Talk:Randy Couture

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Biography / Actors and Filmmakers / Sports and Games (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers (marked as Low-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the sports and games work group (marked as High-importance).
 
WikiProject Oregon (Rated B-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Oregon, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Oregon on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
The current collaborations of the week are Paulann Petersen & Oregon and Northwestern Railroad.
WikiProject Mixed martial arts (Rated B-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mixed martial arts, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of mixed martial arts concepts, events, and biographies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 

Nickname[edit]

The nickname

The Natural
Captain America

in the data box may be read erroneously as "The Natural Captain America".

Because UFC's official site and Randy's official site use "the Natural" and not "Captain America™", "The Natural" can be used for now. Shawnc 18:48, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Well in other statboxes items on separate lines mean different things. I however have no objection since Couture never uses Captain America himself, to my knowledge. This also puts into question Wanderlei Silva's "The Axe Murderer", if CA is taken off so should that, as to my knowledge Silva has never used that himself.
Lakes 19:55, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
I don't mind the nicknames themeselves at all, but rather the presentation in the statbox. For an athelete's data box, I don't usually see two nicknames across two rows and without

punctuation. It seems to me that they can potentially be misinterpreted. If this format is actually clear to other readers then we can certainly put it back, but maybe we can ask some others first. Shawnc 13:33, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, punctuation, specifically a comma after "The Natural", or even bullets, would visually separate the two names. 12.22.250.4 20:43, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Picture[edit]

Can someone cut out the fan from the picture that was recently uploaded? It's possible (abiet unlikely) that someone wouldn't know which person is Randy. VegaDark 04:11, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

done! hateless 05:48, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
Umm...looks exactly the same to me. Did I miss something? VegaDark 07:13, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
Original uploader replaced himself back into the picture... ok, I'm going to upload the copped img as a new image and put it in the infobox. hateless 07:15, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
Thought that might have been the case. I'll have to revert if he does it again. It's awesome he met Randy in real life (my dad met him on OSU campus once as well) but having a pic of him without the fan is an improvement to the article. VegaDark 20:12, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Sarcastic comments[edit]

User:Rat on a cheeto added to this article:

And, having etched his name in the UFC halls of fame, now looks forward to doing the same in the annals of broadcasting. With flashy comments like "Kick?"(UFC 60), and "he was on that leg like A rat on A cheeto!"(UFC 61), he is well on his way.

I reverted the addition as I feel it is blatant sarcasm intended to mock Mr. Couture, however he replied on my talk page that the edit was serious. The text was then re-added by User:66.218.41.83 of which I reverted again. I feel it should be discussed here if he thinks this addition should be made as I think it is blatantly obvious that it is vandalism, but I bring this up here so other editors can have a say. VegaDark 07:47, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

okay, fellow editors, i tried to add a few lines about Mr. Couture earlier and VegaDark removed it deeming it "sarcastic." i genuinely wanted to update this wiki site recording what he is doing post retirement, so i let people know. but Vega has removed said content (except for my first line.) now id like to protest this removal as i think it is unwarranted. i wrote on August 1st,: " And, having etched his name in the UFC halls of fame, now looks forward to doing the same in the annals of broadcasting. With flashy comments like "Kick?"(UFC 60), and "he was on that leg like A rat on A cheeto!"(UFC 61), he is well on his way." i think there is nothing wrong with this addition, please tell me if i am wrong.
p.s. you made a comment on this talk edit site about a picture put up for this wiki on July 1st of this year.... wow man... you are pretty EPIC Vega, pretty damn epic. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rat on a cheeto (talkcontribs) .
Agree with VegaDark, wikipedia is not a showcase for our comedic stylings. If you have any information about Couture's post fight career please feel free to add it, just keep it NPOV and in the correct tone for the article. --- Trench 19:37, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

People not related to Randy Couture[edit]

It should be noted that Randy is not related to Canadian/Model/Actress Sabrina Couture. I had to make a FAQ stating this.

Ominous Man Sabrina Couture Fan Club President.

