to clean up the lead. --BiggerAristotle (talk) 05:56, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

You are correct about the "might be", and I now agree with you that the sentence should not be used. I would still leave one of the citations for the offloads. Even though it is not likely to be challenged I feel it is good practice to have sources for any information pertaining to someones ability. AIRcorn (talk) 06:23, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I am willing to agree on some matters such as SBW's name and his benchmark status. However, i still disagree with some unexplained chopping which i will re-add and only agree upon until you back your edits with evidence.Suid-Afrikaanse (talk) 08:35, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

You are "willing to agree"? That's very generous of you. Please remember that you do not own this article, despite all the work that you have put into it. If someone copy edits part of it, please don't simply revert because you don't like the new version. --BiggerAristotle (talk) 11:55, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

It clearly states that SBW is only athlete who is pursuing a boxing and international rugby career. The "might" applies to the NZRU courting him and not the other half of the sentence. This position is not only proven by the wording but also common knowledge backs-up the reference. Otherwise, perhaps you could name me the other rugby/boxers that would negate this fact given by the reference!Suid-Afrikaanse (talk) 15:30, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Aircorn and I disagree with you, so there is consensus for our view. If you disagree with the linguistic explanation I gave above, can you tell me which verb in that sentence relates to his supposed status as the only boxer-rugby player?

There is no onus on me to prove that other international rugby players box, just on you to provide high quality sources for your contention. Even if a journalist mentioned in passing that he was unequivocably the only one, our judgment as editors might mean we wouldn't put it in. Common sense suggests that with 93 countries in the IRB rankings, and a conservative estimate of 30 international players each (not to mention rugby league players or female players), at least one of those 2970 international rugby players occasionally fights truck drivers for money. --BiggerAristotle (talk) 16:21, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Oh i am sorry. Do you call opinions which 2 people support against 1 person consensus. That is very convenient isn't it. No 2 opinions is not consensus. For all i know you could be a sockpuppet for AIRcorn or a friend etc. You get my jist. So no you need more than one other person to reach consensus on an issue. Also i do not need to prove myself once again because i already explained why i changed it back. I ask you once again to NAME me another RUGBY international- PROFESSIONAL boxer. I don't need your probabilities. In case you are confused; a professional boxer is someone who has a world rank, not someone who has fights in the back shed on the week-end. Your equating of SBW's boxing with anything less than professionalism i think reflects badly on your intentions. So unless you can find me another rugby union international-professional boxer, the description as stated by the reference remains.Suid-Afrikaanse (talk) 19:48, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

So you think that when two editors disagree with you, and when nobody has agreed with you on this, you have the right to edit war to keep your preferred version? That is very convenient isn't it? Please read WP:NPA and apologise for insinuating that Aircorn and me are sockpuppets.

You are trying to cite a source which simply doesn't say what you think it does. You still haven't addressed the objection raised by myself and Aircorn - which verb in the relevant sentence refers to Williams as the only rugby-playing boxer?

In case you are confused, a professional boxer is a boxer who fights in professional fights, that's all.

Again, there is no reason or requirement for me to find another rugby player/boxer. The burden is on you, per WP:VERIFIABILITY, to supply reliable sources for your claims. The majority of involved editors have rejected the SMH article as a reliable source on this.

In less than a week you have made over a dozen reverts, and at least four in the last 24 hours. You clearly have issues of ownership around this article - I suggest you leave it alone for a few days. In a collaborative encyclopedia, you simply can't expect to keep an article exactly the way you like it. You have edited no other articles to the same degree - there are issues here of relevance, style, tone and emphasis which would benefit from the input of more brains, and more experience. Your reflexive edit-warring is preventing this article being improved. --BiggerAristotle (talk) 21:12, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

This is getting a bit silly. It is only going to end in the article protected and people blocked. I understand how Suid misread the interview, I did the same thing. It could be a case of a misprint on the journalists part or he could have meant it the way you see it, but it is still not good enough for us to state that he is the first Rugby international/Boxing professional. Further down in the interview it says "After all, he is the only rugby player who has held a simultaneous career in boxing," he [Williams] says. Not sure why he is speaking in the third person, but at a pinch the article could accurately say Williams says he is the only person to box professionally and play rugby at the same time. It is the definition of a WP:primary source so I wouldn't put something like that in the lead, but I wouldn't object to it being slotted somewhere into the article body. If a reliable secondary source says he is the first then it can be put into the lead without attribution.

I agree 2:1 consensus is not very strong, but it is stronger than 1:1. I would suggest leaving a simple note on the union, league and/or boxing wikiprojects asking for more people to comment on this disagreement. A Request for comment could also be filed to bring in more people, but this is probably easier settled by people familiar with the sports. AIRcorn (talk) 00:14, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Regarding boxing-ruby status and send off

Firstly, let me quote once again what the smh article says and hopefully you will understand my objections. It says: “He MIGHT BE THE FIRST MAN IN HISTORY TO BE COURTED BY THE ALL BLACKS and THE ONLY SPORTSMEN TO BE SIMULTANEOUSLY PURSUING BOXING AND INTERNATIONAL RUGBY CAREERS, but Williams also has stories to tell.”

So there are 2 separate elements to this sentence. The first element mentions “might” as referring purely to the “courted” section. However, the second element mentions he is the only boxer-international rugby player as a definite and the “might” does not apply to this element.

So you see, there is a difference in our understandings of the sentence. However, you seem bent on deleting it unreservedly for no strong, definitive reason. Also the article comes from the smh. This by no means negates its reliability because the smh is reputable.

Next you want an apology. Well you will not receive one because I was not “insinuating” anything of what you claim of sockpuppetry. If you had read my statement and not looked for an argument instead, then you would have seen I stated sockpuppetry not as an accusation but rather as an example of why your claims of consensus were meaningless and held little weight. There are more than 50 watchers on this SBW article. However, you claim one supporter and then wave the flag of consensus around as if you really strongly have it.

You also once again claim I have issues of ownership. Well then surely that must also apply to yourself. Your edit history is also overwhelmingly on SBW. The only difference is that I am a fan of SBW yet you are not. So now who really has the issues? You may claim that you (unlike myself) seek to correct this article. But I also seek this goal. The difference is I have agreed upon some of your edits and on your grammatical corrections. However, you have been intractable over even little details. So no I do not consider myself to have any issues. Nor would I even be editing this article as often were it not for your intractable positions over minute details.

Now on to the “trivial” issue of SBW being sent off. Firstly, it is not trivial; this is your own belief- not mine. I do not find it trivial that someone is the first to be sent off in the 1st round after a minimum of seven years. Secondly, it is not as though a whole long paragraph has been commited to mentioning this fact. Instead it is only a short, passing sentence which adds a unique extra detail that is both factual and interesting and by no means trivial. Thirdly, you claim it is copyvio. Well tell me whether this sounds like a copyvio- this is the references words: “he became only the second player this century (joining Sonny Bill Williams, 2007) to be marched in a first-round game.” Now tell me whether my intended edit copyvio’s this reference- my words are: “In doing so, he became the first player of the 21st century to be sent off in a first-round game.” I do not see any copyvio!!! Have I copied it word-for-word?? Of course not. f - [[]http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sonny_Bill_Williams&diff=452035251&oldid=452034619] So you see I have agreed upon some of your edits while disagreeing upon others. However, it is you that has been intractable. I can only hope you edit with a bit more good faith, compromise and understanding, so that this does not degenerate into an edit war over minor, inconspicuous details.Suid-Afrikaanse (talk) 05:02, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

You're right that "there is a difference in our understandings of the sentence." I understand it, and you don't. Once again, which verb in the relevant sentence relates to the phrase "the only sportsmen to be simultaneously pursuing boxing and international rugby careers"?

