Talk:B.J. Penn

POV?

Malathion 08:14, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC) It is not POV to suggest that B.J. Penn's striking skills are effective, that he is pound-for-pound one of the best fighters in the world, or that Matt Hughes was a dominant champion before he was defeated by Penn. No knowledgable person can deny any of these claims and there is no controversy whatever about any of them.

You could say "such and such magazine says" and then quote reviews of his career or "he has an unprecedented record" and then quote his fight record to prove that it is unprecedented. But to suggest in a blanket way that he is pound for pound one of the best fighters in the world is inherently POV for an encyclopaedia article. The world is a big place with many differing definitions of fighting effectiveness. We can say that "so-and-so considers him to be the best MMA fighter" but we also have to say directly who says that so our readers can make up their own minds, we can't say it. Fire Star 01:14, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Malathion 21:02, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC) There is no need to include crackpot opinions in articles that are supposed to be informative. There is no reasonable interpretation by which you can conclude that Matt Hughes was not a dominant champion before Penn defeated him. If such a claim is labeled "POV" then you're going to have to go through wikipedia and include opinions of lunatics who believe the sky is purple or that aliens are reading our minds. Although I agree that some scrutiny is required here, the deafening lack of controversy about any of the claims made in the original article seems to indicate that they are NPOV. No knowledgable person who has seen B.J. Penn fight denies that he is an effective striker (scoring knockouts against your opponents should blatantly indicate the presence of effective striking) or that he out-grappled Matt Hughes (how such a claim could be regarded as controversial or POV is beyond me- watch the fight!).

I can understand your complaints about the "pound for pound" remark, but it is certainly true that he is widely regarded as one of the best pound-for-pound fighters. There are simply too many people who would characterize him as such to name them all, and naming only a few does not give the reader any insight about the overwhelming consensus that he is. Note that Wikipedia is not characterizing him as one of the best pound-for-pound fighters, but is only stating that he is widely regarded to be, which is perfectly true. Whether he actually is so great is a more debatable point- but whether he is widely regarded as great is not. Similarly, whether he is widely regarded as the best fighter in the 155-175lb weight class is not controversial, as his record has already asserted his dominance over the best fighters in that division. What you are suggesting is something akin to "Fedor Emelianenko is the undisputed heavyweight champion of Pride" is NPOV but you would think that "Fedor Emelianenko is the dominant heavyweight fighter in Pride" is somehow POV. Anyone who looks at the evidence will reach the conclusion that Emelianenko is the dominant heavyweight fighter in Pride and anyone who looks at the evidence will conclude that Penn is the dominant welterweight fighter overall. There is no reasonable basis by which you can contest either of those claims as all the evidence supports them entirely.

If that isn't enough of a standard for NPOV writing, then again, I suggest you go do some editing in the science articles on Wikipedia to include the opinions of astrologers, faith healers, and psychics.

Greetings. I don't dispute that Matt Hughes was an MMA champion. I don't dispute that B.J. Penn is one of the best MMA fighters. I guess what I didn't make clear to you is that I do object to the language used when those facts are reported in this article. This isn't Black Belt magazine. I'm a san shou fighter and a traditional MA instructor, too. I've fought in China, I know what I am talking about and I know what you are talking about. You need to cite your sources for an encyclopaedia article or I will continue to tone down what can be seen as hero worship.

Sentences like this one:

"Penn had established himself as one of the most talented submission wrestlers in his weight class."

and of course the

"...pound-for-pound one of the best fighters in the world."

These are typical problems for me. "The fighter with the most victories in his weight class" would be OK, "So-and-so says he is one of the best (or most talented) MMA fighters in the world" and then citing your source is acceptable, your, or my, opinion isn't. Personal opinions couched in sensational language can violate WP policy under both no original research and Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a soapbox precedents. To prove that your statements aren't personal opinion, and the burden of proof is on you, you are going to have to come up with names, dates and places.

Incidentally, the astrology and other New Age articles all have documented scientific rebuttals and criticisms in them. Fire Star 23:54, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Malathion 05:52, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC) For starters, I want to get rid of this "hero worship" nonsense. Right off the bat you already agreed that none of the statements I am making are controversial. If it's obviously true that B.J. Penn is the dominant welterweight fighter - and you do not dispute this point - then my stating the obvious fact should not be regarded as "hero worship". As it happens I am not particularly a B.J. Penn fan as I usually watch Pride fights. But it would be insane for me to describe him in any other way. Simply put, "It ain't bragging if it's true."

That said, let me look at the specific examples you cited:

"Penn had established himself as one of the most talented submission wrestlers in his weight class." My source immediately followed that statement where I noted that he won the blackbelt division of the Brazilian Jiu Jitsu world championships. If that isn't establishing yourself as one of the most talented submission wrestlers in the weight class, I'd like to know what you think would be.