Attended Oregon State Univeristy?[edit]

Did Couture attend Oregon State U. or was he just a staff member there? At what school were his collegiate titles won? He should be linked to the article about List of Oregon State Univ. people. Casey208.53.88.201 20:08, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

He was just staff there. I'm pretty sure he went to Oklahoma State. VegaDark 21:16, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
The "biography" section mentions that Couture was a collegiate champion and an Olympic alternqate, but not what sport!!!! (Presumably greco-roman wrestling, but I don't know enough to be able to say, nor what weight etc) --Dave. 23:24, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Just a quick question but why didn't the article mention anything about Couture's fights/wins against Pedro Rizzo. His two wins against Rizzo in many ways defined his career.

Lynnwood or Everett?[edit]

In his last fight they said he was from Everett, this says Lynnwood, which is right? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.110.221.182 (talk) 09:08, 4 March 2007 (UTC).

5 time champ?[edit]

On the wiki page it says he is the first 5 time champ in ufc history yet on the same ufc broadcast it said matt hughes is 9 time champ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.116.87.54 (talkcontribs)

In their terminology, Matt Hughes won a title match 9 times. In Wikipedia, it means the number of times someone newly won a title, not counting title defenses. Hughes is a two-time champ in this sense. hateless 19:54, 4 March 2007 (UTC)


Despite[edit]

I removed the bolded line from the paragraph:

On March 3, 2007, at UFC 68, Couture defeated then-champion Tim Sylvia by unanimous decision to claim his third UFC Heavyweight Title, this time at the age of 43. Couture, who used head-movement and boxing techniques, overwhelmed the larger Sylvia in both striking and grappling, including a knockdown in the first 8 seconds of the fight. Couture was able to take Sylvia down numerous times, which led to a 50-45 on all of the judges scorecards. This was despite repeated claims made by Tim Sylvia in videos shot to promote the fight, that Randy had 'lost a step' and had 'retired at the right time'. Couture's victory at UFC 68 made him the first five-time champion in UFC history.

If by despite, you meant, "without being affected by", then this sentence is redundant in its current location, as a reader can be left to conclude by the unanimous decision that Randy was not affected by the comments. (Perhaps he even was affected somehow... it would not be encyclopedic to pronounce either way, though.)

If you meant, "in spite of", then we'd be adding speculation. We'd be saying that Randy won "in spite of" Tim Sylvia's remarks. That is also speculative. It is not possible to describe the internal feelings about Tim's comments unless we can reference him as saying that he fought with Tim's comments driving him.

The only placement of this statement that I think could make sense is before the paragraph, by simply stating, "Tim Sylvia made repeated claims that Randy had 'lost a step' and had 'retired at the right time'." Sancho (talk) 17:14, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


Christian[edit]

It's not exactly a closely guarded secret that Randy Couture is a practicing Christian. When I tried to quietly include him in the American Christians category, it was removed because there was no reference in the article. When I put in a reference, his thanking Jesus and the American GI's after his upset victory in UFC 68, it was removed as an unnecessary addition (which I generally agree with; I didn't want to put it there in the first place). I would prefer to just include the category and forego the information from UFC 68. I've found that categories are often used in wikipedia as a way to define an individual with no specific references in the article itself. It's a simple way to give more information without clogging up an article. Bbagot 06:50, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