As for the copyvio, you used the edit summary "Added the exact wording for SBW's send off" and inserted the same text used in the source. Here is the diff [13]. You have since changed it slightly, but please don't pretend you didn't do it.

As for Williams being sent off, it is not in itself trivial. What I have said is that his being the first player to be sent off in a first round game since 2000 is trivial. Of course it's just my opinion that this is trivial. You, and others, may disagree. However, the reason it has degenerated into "an edit war over minor, inconspicuous details" is because you have edit warred over minor, inconspicuous details. Why not just give it a rest for a few days, see what others think? --BiggerAristotle (talk) 21:08, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Firstly, let start by stating: i do not appreciate you adding anything into what i have written on this discussion page. That link you added in my paragraph above is disrespectful. If you want to add something, then make sure you add it in your paragraphs- not others to make it out as though they have added it.

Secondly, even before i changed the "trivial" edit it still was not copyvio. Using 1 similar word like "marched" is not copyvio.

Thirdly, it clearly states: " THE ONLY SPORTSMEN TO BE SIMULTANEOUSLY PURSUING BOXING AND INTERNATIONAL RUGBY CAREERS". If this does not prove my edit then i do not know what does! So no it seems you are misinformed. So once again i will revert your edit until some more "consensus" can be achieved.Suid-Afrikaanse (talk) 01:50, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

The link that ended up in your text was a typo - it wasn't meant to be there, as I think you probably realise.

On your misunderstanding of the sentence in the SMH, can you (once again) let me know which verb you think relates to the phrase "the only sportsmen..."? Or do you not think a verb is required? Is English your first language? --BiggerAristotle (talk) 11:38, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Dividing SBW contents titles

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)

Or instead of dividing it based upon years, perhaps it can be divided based upon career milestones like "Toulon", "Crusaders" e.t.c.Suid-Afrikaanse (talk) 11:57, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Picture?

Come on the picture is a bit shit for quality, can't they use a better suited one that is more visible?

pin-up status

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)

On Recentism and Detail

I hope to dispel what I see as editing misconceptions on the article. It has been stated that a few paragraphs in the article are too detailed and employ recentism. I strongly disagree with both tags. Firstly, it is not too detailed. To say that 1 paragraph for a whole season of Super Rugby is too detailed, is going too far in my opinion. Look at it in the following ways: 1. Assuming (I stress “assuming”) SBW plays rugby for another handful or 2 of years then that does not result in too many more paragraphs, so there is no real issue with the size of the article that would result. 2. SBW is easily one of the biggest rugby superstars and so naturally it would make sense that his article would have more detail in it in keeping with this status. If other superstars have less detail then that is not this articles problem. 3. There really is no recentism just because the 2011 Super Rugby season has been described in more detail in the article. This is because I plan on adding detail to his sporting exploits in the years to come. So the article will have equal weight of detail applied in the coming years and hence the tag of recentism would be obsolete. Thankyou.Suid-Afrikaanse (talk) 10:15, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Suid-Afrikaance, I removed some of the material about the 2011 season because, IMO, it was excessively detailed and trivial. A list of just about every game played, tries scored and spurious 'firsts' is not, as I understand it, what an encyclopedia article should be about. A sentence or two summarising a provincial competition seems about right to me.

In any case, if you are going to revert just about every small change I make here, you are not being constructive. I really hope you are not going to fight over this line by line. Please, please, take a step back. Leave this article alone for two or three weeks, allowing other editors to comment. You have done a lot of work on it but you don't own it. You are not going to be able to keep it just the way you like it. BiggerAristotle (talk) 21:05, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Hello BiggerAristotle. I think you are being a bit hasty in saying I undo “every small change” you make. You will have noticed that regarding the edits you made 2 days ago, I accepted a lot of them without reverting them. I think your ability to rewrite sentences in a more succinct and clearer way (with regards to grammar) is second to none. However, I do not think you have grasped my opinion that someone of the superstar status of SBW requires that his article contain more detail, just as is the case for your David Beckham’s, Jonny Wilkinson’s, Lance Armstrong’s, Ian Thorpe’s e.t.c. of the world shown on Wikipedia. I think that your belief that a whole season of rugby be reduced to “A sentence or two summarising a provincial competition” is way too little and does not then accord that seasons competition any real worth. Besides, as I said before: “Assuming (I stress “assuming”) SBW plays rugby for another handful or 2 of years then that does not result in too many more paragraphs, so there is no real issue with the size of the article that would result.” I also think that the addition of those significant details in fact adds to the encyclopedic value of the article and actually makes it even more encyclopedic. Remember, an encyclopedia means: “a book or set of books containing DETAILED knowledge and information about a variety of fields or subfields”. And the “fields or subfields” we are dealing with here is one of the world’s most prominent athletes- particularly in his former and present occupations of rugby league and rugby union. I also know I do not own the article. However, I will always seek to improve it and to protect those improvements. Also when you said “Leave this article alone for two or three weeks”, you made it seem as though I edit this article every day. Well just to inform you I AIM to edit it only on a weekly basis, assuming SBW does something noteworthy that week of course. I only resort to editing it more often because I respond to edits that do not improve the article, but rather diminish it. So I hope you understand my reasoning. Thankyou.Suid-Afrikaanse (talk) 05:06, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

'Boxer' in opening sentence

Suid Afrikaanse posted the following at my talk page. I moved it here as it seemed more appropriate. S-A, I hope you don't mind. BiggerAristotle (talk) 14:00, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Hello BA. I do not think you are getting the point about SBW’s boxing status. You state: “Notability is due to rugby career, not boxing.” I totally agree that his notability is due to his rugby league and union careers with regards to sporting achievements. However, he is also notable as a rugby player who also boxes simultaneously. This is undeniably part of his notability and many commentators have noted this dual sportsmen tag as one of his exceptional traits. You also state: “No similarly ranked boxer (in NZ or world ranking) is notable enough for a Wikipedia article”. Again I completely agree with the face value of the statement you have made. I agree that if SBW was only a boxer, then based upon his 4 fights he would definitely not have his own Wikipedia article. However, once again you are missing the point; he does not have his own Wikipedia article just because of his boxing alone. He has it because of his previous rugby league and union exploits. But his boxing is definitely a part of his notability because it further differentiates him and sets him apart from your other single discipline rugby league or union players. Based upon these facts and reasoning I see your edit as being rather shallow and simple minded (no offence intended) and will return it to its previous style that is also in keeping with the styles of the aforementioned articles. Thank you once again.Suid-Afrikaanse (talk) 10:45, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

He is notable as a rugby player, league and union, so those should be mentioned in the opening sentence. He is not notable as a boxer, so it shouldn't be given the same prominence. You are of course correct that his boxing makes him unusual among well-known rugby players, so it is now mentioned in the opening section, with more detail than before. By a similar logic, we don't initially describe Max Evans as a rugby player and golfer, or Thom Evans as a former member of a boy band, or Kobus Wiese as a cafe owner, or Dan Carter as an underwear model etc.

