Talk:Champion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Okay, i have never made an edit on wiki before but felt so inclined upon seeing this page. I was looking up 'champion' in the feudal sense of the word and saw a picture of three little girls holding karate medal depicting champions. WTF, you have got to be kidding. -r — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.211.170.160 (talk) 01:16, 8 December 2013 (UTC)


(Off to a bad start)[edit]

Um... is this a terrible article? It doesn't seem to make any sense.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.3.62.199 (talk) 23:42, 14 November 2006‎


I don't think it's very neutral either.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.251.93.46 (talk) 13:01, 27 February 2007‎
Note that the following contrib was inserted 3 years later than those above it, and more than a year after the one below it. I have just isolated it in a box, since it it is off-topic to this page and the article, and shows no sign of a relationship to the talk contribs it was placed between. (Its original indentation matched that of the earlier contribs above and below it.)
--Jerzyt 08:33, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
Are champions born or are they made? Is it genes which decide how gifted a sportsperson a child will grow up into, or the rigours of extensive training, or just experience? Indeed, what goes into the making of a champion? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.195.107.232 (talk) 15:13, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
Agreed. There should be something (in fact, a lot, and possibly a whole article) about the original meaning of the word. A champion was a sort of hired strongman who would fight for you but I don't know enough to write it fully. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.112.230.105 (talk) 19:41, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. This doesn't seem to meet the usual standards of a Wikipedia article. There's a strange reference to Ralph Nader (a most controversial champion) and, like a previous commenter said, confusion between the original and common meanings of the word. I also lost track after a list of three meanings followed by the text "in both these senses". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.113.29.114 (talk) 05:30, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Yeah. I removed the random Ralph Nader reference, but the whole thing makes no sense. Someone needs to redo this article, in a better manner. Lolinder (talk) 01:54, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
Very weak article removed arbitrary reference to a name. Added opening paragraph, but article still needs a lot of work. Presumably at some point this was an article on a different topic.
Tetron76 (talk) 14:58 & 15:01, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
   User:Tetron76 removed 2 sentences of their own talk 3 minutes later ( 15:01, 16 February 2011) with the summary "updated comment to reflect re-eedit", which i have restored (but struck thru, thus to indicate their intent), for the sake of a clearer record.
(This chronology helps clarify for me:
14:56, 16 February 2011 (-134)‎ . . Champion ‎ (replaced first paragraph as article was completely off topic)
14:58, 16 February 2011 (+281)‎ . . Talk:Champion ‎ (comments on changes)
15:00, 16 February 2011 . . (+2)‎ . . Champion ‎ (Missed that I had been redirected to page so moved added paragraph down.)
15:01, 16 February 2011 . . (-131)‎ . . Talk:Champion ‎ (updated comment to reflect re-eedit)
and this diff shows their net change to the article: a bad 2nd 'graf -- 2 muddy sentences and 2 way-off-topic ones -- tossed out; a new 'graf several grafs down. Confusing; quite kosher.)
--Jerzyt 08:33, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Toward a rescue of the article[edit]

   Yes, it's horrible, and off the top of my head here's some specifics: as i noted by rewriting one of the HatNotes to "{{About}} the concepts of being a champion and championing", the article is lexicographic in structure, and fails to break out into separate articles for the senses of "champion" that it enumerates, which should be treated as separate topics (instead of as a group of etymologically related terms for different phenomena), some of which i now presume to enumerate:

  1. a person who undertakes combat on behalf of another, under the agreement that the combatants' respective principals (normally the combatants' respective liege lords) will be bound by the result of the combat in regard to a dispute between the principals. On one level, the premise is that the dispute can be settled without the principals risking life and limb, on another it is that powers greater than the principals will impose their will on the outcome of the combat, and the principals will accede to that will by treating the outcome of the combat as the basis of settling the dispute. If my champion gets beaten, i admit that your side in the dispute is the side of justice, or at least honor.
  2. a person who undertakes combat on behalf of a sponsor, not to settle a dispute but in the hope of winning honor and respect for the sponsor. In a tournament, the sponsor (at least typically, a lady) accepts the champion by giving him a token (scarves are popular, right?), and assumes that her honor has been enhanced if the champion is victorious: she is certifiably hot, bcz greater powers have given her champion the victory.
  3. an athlete or team that has exceeded all others, in contests of skill, strength, daring, and perhaps of holding the favor of greater powers, bestows upon their sponsors (fans), honor, charisma, and machismo by virtue of that victory, and by repeatedly being a champion in a sense analogous to 1 or 2 and winning each time, becomes a champion (in our modern sense), which is someone who's beaten everyone else's champions (in more or less the term's medieval senses).
  4. Championing someone/something is an action, amounting to acting as their/its champion.

So at least for a start, i put forward the suggestion that the above are

  1. Champion (feudalism),
  2. Champion (chivalry),
  3. Champion (competition), and
  4. Championing.

Perhaps 3 is the primary topic.
--Jerzyt 10:13, 17 June 2013 (UTC)