For a reference, rather than a sentence added to the article, I think what was meant is a just a footnote that points to reliable, third party source that a reader could use to verify that our categorization of Randy Couture as a Christian is correct. Do you know of one? I just looked for one briefly, but couldn't find one.
Also, those examples that you mention should also have such a reference in their article; if they don't, you could mention on their talk page that the article would be improved by adding one. Sancho (talk) 13:30, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
A few million people witnessed his speech after his win at UFC 68 earlier this month (taking into account possible multiple viewers at each set and a large number of sports bars) - "...I want to dedicate this fight tonight to two people. Jesus Christ who died for our sins and the American G.I. who steps up and dies for our freedom on a daily basis. This is for them!" There are threads on Sherdog discussing it, some running more than 30 pages. I also found a blog that quotes his words. The problem isn't referencing or else this article wouldn't exist. The entire Randy Couture article only has 2 references in it. Bbagot 06:28, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes, that is a problem (the lack of referencing in the article). Rather than add more unreferenced material, we should work on referencing the current material I think. The references aren't for the benefit of the few million people who watched his speech, they're for the five billion or so people who didn't watch his speech, and can't rely on our honesty when it comes to the addition of material to Wikipedia. Sancho (talk) 06:47, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
I just re-watched the post-fight. He actually said: "People say why do you love America so much? It's because of two people: Jesus Christ, who stood up and died for our sins, and the American GI, who stands up and dies for our freedom." It's referenced in this article: [1]. Sancho (talk) 06:47, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. So what happens now? I'd still prefer to only add the category. I doubt Vega will want to remove it now that he knows there's a source and the statement is true, even if it's not included in the article. What's the best way to do this that doesn't step on anyone's toes? Bbagot 21:20, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
I read somewhere --- I forget where, but will try to find out --- that categorization of an article should be supported by text in the article. So, we'd have to include text in the article that says Randy Couture is a Christian. However, it might be considered original research (see WP:OR) to make the connection from, "People say why do you love America so much? It's because of two people: Jesus Christ, who stood up and died for our sins, and the American GI, who stands up and dies for our freedom.", to "Randy Couture is a Christian". There may be non-Christians that believe that the widespread belief in Jesus is a good thing. (I know, kind of a stretch, but I'm just giving the possible argument against including this statement.)Sancho 13:04, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for letting me know that you made an update. I don't usually earmark pages to let me know when they change as many of the people I've seen do this are not the ones I'd want to emulate (control freaks). I think it'd be pushing it to view Randy's comments in any way but Christian. Perhaps if he had only said Jesus, but "dying for our sins" is simply not a statement that is made by those who only admire Jesus in a far off way. Would you allow me to enter him into the category again even if no mention is made in the article? I'm still very wary about specific Christian mention in the body of the text as I believe that may be a bit pushy. I'd like to see if just the category addition will work and only make other additions as a last resort. Bbagot 15:52, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia policy forces us to be very careful about the material included in biographies of living persons. There's actually a paragraph in the policy that covers this exact situation: Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Use_of_categories. So I think we have to include the reference in the article before we can add the category. Let's look at some other articles to find a nice way of doing this: Category:American_Christians. Sancho 16:34, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Rich_Franklin: included in a trivia section (I don't think that's the best way) Sancho 16:39, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Matt_Hughes_(fighter): slipped in slyly without a reference (not so good) Sancho 16:39, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Shawn_Michaels: Stated directly in the personal life section: "Shawn Michaels is a born again Christian". (I like that) Sancho 16:39, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your continued input. Would it be possible for you to make the addition where you feel it is appropriate instead of me? You have a longer history of respected changes. I'm more of an outsider and may be considered to be suspect. Bbagot 19:28, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem with you re-adding the information now that a reliable source has been found. I don't think there is any qustion as to if he is a Christian after that quote. I would add the info that he is a christian with that source in the article, though, along with the category. Someone might not read the talk page and delete the category again if it isn't supported in the article. VegaDark 20:21, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

ear disease[edit]

I always asking myself, when i see him, whats wrong with his left ear? Could this be added on his page?