If you don't intend any offence, please don't say offensive things. BiggerAristotle (talk) 14:00, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Yeah fair enough, I agree now. Your reasoning and examples used actually make sense this time. Thank you.Suid-Afrikaanse (talk) 05:10, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Shoulder charges

What consensus are you talking about? The reference openly and clearly states the shoulder charge is one of his TRADEMARKS. The definition of trademark is: “A distinctive characteristic by which a person or thing comes to be known”, i.e. he is well known for his shoulder charges. Besides if you want other references (which have been removed from the lead anyway) I can readily get you them that all state he is well known for this. What further confirms the references is the opinion of the man on the street. Ask anyone what they remember of SBW when he played rugby league, and they will inevitably say his offloads and shoulder charges i.e. it is a well known and pervasive fact. So I will restore it- though in a different manner- and hopefully we will be rid of this dispute. Thank you.Suid-Afrikaanse (talk) 06:07, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I've moved this from my talk page to here.

The reference says "Bulldog international Sonny Bill Williams executes one of his trademark shoulder charges." 'Trademark' ≠ 'well known'. Lots of trademarks are not well known at all. Even the definition which you have cherry picked to back your belief doesn't say 'well known', it says 'known.' I haven't yet seen any reliable sources which specifically state that Williams is well known for this.

Further, I don't think it would belong in the lead even if it were well-sourced - it relates specifically to his time in rugby league, and is not especially significant. If there were good sources which actually supported the statement, I think it should go in the rugby league section or the mooted 'Playing style' section.

Your 'argument' above is another example of stretching what the sources say, a form of synthesis, as well as an example of 'everyone knows it, so I'm right.' Again, I'll remove this until we get consensus to include it or better references. BiggerAristotle (talk) 11:47, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Firstly, i do not agree with your statement: “Your 'argument' above is another example of stretching what the sources say, a form of synthesis,” I never seek to stretch what the sources say or to use synthesis. I add content only when i believe it is backed up by reputable references. Also your statement: “as well as an example of 'everyone knows it, so I'm right'” is wrong. You have clearly misunderstood what i said. I said first that the reference backs my view, and on top of that my view is common knowledge among any rugby league fans or even the casual follower, so how could you be removing it when not only is it supported by a reference but also by common knowledge. Secondly, you can have more references and their wordings:

• 1 “Williams, who ignored a court order by playing, was sent from the field for 10 minutes after one of his TRADEMARK shoulder charges left his opposite number languishing injured for several minutes. Williams is FAMOUS for his bruising shoulder charges on the rugby league field - where the dangerous tackling technique is legal.” And (this is the reference i will use in the article from now on)
• 2 “Sonny Bill with the FAMOUS shoulder charge, Lewis hits the deck, not by a punch though!”

So we have the words TRADEMARK and FAMOUS. There are also other references that use the word trademark, but for your sake i found these references which also clearly describe his shoulder charges as FAMOUS. Now if “trademark” does not equate to “well known” for you (even though i completely disagree), does “famous”? if something is famous is it not well known? Lastly i believe the shoulder charge should be included in the lead (as is his offloading) because this was one of the most prominent and well known aspects of his game- worthy of a lead mention. Something so prominent definitely does not belong in the NRL section to be hidden or obscured away. So i hope once again this will finally resolve this dispute. Thankyou.Suid-Afrikaanse (talk) 04:02, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

'It's common knowledge' = 'everyone know it, so I'm right.'

I didn't say you seek to stretch sources or use synthesis, but you have done so unintentionally in your eagerness to add more material, IMO fairly indiscriminately. BiggerAristotle (talk) 10:50, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I think Williams shoulder charges should be mentioned and I am happy for it to be in the lead. He is notable for his time in league and that hasn't changed since he now plays union. BA is right that trademark does not necessarily equal well known, but famous does. I do not like the 3 news source given above as it is live commentary of a fight, but there are others [14]. AIRcorn (talk) 08:12, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

You're fight, famous does mean well known. No objection to it going in now. Agree that the 3 News source is dreadful - we need to use better sources than that. BiggerAristotle (talk) 10:50, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Superman 'nickname'

Copied from Aircorn's talk page: Hello Aircorn. I noticed you undid my edit even though I gave a reference with clear detail that said: "the nation is pinning its hopes on the rugby player they call Superman" and "His All Black team-mates have dubbed him Superman". So this reference says that his teammates and even New Zealand call him and dub him Superman. And if they call and dub him this name other than his own real name then isn’t that a nickname? I mean Richie McCaw has the nickname “Fluffy” and even though such nickname is rarely heard I do not see anyone removing it, because it is referenced as well. The same applies to Dan Carter’s nickname of “Dezzy” or even to such people as Piri Weepu, Ma’a Nonu or Conrad Smith who have nicknames on Wikipedia without even any references. So why is no one removing these nicknames? Also, you state: “Superman is no more a nickname than Money Bill William and neither should be used.” Well I object for one (I believe) reasonable argument- it is not for us to determine whether a name is “no more a nickname” If that nickname does in fact exist and there is a reputable reference to back it up. If a reference says that SBW has a nickname of Money Bill William or $BW then it is not for us to question it and oppose its inclusion in the article. So unless you have another good reason for your revert then I will be adding Superman again. Thank you and hope to hear from you soon.Suid-Afrikaanse (talk) 05:42, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

And from my talk page (Bigger Aristotle): I do not understand why you removed the superman nickname. You said: “no consensus for ts inclusion. objections from 2 editors.” Well this is not about consensus unfortunately. The reference clearly states this is a nickname of his. So what you and other editors think or arrive at consensus or reason does not have credence in this case. If it is a referenced nickname then it is not for us to then decide whether we accept it or reject it- no matter how many people follow your views. You also said: “no arguments made for its inclusion on talk page“. The arguments are not on the talk page because they are on AIrcorn’s talk page because he was the editor I was explaining my case to. So I do not see how you can keep on removing this established nickname.Suid-Afrikaanse (talk) 04:52, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

My view on this is that it's not a widely-used nickname, which is what the nickname field is generally understood to mean. None of the sources presented so far, nor any that I could find, describe this as a nickname specifically, or say that it is in wide use. I'll remove it again, per BRD etc, until consensus or better sources are found. BiggerAristotle (talk) 11:36, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

You have not answered any of the points I stressed above. You say: “My view on this is that it's not a widely-used nickname, which is what the nickname field is generally understood to mean.” I already showed above "the NATION is pinning its hopes on the rugby player THEY call Superman" and "His All Black TEAM-MATES have DUBBED him Superman". Perhaps you do not live in New Zealand, but a name does not have to be known worldwide in order to be called a nickname. And you did not address the nicknames I stated above of other rugby players. Are their nicknames also widely-used? Absolutely not. So this reference says that his teammates and even New Zealand call him and dub him an alternate name and this is more than enough to warrant being a nickname. Then you said: “None of the sources presented so far, nor any that I could find, describe this as a nickname specifically, or say that it is in wide use.” Just because the word “nickname” is not used specifically does not mean it is discounted. The words CALL and DUBBED, if they apply to a person who is not called that name, are no different and your rigidity is I believe incorrect and I uphold my views I have already stressed in detail above which were not really answered. So once again, I believe the source is reputable, says what is necessary to be added to the Wikipedia article and that consensus is irrelevant in this case. If you were able to convince me then i would readily accept your arguments- as I have done before. However, in this case you have not done so in any way, so I will be reverting the nickname once again. Thank you.Suid-Afrikaanse (talk) 03:57, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

The superman moniker appears to come from a Mark Cueto quote where he says that "We've got a load of computer footage which we can click on and analyse all the players. When you click on Sonny Bill it looks like Superman, it's absolutely ridiculous". Papers at the time used the quote to call him superman.[15] This does not mean that his nickname is superman. The Express is a little trickier as it does say that his team mates have dubbed him superman and is more recent than the others. That it begins by saying "the nation is pinning its hopes on the rugby player they call Superman" and "the most exciting and powerful runner in rugby union" (which are presented without qualifiers and are making vast generalisations - incorrect ones at that in my opinion) leads me to believe that this is an opinion piece and not reliable. The trouble with relying heavily on media is that the tend to sensationalise things. I do not think this is reliable enough to use as a source for his nickname. AIRcorn (talk) 07:51, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Relying too much on sensationalised tabloid sources is a mistake. That his team-mates may have been calling him Superman (if they even have) does not mean it is really a nickname we should include here - if it sticks, and becomes genuinely widely used over a longer time, then we should add it in future.