"...pound-for-pound one of the best fighters in the world." Wiki articles are not research papers. If I am making statements that are as painfully obvious as the ones you are disputing, I don't think sources are necessary. It's plain to any observer that these statements are true. Now, it might be _better_ or _more informative_ to include sources just to give the reader more information. But since it is obviously the case that there is a popular opinion about him - and if you deny that I'd like to know why - I don't see how it is POV to state the plain fact, with or without sources. Do you dispute that there is popular opinion among knowledgable MMA fans that he is pound-for-pound one of the best fighters in the world?

Third, you seem to be editing out the part where I say that Penn displayed his superior grappling skills in the fight against Matt Hughes. I'd like to know how you think the statement that his grappling skills were superior is controversial or POV. If one knows anything at all about ground fighting, I would wonder how he could look at that match and conclude that the ground fight was anything but one-sided.

Wikipedia is not about truth, it is about verifiable information. 75.2.200.118

Malathion 22:50, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC) Although I appreciate efforts to expand the article, whoever made these edits needs to read up on NPOV language or leave their editorializing in the Sherdog forums. Wikipedia is not a place to talk about bandwagons or say things like "totally demolished" and whatnot. Thanks.

> Malthion, I wouldn't worry about what this guy has to say. I am a BJ Penn fan and critic and in my opinion this article is fair. Whoever this guy is he is not as familiar with educated articles as he thinks he is. Look at IBOH (International Boxing Hall of Fame) biographies, they feature similar accolades. Is it disputable that Penn is the best? Yes, but no one of reason and experience disputes that he is among the best. I would argue that if you were to say he is NOT of of the best P4P, then sources would be necessary. It's a matter of consensus judgement.

Trench 17:29, 7 January 2006 (UTC) --- I've not checked the edits since Malathion made his comments in April, but the article as it stands currently is neutral. The only statement I take issue with is the classic weasel term "BJ is widely regarded as the best pound for pound fighter in the world today." If you can attribute this to someone, a commentator or another fighter, then I have no problem with it. Otherwise it's up to the reader to decide after viewing his achievments and record, not wikipedia.

How can "widely regarded" be attributed to one person. Furthermore, what difference does it make if an announcer or another fighter says it and if an article says it. There is such a thing as implicit information.

Trench 23:33, 6 February 2006 (UTC) --- Which is pretty much my point exactly. If the article implies to the reader that BJ is pound for pound one of the world's best fighters, through his record and accomplishments, then that's fine. We can't just state it as a matter of fact and say "well, because it's true". As for the "widely regarded" phrase, the point is we shouldn't be using the term at all, (weasel terms), unless we're quoting someone directly.

Return to the UFC section

Trench 17:36, 7 January 2006 (UTC) --- I've taken this bit out for now because it reads as if it's been lifted straight from a UFC press release or article.

=== Return to the UFC ===

Former UFC welterweight champion B.J. Penn will make his triumphant return to The Octagon in 2006. “It hasn’t even really set in yet,” said Penn of his return. “The UFC is definitely my home. It’s where I started, this has been building more and more, and as I was coming down here, it’s like I’m gonna fight tonight.”

“A lot of people feel that B.J. is still the champion and the great thing about him returning to the UFC is that hopefully, if Hughes wins against Joe Riggs, people will eventually get to see the rematch of the first fight,” said UFC President Dana White. Penn has just one thought when he hears Bruce Buffer announce Hughes as the UFC welterweight champion. “The second best fighter in the world, Matt Hughes,” said Penn.

If it hasn't been just taken from another source, then it needs cleaning up badly. "triumphant return" is not appropriate for example.

EDIT

noticed someone added filipino to his heritage that wasnt there before, so deleting that. Filipino is not an ethnicity it is a nationality, 97% of Philippines are of Malay stock, therefore will just stick with Malay and remove Filipino. --Jandela 17:57, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I've removed that sentence completely instead for being unsourced. hateless 02:41, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

All boys are named Jay?

If all the Penn boys are named Jay, then is B.J. brother Reagan's first name Jay or what? (MgTurtle 04:11, 8 May 2007 (UTC))

Weight classes?

Why is there a section for weight classes on B.J.'s MMA record? Just wondering since no one else has this. (MgTurtle 23:19, 25 June 2007 (UTC)).

BJ has a tendency to jump around through various weight classes for...whatever reason. He's weighed about 163ish for the last several years, and at that bodyweight he has fought at 155, 170, 185, and 205. I like having the weight class of each of his fights in the table, because it adds some perspective to his fights. Tuckdogg 04:14, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

UFC 74/Diego Sanchez

BJ won't be fighting Diego at UFC 74- http://www.sherdog.com/news/news.asp?n_id=8166 Thesaddestday 22:33, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Shaking hands with Sherk

I added the part in after he said he was dead because of what they did in the PPV —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.156.178.40 (talk) 10:30, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

FORMATING

Part of the article disappears, whichever part is immediately after the description of Penn's victory over Stephenson is not visible on the main page, and i can't figure out why. Please help.