It's called Cauliflower ear. His name is on a list of notable cases at that article. Just as a first impression, it doesn't seem like something to add to this article: the other people listed on the Cauliflower_ear page don't have it mentioned in their articles (I know, that's not a reason not to add it here, but it's the reason for my impression). What do you think? Sancho 13:05, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I think Cauliflower ear is one of his most distinguishable traits, even mentioned on Inside the UFC as him having bad cases of it. Should we mention it? NasDestiny 14:19, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

But that kinda of trait has nothing to do with his career (?) †Bloodpack† 23:05, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
He got that ear BECAUSE of his career. A sentence or two to the article about one of his distinguishing traits seems appropriate Marteau (talk) 00:14, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

I think its fairly notable. Portillo (talk) 11:02, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

reference tag[edit]

the top of the article is tagged for references. Thing is unless I see a citaition needed tag. I am not going to go out of my way to cite it. If its not asked for. Otherwise wiki is going to be a sentense followed by a link, followed by the same over and over. I just cited the only cite needed tag. I am thinking I should remove the tag on the top since no statements are asking for a citation. thoughts? --Xiahou 22:00, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

No, I placed it there because about 90% of the sentences still need citations. It thought it's easier to declare the entire article as needing improvement rather than requesting citations for every sentence. Yes, wiki should be a set of sentences followed by links to citations. Check out the Michael Jordan article. It's really well done and is a featured article. Some sentences even have more than one reference. Sancho 22:15, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
I guess, ich, hard to read doesn't look as good (jordans article) but I suppose it serves a purpose. It just seemed to me someone would put that tag if there was an abundance of cite needed tags throughout the article. So to remove it we should go through sentence/statment by statement and cite...*sigh* ok. --Xiahou 01:36, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
One thing you could do if you really don't like the reference links at the end of each sentence is to edit your monobook.css file and add the line:
.reference {display:none;}
This will hide all reference links for you. Unfortunately, it will be hard for you to verify that articles are properly sourced. Sancho 08:12, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

More "stuff" than writing[edit]

I just realized, this article doesn't look nice. There's so much "stuff" on the page: tables, external links, see alsos. We should work on arranging it all so that it is nicer to look at and easier to follow. Sancho 07:58, 14 April 2007 (UTC)


Match Numbers[edit]

Is this really necessary? (MgTurtle 23:31, 26 June 2007 (UTC)).

Nope. Tuckdogg 00:49, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Children and Wives[edit]

I added more sources for his children and the names of his wives because there are different sources out there with different info. so I thought I would add them to straighten some stuff out, maybe.Trying to avoid confusion here.(MgTurtle 04:53, 17 July 2007 (UTC)).

This UFC article [2] seems to say that all four of Randy's children are with his ex-wife tricia instead of what's in his personal life section where is mentions a previous wife. Can someone clear this up? Thanks.(MgTurtle 01:29, 1 August 2007 (UTC)).

I removed the unreferenced statements in the mean-time, but will keep looking. Sancho 16:09, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Military Career[edit]

As Mr. Couture is a former United States Army soldier, should we include verifiable ribbons, medals etc that he obtained, as well as his rank and if possible, more information regarding units served with as Mr. Couture is a person of interest to many?Mcase07 21:46, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Style[edit]

It says Couture's preferred method of fighting is ground and pound, but I think he's more of a clinch and pound fighter Baiter 00:28, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd disagree. To be honest, I'm not a fan of the "fighting style" parameter itself, as any assessment usually tends to be original research.  east.718 at 07:24, August 31, 2007 
He is introduced by the ring as a Greco-Roman wrestler, I think that should be what goes in under fighting style. That's the only value for that field I can think of that is not OR. hateless 09:33, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree with east and hateless. Although it probably wouldn't be too hard to find an article on sherdog or something calling him a gnp fighter. Disco (talk) 04:32, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Um, source on "Catch Wrestling"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Asphyx1 (talkcontribs) 06:58, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Relinquishing of the title and resignation from the UFC[edit]

Just did a cleanup on this section; among other sins, Couture's last name was misspelled everywhere it appeared. I also eliminated repetitive and seemingly contradictory verbiage; if I inadvertantly removed something important, please fix. 12.22.250.4 20:46, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

A&E Biography[edit]

Does anyone know when the biography channel is going to air Randy's bio? I haven't hear anything about it since it was announced.(MgTurtle 00:22, 10 November 2007 (UTC))

Wrestling for Fighting: The Natural Way[edit]

Maybe there should be a small area for the book randy couture made about fighting,since he authored it and what not


Souce here http://www.amazon.com/Wrestling-Fighting-Sport-Mixed-Martial/dp/0977731537 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.35.192.178 (talk) 17:15, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Sentences removed[edit]

  • Couture has since replied to the MMAWeekly.com of this title defense against Nogueira, but has declined. Once again mentioning Fedor's name as a legitimate reason for doing so. Other issues involved are mainly due to his personal life and taking time off to "smell the roses".