On the other articles S-A mentioned, I don't have a strong opinion either way. This isn't the place to discuss them.

As for consensus, it absolutely is relevant here. Consensus is needed for editors to decide which sources are reliable, what material is significant enough to include, what exactly things like 'nickname' mean in this context - everything, in other words, that needs some editorial judgement. BiggerAristotle (talk) 10:41, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I still believe its removal is being too hasty. I completely agree that "the most exciting and powerful runner in rugby union" is opinionated, however, I do not believe the piece is an overall sensationalist and opinionated report. I will give you a few examples that the reporter uses that hint that he mentions the Superman nickname without any referral to the Mark Cueto article/s:

• “I’ll just play anywhere and anytime I’m asked to,” said Williams yesterday after training at the North Shore stadium
• Auckland is a sea of optimism, even with the loss overboard of fly-half Carter.
• He slapped hands along the long line of school kids who cheered loudest of all for him.
• Despite the huge pressure on New Zealand, the mood in the squad was supremely relaxed, a far cry from the angst surrounding both England and France. Lock Ali Williams (no relation) fielded questions with the lightest of touches, even when asked about the haunting memories of a shock loss to France in the quarter-final four years ago. “No, you better ask that again,” he said with a grin to his inquisitor. “We want only positivity around us. Go on, ask another question.” It was repeated, as he knew it would be, and Williams said: “You learn from the past. You learn that however good your preparation is, it counts for only 15 per cent when a match starts. We have to be in the right mind-set, and I’m sure we will be.”

These 4 quotes from the article all clearly hint that the reporter is actually in New Zealand and has been mingling with the All Blacks. So his referrals to Superman would be derived from his witnessing of All Black players and fans calling SBW by this alternate name i.e. nickname. This article has nothing to do with the Mark Cueto articles. I would indeed be suspicious if the reporter wrote this from behind an office desk in London; however, this is clearly on inspection not the case. So really the only unreliable statement by this reporter was "the most exciting and powerful runner in rugby union". This was his opinion. However, that 1 statement should not then be used to reject the articles complete reliability and reject that the Superman nickname is true. If a reporter gave an opinion and then stated his clear observations or statistics in a single report, would we then reject everything he has said simply because of that one opinion? I think the nickname should be included because plenty of people have used it to call SBW by. A nickname is a nickname and I think SBW’s team mates are enough of a reason to include it- let alone the many New Zealander’s who are mentioned as using it. Besides, I do not see why there is such persistence in rejecting it when we have an eyewitness account that is referenced. Why is 1 word being made such a big deal over when the arguments against it are not really that persuasive or strong? Cheers.Suid-Afrikaanse (talk) 08:59, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't see what those quotes are for. I don't really doubt (or care) that the reporter was in New Zealand - that isn't the real issue, and there still isn't enough evidence that this is a nickname that is in fairly wide use or has been used for any length of time. The expression 'the rugby player they call Superman' does not mean 'the rugby player that the fans call superman' - it's a figure of speech of the type 'the man they call X.'

So his team-mates 'have dubbed him Superman' - so what? People use different names for their friends all the time, based on what's going on at that time - that doesn't mean they should immediately go in an encyclopedia article. It may or may not have come from the Cueto quote, and it may or may not stick. If it's really a nickname worthy of inclusion - i.e. one that is common and widespread, then there will be a lot more sources which say as much. They might well appear in future, if this supposed nickname catches on.

You're reaching here - I don't know why you are so keen to put it in. There is no deadline for Wikipedia - it really doesn't matter, and if it becomes significant in future, it can be added. There are so few sources on this right now, we need to be careful of Wikipedia itself becoming a source, and giving weight to something trivial. BiggerAristotle (talk) 10:18, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Okay, even though I disagree with your reasoning and i do not think my points were answered satisfactorily, I am willing to wait for some more sources to eventuate. Cheers.Suid-Afrikaanse (talk) 05:40, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't know what points haven't been answered. It's not a nickname, in the sense in which the term is used here, and the sources presented so far don't say that it is. BiggerAristotle (talk) 11:45, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Barbarians in infobox

I have reverted this again, as there is no consensus for its inclusion here. Listing his involvement with the Barbarians alongside Toulon is confusing and inaccurate. There is discussion ongoing elsewhere with no consensus reached yet. Suid-Afrikaanse, WP:BRD requires you to discuss this here, having been bold and been reverted. The onus is on you to discuss this and seek consensus here, not on the editor who reverts. BiggerAristotle (talk) 05:25, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

You are the only one who disagrees. I already have approval from another editor. The Barbarian addition does not depend upon your sole acceptance- as you seem to believe. I have support, so where is yours? Listing his involvement with the Barbarians alongside Toulon is not confusing and inaccurate as much as you would have us believe. Many other rugby players have the same edit, so why do you not remove them also (you have not answered this the 2nd previous times I have asked)? Or why has no one else removed them? Perhaps because it is an approved edit- just as I received approval here. So I have support and I do not need to prove myself to a lone editor who has not provided any specific policy stating I cannot add it. Cheers.Suid-Afrikaanse (talk) 05:51, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

You don't know what you're talking about. And why would you? You only care about one article.

Your question about other articles is irrelevant. I take the same view about them, but this is the article which popped up on my watchlist. If you contributed to any other articles, your criticism might be a little less ridiculous.

Read WP:BRD. BiggerAristotle (talk) 06:06, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Your accusatory language sounds of desperation. I have made very clear my position and the support behind my position of another editor. You have neither support, nor a specific reason for your removing my edit other than the fact that it does not agree with your position. This is not a legitimate reason and this has nothing to do with consensus. Even if it did have to do with consensus, well I have more “consensus” than your lone opinion. So what if this is only on your watchlist!? If you cared for more than just the SBW article then you would do the same edits for the other rugby players with the same Barbarian edit. Yet you have not done so- neither you nor any other editors. You say “I take the same view about them”; so why do you not then go ahead and edit them?! You seem to mainly prefer focusing your positions solely on the SBW article- even though the same issues pop up in other rugby player articles. Why is that? Please do not remove the Barbarian club from the info-box until you have more “consensus” supporting your currently lone position.

And yes I do care about this article. But so do you. So what is your point? I have already said I am a SBW fan. But I edit the article based upon facts and not my liking of SBW. Why do you so overwhelmingly edit the SBW article? Please stop inferring I have ulterior, sinister motives for my edits.Suid-Afrikaanse (talk) 06:27, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

There is an accepted process here for these kind of situations - WP:BRD, which you keep ignoring. You were bold, you were reverted, now you should be discussing a way forward instead of edit warring. That you got the support of another editor when you, yet again, began discussion in the wrong place does not mean that you have consensus for your edit.

I am not inferring you have sinister motives for your edits. However, you are extremely protective of this article, presumably as you have spent a lot of time on it, and seem intent on adding anything you can find connected to the subject, irrespective of its encyclopedic merit. Note I am saying you are attached to the article, not the subject. That said, you have stated you are a fan of Williams, and as such I don't really think you're best placed to say whether or not your edits are unbiased. BiggerAristotle (talk) 07:27, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

There is no need to discuss a way forward because you have no case to remove the Barbarian edit. You have not stated why you removed the edit. What Wikipedia policy states that the Barbarian team does not belong where it was added? A user has clearly advised me that my addition is legitimate. And do not accuse me of discussing in the wrong place. I discussed the Barbarian issue on the Barbarian page and this is not a wrong place. However, I should have also added this on the SBW talk page so people can see the clear reasoning for the edit and its appropriateness. I am no more protective of this article than you, so please do not put me in a category as if I am the only one in it. And do not accuse me of “adding anything you can find connected to the subject, irrespective of its encyclopedic merit.” This is clear fiction. SBW’s Barbarian representation is not just “anything you can find connected to the subject, irrespective of its encyclopedic merit.” It is truly noteworthy and encyclopedic. However, if editors cannot grasp the importance of certain things then that is not a blight on me.

Lastly, your statement “you have stated you are a fan of Williams, and as such I don't really think you're best placed to say whether or not your edits are unbiased” is really starting to wear thin. How many times do you want to resort to that argument? Surely your attacks could be less shallow than that? I will state yet again that I add noteworthy information that is referenced by a reputable source. I am a fan, but I am no fanatic. Rather than attacking me with unsubstantiated accusations, I would prefer that you produce solid evidence and policies that say that I cannot make the edit that I have made. Thank you.Suid-Afrikaanse (talk) 09:10, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

You are again missing the point, because you don't really know what you're doing here. There is no policy which says you can't make that edit, just as there is no policy which says I can't remove it. It depends on consensus. You were bold, and then you were reverted, but you chose to edit war, not discuss. The onus is on you, not me, to reach consensus here for your change. The fact that one other user, in another discussion page, told you he thought it was a good idea does not amount to consensus, as I'm sure you know.

You could try reading some policies, guidelines etc. Have you read WP:BRD yet? Or WP:OWN?

WP:Talk explains about talk pages. The Barbarians article is not the place to discuss changes to this article. You can state that is is, as emphatically as you like, but we both know you don't have much experience or knowledge of Wikipedia, because you only care about one article. As was recommended to you, the RU project is a good place, but ultimately this article's talk page is the most appropriate place for discussing specific changes to it. As you haven't contributed much at all beyond this article, and seem reluctant to read policies or guidelines, I would encourage you to be less emphatic in your opinions about how things should be done.

Please understand that I am not attacking you over all this. I have no personal beef with you at all. However, your claims that you are an impartial editor here are not credible. Of course you don't think so, but your history of edits is all the 'substantiation' anyone needs.

If I haven't made it clear already, the reasons that listing the Barbarians there is not appropriate are that it is not particularly significant and it is utterly misleading to list it alongside Toulon. As an invitation team, to list it in the same category as one of his professional clubs is confusing. That should be obvious to anyone who knows much about rugby union. His spells with Toulon, Canterbury and the Crusaders have much more in common with each other than any of them do with playing for an invitation team, yet they are all listed separately. But you don't seem to care about what actually makes sense for an encyclopedia, as long as you are shoving more data into your pet article.

I'll remove it again. Until/unless you can get consensus for the change you want, do not restore it. Please discuss it, and please do not continue to edit war over this. BiggerAristotle (talk) 21:59, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

You seem to have written a large response. However, quantity is not quality. So I am going to be very concise here. 1. I do not need your consensus when I have the approval of a SENIOR EDITOR who is more respectable than me and you combined- see User:FruitMonkey. 2. You claim to be so righteous in your disapproval of Barbarians in the info-box. However, you appear to only have a biff when it concerns the SBW page. You have not sought to remove the exact same edits from other rugby player’s pages. This hints that you may have ulterior motives for purely concentrating on SBW- ones I suspect of not being in good faith. 3. Why do you only complaint against me? Perhaps you should criticize the SENIOR EDITOR who gave me the green light for the edit. 4. Stop suggesting i am an unworthy person to edit Wikipedia simply because I focus on one article. That is a petty and infantile attack that can only be resorted to consistently by someone who has little substance to defend his unwarranted actions. Until you can convince me or any other editors that your opinion and position is more respectable than SENIOR EDITOR User:FruitMonkey I will obviously prefer to agree with him rather than you. Cheers.Suid-Afrikaanse (talk) 22:25, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is run on consensus, not seniority - just because 1 editor supports you does not give you carte-blanc to ignore consensus. Having said that it is common practise to list the Barbarians under representative teams in the absence of a better place to put it. Both you and User:BiggerAristotle seem to have an ongoing edit war over this page that is disruptive and does nothing to improve Wikipedia as a whole and this article in particular. Please keep your arguments to this talk page until consensus is reached rather than automatically reverting each others edits. If you have difficulty reaching consensus then processes exist to help resolve that such as WP:RFC. noq (talk) 23:10, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Well if thats the case why don't we move Barbarians to be listed under National team(s)? In reading this discussion there seems to be no argument put forward about why it should be removed completely from the infobox. Mattlore (talk) 23:15, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I respect what you have said noq. And I am totally for consensus- as my edit history well proves. However, consensus can only really come into play when those opposed to a certain edit oppose it on legitimate and clearly stated reasons. However, Mattlore has hit it straight on the nail when he said “In reading this discussion there seems to be no argument put forward about why it should be removed completely from the infobox”. I have also been arguing this point consistently with BiggerAristotle- to no real response. My issue is not with consensus; it is with reverting edits for no particular reason. Thank you.Suid-Afrikaanse (talk) 00:51, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Noq is correct - Suid-Afrikaanse finding support from another, supposedly senior, editor does not override the need for consensus. I've removed the Barbarians for the reasons already clearly stated - they are not one of Williams' senior or pro clubs and to list them as such is inaccurate and misleading. Nor are they a representative team (and certainly not an international team) so there is currently no appropriate place to put them in the infobox. The small value of the extra information - information which is also included later in the article - is outweighed by the inaccuracy of having it in that category. So if someone amends the infobox template to include, say, 'Invitation teams', then that would be an appropriate place to put them. BiggerAristotle (talk) 13:10, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

BiggerAristotle, it would be helpful if you discuss the situation here before removing it from the infobox as there does not seem to be a consensus to remove it entierly from the infobox. Noq has stated that common practice in RU articles is for it to be listed under international teams, if that is the case then we should follow that here. Mattlore (talk) 22:27, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

As with Mattlore, I am also sticking to the side of caution and patience. I can see what you are saying BiggerAristotle. However, your position for removing it would only really have weight if your removal from the info-box would also apply to every other rugby player with the Barbarians team in the info-box. I think it is a bit hollow to remove it from one player and claim it is “inaccurate and misleading”, yet allow people to read “inaccurate and misleading” information for the countless other rugby players with the exact same edit. I think we should wait and see what eventuates from here, where I have taken the issue further in the hope of reaching an encompassing solution not only for the SBW article but for every other article with the same edit. Once we have a response we can then proceed. Either nothing will change and we can then discuss further, or a more accurate info-box label will be created. So hopefully we will end this edit war until something more concrete is presented. Thank you.Suid-Afrikaanse (talk) 03:15, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Mattlore, consensus is needed to include this, not to remove it, per BRD, and as you note, that has not been reached here yet. Suid-Afrikaanse recently inserted this (was bold) and I reverted it, so it should stay out until a good solution can be achieved through discussion. That aspect of the article was stable until S-A made his edit, and it should be left at the stable version until consensus is reached. S-A is right, we should err on the side of caution - while there is no consensus for how to handle this, 'erring on the side of caution' means not including it until/unless consensus is reached, according to policy.