I've not got a clue what that's trying to say, but it doesn't say it particularly well at present and as it's unsourced I can't fix it. One Night In Hackney303 13:13, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

    • I think it is saying "Couture recently made a statement on MMAWeekly.com regarding the UFC's offer of a title unification bout against Antonio Rodrigo Nogueira. He reiterated his position that he will no longer fight for the UFC, again citing his desire to fight Fedor Emielianenko, as well as personal issues." But that's just a guess. gnfnrf (talk) 22:20, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Height[edit]

I've seen a video of him with Fedor Emelianenko and Mike Tyson and other videos with guys who's height is well known and there is no way Randy is over 6'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Outsid3r (talkcontribs) 12:32, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

another film?[edit]

I forgot the title of the movie, but i saw a film's trailer where hes also shown. Its not with Rob Schneider, I think its another one, a more serious movie where a black american is the protagonist. Anyone knows it? Its not mentioned in this article. †Bloodpack† 23:02, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Kim[edit]

Does anyone think we should wait longer before Kim has a page or what?I don't think she has many accomplishments but she has garnered much attention.(MgTurtle (talk) 02:53, 15 July 2008 (UTC)).

Return to UFC[edit]

Does anyone know why he's fighting Lesnar, instead of the interim champ Nogueira? Lesnar hasn't earned it. He's 1-1 in the UFC. He lost to Frank Mir. Now he gets a title shot? To me this seems like an insult to the interim champ. Is the UFC going to continue having an interim champ once the official champ becomes active again? --JHP (talk) 00:54, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Not that this is the place for discussion of this sort, but the interim champ is already fighting Mir in November. This cannot change due to the format of the ultimate fighter (they are both coaches). Considering most have 4 months at least between fights, if they stuck to this it would mean Randy couldn't fight until early 2009, and as you might know, time is against him. Therefore he fights Brock and the winner fights the winner of the interim title. Disco (talk) 04:30, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu Black Belt[edit]

There is no evidence that the black belt awarded to Randy Couture after his fight with James Toney is a BJJ black belt.

There is also no evidence that Neil Melanson is a BJJ black belt himself or able to award a BJJ black belt, in fact he has his own grappling system (No-Gi Grappling) that awards black belts.

To put simply Randy Couture is not a BJJ black belt. If he is now a black belt in BJJ why has the black belt in 'catch wrestling' been added? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.14.35.113 (talk) 14:39, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Read the source on the page. Paralympiakos (talk) 14:48, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

The source on the page is incorrect. It was incorrectly reported by a number of media outlets that it was a BJJ Black Belt. Neil Malanson cannot award such a belt. He can award a belt in his own No Gi Grappling style as he has on many previous occasions.

In this video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NyHk03T0tBM he says that he's not a BJJ guy which is proof that he cannot award such a belt.

Also note the video on xtremecouture's website. It shows him holding up stripes, not belts. Paralympiakos (talk) 17:35, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

The black belt is in catch wrestling; NOT BJJ - someone change this —Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])
Please read. Paralympiakos (talk) 13:53, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Whatever may have been reported and no matter what the belt looks like Neil Melanson is not entitled to award any BJJ belt as he does not have any himself. Randy Couture is not ranked in BJJ at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.14.35.113 (talk) 17:06, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Here is a video of Melanson explaining the belt (http://www.cagedinsider.com/ufc/fighters/randy-coutures-jiujitsu-coach-explains-nogi-black-belt-video/). The article with it states that no-gi black belts were started by eddie bravo. difference is Bravo has a real black belt, thus can give them out. Melanson is not a BJJ Black Belt, therefore he can not give them out. Wiki needs to remove the BJJ Black Belt from this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.97.10.194 (talk) 14:44, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I figured it was common knowledge that only a BJJ black belt is entitled to reward a black belt. Melanson is not a black belt in BJJ, and as such, cannot award a black belt in BJJ. Couture's belt is in Melanson's Submission Grappling system. 96.52.189.141 (talk) 06:42, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Most Fights in the UFC[edit]