While some articles may include this in the international teams, not all do, and there seems to be no consensus anywhere, such as at the RU project, for it to happen. It is also, obviously, inaccurate to put it there. As far ax I can see, the Barbarians do not accurately fit into any of the categories available, so a change to the infobox is needed. If there is an appropriate change to the infobox, I would support it being included.

Suid-Afrikaanse, your view on what I should do about other articles is irrelevant. I am interested in this article as well as many others. In this article's case, I have been pretty active recently because one aggressive single issue editor - you - has been adding material indiscriminately and without displaying much judgment, and it has needed more attention to counteract that. As I have stated at the RU project discussion, I am in favour of fixing the problem with the infobox. What I (or you, or anyone else) choose to do about the other articles affecte by this has nothing to do with this discussion here. BiggerAristotle (talk) 15:56, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

BiggerAristotle, could you please remove all of the code if you are removing the Barbarians entry - I have tidied it up for you. Also have a look at BRD-NOT as it may apply in this case (especially third bullet point). I hope both of you find a comprimise solution that you can live with in this dispute as it has taken up far too much time and involved three talk pages to date. Mattlore (talk) 23:18, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing the code up. You're right about point 3 there, but note that I reverted (after considering not reverting) and opened this discussion. While of course there is no requirement for anyone to follow BRD, it is conventional, and refusing to engage in it says something about that editor's inclination or ability to work collegially. Repeatedly reinstating something which has been objected to, without consensus, is edit warring. Edit warring is explicitly not cool in policy, and is a good reason to revert more than once.

I opened this discussion, and have said I have no objection to this going in if and when consensus on improving the infobox is reached at the project page. Until then, as it is inaccurate - and nobody has argued otherwise - and contested, the status quo should be maintained. We should leave it alone for a few days, see what comes up in discussion. There is no deadline; Wikipedia will not collapse if this is left out for a week or so. BiggerAristotle (talk) 00:01, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Nice try BA: “one aggressive single issue editor - you - has been adding material indiscriminately and without displaying much judgment, and it has needed more attention to counteract that.” so once again the shallowness of your response has been revealed. You think I have problems for my edit of the info-box, yet you do not think others have problems for the exact same edit! You can clothe it however much you like, but the reality is your excuses are nothing less than hypocritical. BA you seem to have massive ownership issues over the SBW article. You seem to believe that even 1 new word cannot be added to the article unless it agrees with your opinion. User:FruitMonkey, Mattlore, and myself openly support adding the Barbarian team into the info-box. You are the only editor who staunchly disagrees, yet you are carrying on with your edit-warring as if you have the support of everyone. You need to understand that you do not own the article. I will hopefully be editing this article for some time to come, so will you be carrying on with your edit warring for every new addition i make (as you have been doing)? If this is so, then not only will this be a problem for you and I, but also for all watchers on this page and associated editors. Hopefully, you will understand that you do not own this page and every new addition does not need your tick of approval.

To BA: And please do not insult me by repeating what I have said and in the same breath attributing to me a meaning I do not hold. You said: “S-A is right, we should err on the side of caution - while there is no consensus for how to handle this”. My definition of my quote is: we should leave the Barbarian team in the info-box because this is my definition of caution. We should leave the status quo as is i.e. we should not change the barbarian info box issue for any article (SBW or others) until we have a response at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rugby union.

On a separate (yet related) note: I would like clarification from an editor (other than BA) on what consensus on Wikipedia actually means. Does it mean that the development of an article can be frozen simply because 1 editor is against an edit, even when his opinion is unique or in the minority? Cheers.Suid-Afrikaanse (talk) 00:38, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Again, until consensus is reached, the status quo should be maintained. That is, the stable version before S-A's addition and subsequent edit-warring. Erring on the side of caution, or showing patience, irrespective of S-A's definition, doesn't mean making a change then insisting on it staying in while discussion is ongoing.

S-A, please give it a rest. Rather than banging on about procedural stuff, which you seem to misunderstand, could you try to explain why you think this material should be in the article where you put it? BiggerAristotle (talk) 09:50, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Hahaha! Why do I think this material should be in the article where I put it? Have I not been repetitive and clear enough already? Okay then let me explain yet again- this time in simple point form:

• Firstly, until the issue is responded to and an outcome given on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rugby union the standard practice has been to include it in the info-box under a club team title. This is the case for countless rugby players, and it is there for all editors to see and verify for themselves.
• It is hypocritical to remove it for one player, yet not care about its removal from the countless other players’ articles.
• A more senior editor- no that’s not his only claim to authority- who is also “a member of WikiProject Rugby union” advised me that my edit was very much legitimate and acceptable. So not only is this User:FruitMonkey more senior but he is also a member of the project that is relevant to SBW i.e. rugby union. Surely if he is “a member of WikiProject Rugby union” then he would know what he is talking about more than you and I.
• I have the support of User:FruitMonkey and Mattlore- unlike yourself, who has no one else who has clearly supported your removal.

Do I need any more points to make my case any less complicated and unconvincing?Suid-Afrikaanse (talk) 10:40, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Been away for a few days and to be honest a bit dismayed to see this. Too much off topic information so I only skimmed the above, but it seems like such a small thing to spend so long arguing over. I don't really like infoboxes at all as they do not tend to present information in context, (such as the superman above) but they are common enough and some find them useful. Don't care either way if the Barbars is added (maybe best under another heading if someone wants to tinker with the template), but it would be good if Suid and BA could just present their arguments and then wait for others to comment. Long threads like this discourage others from commenting. BTW Fruitmonkey's arguments carry no further weight than what his words say. Also anyone can join the Rugby Union Wikiproject and many good rugby editors don't. AIRcorn (talk) 11:24, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

S-A, there is no such thing as a senior editor. And once again, I agree, your original edit is legitimate. However, it is also legitimate for me to disagree with it and revert it, and therefore for the previous, stable version to be retained until consensus is reached. It is not legitimate for you to edit war to get it back in instead of discussing it and waiting for consensus either way.

On the actual issue, can you explain why you think the Barbarians should be included in that category? There is no standard practice on this - some players' articles include it, and in more than one category, while others don't - and as there is an ongoing discussion at the RU project page, a new standard practice may well emerge.

The reason I removed it is that the Barbarians are not one of his senior or professional clubs. It is inaccurate and misleading to present it this way. Nor are they a representative team, so I can see no suitable category for them to go in until/unless the template is changed. BiggerAristotle (talk) 11:58, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

See this is what does not make sense to me: you agree that my edit is legitimate yet because you do not agree with its inclusion you get to have it removed. What about my agreeing with its inclusion- why can I not have it in the article? Why does it go your way and not mine when it is a legitimate edit? No one has answered me regarding this consensus issue. If 1 editor disagrees with an edit, while more editors accept the edit, how does it make sense that its addition can be frozen for the sake of an individual or minority? If this is how Wikipedia defines consensus then doesn’t this open the door for troublesome editors to simply cry consensus to stall the development of an article? I would really appreciate a concise clarification on this.

On why I added the Barbarians to the info-box: BA you meant to ask what my motivation was? If that is your question, well it was simply to show a team he has represented that readers will easily discover- since readers would probably pass it by in the actual article content and instead go straight to easily visible things like info-boxes, charts e.t.c. Cheers.Suid-Afrikaanse (talk) 06:40, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry if I wasn't clear in what I meant. It was legitimate for you to make that edit - in the sense that you're allowed to make the edit - but that doesn't mean it should necessarily stay in the article. Reverting your addition is also legitimate. Consensus is required to make changes - the previous, stable version already had consensus. It's not for the sake of a minority - the stable version had the (tacit) support of every editor who had edited and decided not to change that point. BiggerAristotle (talk) 11:30, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit war over basic punctuation and grammar fix

BA, you seem to have massive ownership issues over the SBW article, to the extant where you will revert edits when they are clearly wrong. Do you honestly think “and, in rugby league, his shoulder charges” is more correct than “and in rugby league, also his shoulder charges”? Or do you just find it impossible to accept anything other than your own edits? If you think that the word “and” has a comma after it then you clearly do not have even elementary English punctuation abilities and your editing of English Wikipedia should be called into question. Secondly, the “also” corrects a misunderstanding that is presented in your reverted edit. By not having “also” the sentence implies that in rugby league SBW was only known for his shoulder charges. You and I both know from our previous discussions that SBW was known even in RL also for his offloading ability. Hence by adding the “also” this stresses that the shoulder charge was another area (other than the offload) he was known for. I hope you can understand these basic punctuation and grammatical arguments I have made and stop being a disruptive editor for no real defendable reasons. Cheers.Suid-Afrikaanse (talk) 22:52, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Predictably, you are talking nonsense. Is English your native language? Using a comma after 'and' in this context, when two commas are used parenthetically, is entirely correct - read this article, for instance, specifically the first reply, or just Google it. Should I await your apology? BiggerAristotle (talk) 20:31, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Who said it is being used parenthetically? No one is pausing at the “and”. It is read without pause for “and in rugby league”, then followed by a break with a comma. So unfortunately your response does not warrant an apology and my above argument remains responded to unsatisfactorily. And you did not answer my argument above for the inclusion of “also”. Until you can present a convincing argument for your revert, or some other editors join in the discussion, I will revert to the edit I made. Cheers.Suid-Afrikaanse (talk) 22:31, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Can i suggest the phrase "and in rugby league" is removed all together? He is known for his shoulder charges in RU as well, he has picked up many red and yellow cards for them. Mattlore (talk) 22:40, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Hello Mattlore. Do you mean changing it from “He is particularly known for his ability to offload the ball in the tackle, and in rugby league, also his shoulder charges” to “He is particularly known for his ability to offload the ball in the tackle and his shoulder charges”? If so then I would totally agree and support that. There is no need for the excruciatingly unnecessary specifics of the current edit in a lead section. In fact this was how it was initially edited until it was changed by certain editors for no particularly strong reasons. Cheers.Suid-Afrikaanse (talk) 01:31, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, because a) I would contend that he is known for both in both codes and b) it is the simple option. Mattlore (talk) 02:01, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I totally agree. Would you like me to make the change?Suid-Afrikaanse (talk) 02:44, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Suid-Afrikaanse, you continue to reveal your ignorance of English, but there is obviously little point in discussing it with you - you are either blind to or unwilling to acknowledge your error and I have better things to do. As you know, the original insertion of his shoulder charges was changed because it was inaccurate, or at least inconsistent with the sources.

Mattlore, I don't believe he is particularly known in RU for his shoulder charges, though I could be wrong. The sources presented for his shoulder charges so far (see discussion above) relate to his rugby league career. If there are sources which state that he is well known (or something similar) for his shoulder charges in rugby union (I have looked but haven't found any so far) then I would support removing the qualifier. It would certainly be neater. BiggerAristotle (talk) 09:39, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Done. This source should ease any of your concerns BA. Mattlore (talk) 09:52, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)::Sorry, got to go with BA here regarding the punctuation. See our description here. BA's version says "He is particularly known for his ability to offload the ball in the tackle[4] and, in rugby league, his shoulder charges." The "in rugby league" part can be removed from the sentence and it still makes sense "He is particularly known for his ability to offload the ball in the tackle[4] and his shoulder charges." With your version "He is particularly known for his ability to offload the ball in the tackle,[4] and in rugby league, also his shoulder charges." if you remove the parenthetical remark you get the ungrammatical sentence "He is particularly known for his ability to offload the ball in the tackle also his shoulder charges." I know you do not mean the double commas to be parenthetical, but when you have two so close together like that it can be unclear to the reader. That is one of the reasons why BA's version was better. Matt's suggestion is acceptable too (although I can only think of two yellows and no reds). Because it does not say what sport each instance is referring to it does not go against the sources. It is a lead so we have a bit of leeway to summarize information. If it is put in the body under league that he is known for his shoulder charges and offloads and under mention offloads again under union then we will be covered if it is still an issue. AIRcorn (talk) 10:03, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

The latest source from Mattlore doesn't say that he is well known for it in rugby union, unless I'm missing something? I realise I might seem pedantic over this, but the lead needs to be really accurate - if we are to summarise the things someone is well known for, they need to be the right things, consistent with the sources. That source says "trademark shoulder charges", which is not the same as being well known for something, as discussed above, and it specifically refers to his using it in RL ("Williams used the no arm tackle to good effect in rugby league").

I honestly don't believe he is genuinely well-known for this other than among RL fans for his time in RL. I think in RU he is more well-known for any number of things - being big and fast, his tattoos, being a sex symbol etc. He is known for offloading in both sports, and for his shoulder charges when he played league. As far as I can tell, the sources don't support saying that he is particularly known for it in RU. BiggerAristotle (talk) 10:21, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Again I repeat: I agree with Mattlore because 1. It is only a lead that has summarized information- not unnecessary specifics. 2. He has provided a reasonable source to enforce this summarization. 3. It resolves our edit war over minor grammar and punctuation. 4. It seems to have the support of several editors, namely; myself, Mattlore and Aircorn. And hopefully that is the end of that. Cheers and thank you Mattlore.Suid-Afrikaanse (talk) 10:28, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

1. Specifics are not inherently unnecessary. If the lead is inaccurate or misleading without them, they are necessary.

2. The source doesn't say what it is being used to support - we already have other sources which confirm he is well-known in RL for this, so it adds little.