The article states that Couture has the most fights in the UFC tied with Matt Hughes. I believe that Tito Ortiz now has more fights than both of them after fighting twice in 5 weeks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.5.68.152 (talk) 22:00, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Randy's Book[edit]

Add a section on his book. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.87.142.131 (talk) 17:26, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Most title reigns[edit]

The article claims that Randy Couture has the most title reigns (assuming this means defenses?) in the UFC with 5. That record was broken several times, and is currently held by Anderson Silva with 9 consecutive title defenses. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.100.36.27 (talk) 06:37, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

It means he won, held and lost the titles (Heavyweight and Light Heavyweight) five separate times. Anderson Silva has one reign, starting when he beat Rich Franklin and ending (I'm guessing) when he decides to retire. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:43, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Deletion of non-notable and unencyclopaedic material?[edit]

InedibleHulk and myself have an entirely amicable disagreement. Nobody else has commented here, so I'm trying to get other opinions. The issue as I see it is regarding articles on sportspeople in general, not just this one. InedibleHulk considers that much detail on ranking in competition, and details of particular contests, are relevant and increase understanding of the subject (this is my summary, please see InedibleHulk's own words below). I consider that for a general encyclopaedia just notable results (winning a title, maybe the exceptional losing event with notable features) and no, or minimal, description of individual events is appropriate. More detail may well increase understanding, but is more appropriate for a more specialised publication (with external links in the article). I'd appreciate any opinions on this. Maybe there are already appropriate discussions or guidelines for the case of sports biographies? I've appended a new "Threaded discussion" subsection at the bottom of this section. Hope I've done this right, first time I've asked for comments. Thanks.

Original discussion follows, followed by "Threaded discussion" section for comments. Pol098 (talk) 19:09, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

I recently deleted a lot of detail which I felt wasn't relevant for an encyclopaedia; e.g., being semi-finalist or runner-up but not winning competition, blow-by-blow details of fights, and so on. These things are appropriate for a sports magazine or news medium, but not here. I also made changes so that the article doesn't go out of date when, for example, records are broken, and to tone down the language and make it more a bare statement of fact.

My edits have been objected to and reversion suggested. That's fine by me, no problem, I don't want to push my idea of what's appropriate. But I would like to ask for opinions, always a good idea, but also useful guidance for me and others on how to edit this sort of article in future. The changes I made are here.

Some things did definitely need changing, again remembering that this is a timeless reference work not a magazine article. Some of the text was written in a way that will go out of date; it's possible to rewrite more generally without losing detail. E.g., "he is the only fighter under 40 to do ..." ==> "as of 2012 he was the only fighter under 40 to do..."; "He holds the most title reigns in the UFC with five" ==> "he won the UFC titles five times, as of 2012 more than anyone else" and many other examples regarding records and the like. Words like "currently" and "now" shouldn't be used (see WP:DATED).

Some of the wording was too flowery, informal, or unreferenced praise (WP:PEACOCK). "He holds notable wins over ..."; "He defeated ..." gives the same information with no judgement. You can see many such cases in the link to the changes I made.

So say what you think: was the article better for an encyclopaedia mostly left alone? Pol098 (talk) 02:35, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm all for trimming wordiness and peacocks. I removed quite a bit of each myself lately. However, I feel semifinal or runnerup information is valuable in giving a more complete look at his career. If we remove everything but his major titles and big money fights, an unfamiliar reader may get the impression he was always a superstar and almost always succesful. It should stay to give proper context. His Olympic and NCAA accomplishments, at least, should certainly be worth a mention.
I think defeating Tony Halme is a notable and interesting accomplishment. Saying he was in the finals of a four-man tournament begs the question, anyway. What harm is done in answering it for the reader?
Summarized accounts of the action in a fight should remain. They illustrate the type of fighter he was and how his tactics differed among opponents. Merely saying he won or lost gives even less information than the results table, and makes the article read more like a statsbook than an encyclopedia entry. Brief background on the fighters and title situations gives context. Smith defending his title for the second time, for example, shows he was a proven champion, and Belfort's streak to that point illustrates why the win was notable better than "he was not the favourite, but he won". You removed the mention of him being stripped of the title when going to Japan, which may be confusing.
Enson Inoue did not fight in RINGS or on the same date as Illoukhine(Fixed), and mentioning they were submission losses adds to a reader's understanding. You say UFC was criticized after the Rizzo fight, with no explanation why. You say he was defeated in the RINGS final, but not by whom, or that he also won a fight there. The reader is less informed.
As for records, using "as of..." works, but needs to be changed every month and is extra words. Better to just say he holds the record, and remove that sentence if/when it is no longer true. You completely removed the fact that his fifteen title fights stat is a record.
I think that's it. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:17, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
I find this discussion interesting and useful, and hope others do too. I don't intend to enter into any more detailed discussion myself, I've said what I wanted. One specific point (remembering always that this is a work of reference, and some users may access older versions, e.g. hardcopy, rather than always the latest, and also that it's quite common for articles not to get updated): "As of" never needs to be updated be, though it can; "he held the record as of June 2010" never goes out of date even if the record is still held in July 2012, the article doesn't become incorrect if it's not updated; wording such as "with this victory in 2006 he won the record" is also timeless. "He [currently] holds the record" becomes out of date as soon as someone else takes it. There seems no reason ever to use wording that becomes dated, as it's always possible to reword to convey the same information timelessly. I'm speaking about the general principle; the particular wording I used may well have carried less information or have been clumsy. Pol098 (talk) 22:50, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, I hear you. Hadn't thought about anyone using hardcopy. Sometimes I forget paper and ink still exist. For what it's worth, this particular type of info is far less subject to change than stuff I'd use "as of" for (sales figures, populations, poll numbers). Georges St-Pierre needs five title bouts to beat that record, which would reasonably take at least three years, if he does at all. The runners up to his five reigns have three, and none look likely to get even one more shot. Dan Henderson may break that oldest champ record soon, though. But I'm not set against "as of". I just personally don't prefer it. His title fights record should definitely be mentioned though, even with an "as of". InedibleHulk (talk) 00:21, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
While I'd like to see comments from more people, I won't revert any future edits in the spirit of anything discussed here, I'm not trying to set up any sort of edit war, even a polite one. If there's a general feeling that my edits on balance have made the article worse rather than better, either revert the lot, or revert selectively. Pol098 (talk) 08:23, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
You could request comments. If nobody else knows there's an issue, they won't likely add their two cents. I'd feel better about reverting (while leaving your rephrasing of truly wordy parts, and "as of") if it wasn't just your opinion against mine, and would leave it alone if there was consensus to do so. I'm in no rush, though. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:28, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
Deafening lack of interest here, suppose I should request comments. Pol098 (talk) 17:36, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Alright, it looks like it's just you and I. Since you've said you wouldn't really mind a reversion, I think that's what I'll do. The longer we wait, the more will be added by other editors, making reversion more difficult. Due to browser memory issues, I can't edit the lead, so if you want "as of" there, you'll have to re-add it. But I'll re-add your other undisputed wordines edits. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:43, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Threaded discussion[edit]

descended from Guillaume_Couture[edit]

Word from a friend who's also a Couture (and Randy's cousin though I'm not sure if 1st or 2nd or 3rd) is that all Coutures in North America are descended from Guillaume Couture. No citation for that at present, if there is I'll be back with it someday. 58.8.13.255 (talk) 17:37, 2 August 2012 (UTC)