3. Your edit warring over minor grammar etc has been resolved because you were wrong.

4. Mattlore and Aircorn have thankfully contributed to this discussion, adding some sense to it, and we will see what comes out of it. BiggerAristotle (talk) 10:43, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

What specifics are you talking about BA? The version you present is actually inaccurate. Your version informs a reader that: 1. SBW is well known for his offloads (without “specifying” he is well known for them in both league and union). 2. SBW is well known for his shoulder charges in league (without “specifying” he is also well known for his offloads in league). So even your version is “inaccurate” and not “specific” enough. So I think it a bit rich that you criticize others while fighting for your own incorrect version. Again I stress my support for Mattlore’s version as the most suitable and acceptable for a lead section. Cheers.Suid-Afrikaanse (talk) 10:51, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

You are sort of right when you say it is not specific enough. When the lead only said he was well known for offloading, it was clear that this was meant currently and in general, so no clarification was needed. Once shoulder charges were added, the qualification (that this related to his RL career) became necessary for accuracy.

So by your logic, and staying consistent with the sources, it should read something like "He is particularly known in rugby league and rugby union for his ability to offload the ball in the tackle and, in rugby league, for his shoulder charges". Readers with common sense, however, will understand exactly what my earlier version means.

Again, if I am wrong and reliable sources are found which do support the statement that he is well-known for shoulder charges from his RU career, I would support it going in. I'm not "fighting" for any particular version, but I am trying to insist that the lead accurately represents the facts and the sources. BiggerAristotle (talk) 11:16, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Otherwise, the only really accurate and specific version would have to be written as (or something to the effect): “He is particularly known for his ability in both rugby union and league to offload the ball in the tackle and his shoulder charges in rugby league.” Cheers.Suid-Afrikaanse (talk) 11:17, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I understand your concerns for accuracy and sources. Actually, your just stated version of “He is particularly known in rugby league and rugby union for his ability to offload the ball in the tackle and, in rugby league, for his shoulder charges” is spot on. I would support that if Mattlore and Aircorn were also to back it. But I also think Mattlore’s version is appropriate enough for the lead. Cheers.Suid-Afrikaanse (talk) 11:25, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Height & weight

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)

{{citation needed}}, Suid-Afrikaanse, mate. Could possibly add refs that would quell this on-going problem? --Shirt58 (talk) 10:04, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

He is still officially listed in Rugby Union, and was always listed in Rugby League, as 191cm. However I agree with the 194cm listing as it makes a lot more sense. He was actually taller than Tillman who was listed 196cm. He is also taller than 196cm listed Jerome Kaino and has serious height over the likes of 192cm listed Victor Vito and 190cm listed Liam Messam. Overall, the 191cm listing just makes no sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.53.157.254 (talk) 05:08, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

The All Blacks currently listed him at 197cm and 111kg on their website. I think they should be the ones who know about that pretty well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NotDonaldTrump (talk • contribs) 15:14, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Removal of sourced information on claims on fixed fight

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)

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).

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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 [16][17]. Mattlore (talk) 02:11, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

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)

WBA International Heavyweight Championship

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)

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)

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 [18] and similar results about the possible lack of WMA officals which Greenman mention. After a long time I ended up at [19] 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 [20] 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)

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)

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)

Position in Rugby Union

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)

Ethnicity

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)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Sonny Bill Williams/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Wugapodes (talk · contribs) 21:22, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Will review. Wugapodes (talk) 21:22, 10 August 2015 (UTC) Haven't forgotten about this; life got busy and the article is long so I haven't had time to give it the look through it needs. I'll have a review done around the end of tomorrow. Wugapodes (talk) 23:57, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Checklist

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has an appropriate reference section:

   B. Cites reliable sources, where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Comments

If the comment is numbered, it must be addressed for the article to pass, if it is bulleted, it's an optional suggestion or comment that you don't need to act on right now.
When I quote things, you can use ctrl+f to search the page for the specific line I quoted.

1. "the highest levels" These should be explicitly stated, especially in the lead, because people (like me) may not be sure what the highest levels are.

2. "known in both codes" What is a "code"? Is that like one of the different league/rulesets? That should be clarified, especially in the lead.

3. "suspending his boxing career to focus on football" Is football here meaning rugby? football is too ambiguous, especially for someone doing so many sports. The explicit type of football should be stated.

4. "the son of John and Lee (née Woolsey)" Why the parentheses? Are those important?

5. The second paragraph of "Early life" is a little heavy on quotes. Is there any way they can be paraphrased and incorporated into the prose? See overusing quotations for some recommendations and an explanation of why it causes problems with things like readability.

6. "He also represented NSW as a junior" Who are/is NSW? The acronym should be spelled out the first time it appears.

7. "The largest offer was rumoured to be about $3 million from UK Super League club St Helens." Is listing rumors typical in sports articles? I feel like this might have verifiability issues since it is a rumor, but it has a reliable source so I'm unsure. If it's common, I'll let it go, but I'm unsure about it.

8. "Williams later dismissed claims he was injury prone as "bullshit"." I'm not sure this is necessary for the article, though I'd be willing to hear a rationale for keeping it.

9. In the Roosters Section, I'm not entirely sure we need a list of the first seven tries he scored. I feel like that section is a little overly detailed and could stand to be trimmed down as a whole to focus only on the more notable games.

10. "described as the greatest act of treachery in the game's history" This should probably be a direct quote and state who said it.

11. In the Crusaders section, the first paragraph could stand to be cut down a lot. It basically reads like an indiscriminate list of appearances which isn't really encyclopedic information. It may be the writing style, but I really doubt the benefit of a weekly run down of the games he played particularly since the notability of those games has more to do with the game itself than anything he did as a player. For example, he had nothing to do with "the first Super Rugby match played outside of New Zealand, Australia or South Africa" besides playing in it, which is cool, but tells me very little about the actual subject and reads more like trivia.

12. "The Panasonic deal was thought to be the largest one-season contract in rugby union history." By whom? It should be stated in the article who thought that.

13. The Boxing section needs a rewrite. First, each subsection is about one paragraph, which is advised against per WP:Paragraphs. Second, it suffers from a similar problem as above, where it reads like trivia rather than encyclopedic information. I highly doubt that most of those fights warrant their own paragraph, a sentence or two, probably, and maybe a paragraph for the one where he won a title, but a paragraph for each seems to get off into trivia territory again.

14. The Personal Life section seems, again, like an unconnected series of trivia and coat-racks for his family members.

15. The honours section reads like a resume and seems overly promotional, particularly since it's just a list. I'm unsure why these aren't incorporated into the text particularly since the article does a good job of chronologically describing his life. The second list is especially unnecesary since it's a list of teams that have already been covered and things that could easily be covered in the section on the team.

• "(as the youngest player to ever sign with an NRL club)" I'm not sure this needs to be paranthetical. This may be nitpicking though. Consider revising, but if you don't want to, I won't hold it against you.
• The citations in the article seem to use two different styles, or are not made to look consistent. This should be fixed at some point.

Results

On Hold for 7 days pending revisions. I think this article needs a lot of work to satisfy criteria 1b and 3b, but I think it can be done, so I'm putting it on hold rather than failing it right now. The biggest problem is the amount of trivia and coat-racking. Part of the problem I think is the overuse of sections and the lack of summary of the information. If you need further clarification on anything, let me know and I'll do my best to help you. Wugapodes (talk) 22:57, 12 August 2015 (UTC) Not Listed I'm closing the review as none of the problems have been addressed. If other editors wanted to fix them and renom, I think it would stand a much better chance of passing. Wugapodes (talk) 14:35, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 July 2017

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)

Currently mentioned. AIRcorn (talk) 19:57, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:25, 9 January 2018 (UTC)