Jump to content

Talk:Muhammad Ali/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Muhammad Ali. 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 User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot*this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:11, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

A really serious miss-quote that might highlight an unreliable source

The quote on integration between races is refering to Ali's interview on 1971. Talking about black peoples need to seek independence he said:

"...No intelligent white man or white woman in his or her right white mind wants black boys and black girls coming to their homes to marry their white sons and daughters and in return introducing thier grandchildren as half-brown-kinky-haired-black-people"

It's right here, on record(from 0:47)

Unless somebody can show a counter interview where Ali says the exact same sentence in a negative: 1. The actual quote should come instead of the missleading one, but not in his opinion on religion, but on race, in it's right context.

2. The miss-quote should be deleted from the article.

3. The miss-quote is so blunt and unproffsional I would consider the source unreliable, suggest deleting it from use and relapce it with the tons of diffrent ones that are avilable about Ali.

Thank you, 01:40, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Cassius Marcellus Clay Sr.

Please see this page: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cassius Marcellus Clay, Sr. The result of that discussion was that the article of the father (Cassius Marcellus Clay Sr.) be merged into the article of the son (Muhammad Ali). That consensus was reached in 2009, a full seven years ago. Should any action be taken on this? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 02:16, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Seems pretty stale. You can nominate it for deletion again if you think it ought to be deleted.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:43, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
No. I don't know enough about all this. I just noticed that the AfD closed (seven years ago), but no one took any action. At that time. Or since. Quite odd. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:33, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
@Kevin McE: You nominated it for deletion all those years ago. Why didn't you delete it?Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:51, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 June 2016

Please change the nationality of Muhammad Ali from American and Bangladeshi to only American. He was not of Bangladeshi descent and the linked source does not state that we was. Thank you!

2602:306:CC97:1F80:99:2E11:54CA:1E6B (talk) 09:10, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

 Done - by another - Arjayay (talk) 12:53, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Make infobox boxer as a module within the infobox biography template?

Hello. I'm thinking about making the boxer infobox as a module embedded within the infobox biography template, as I think it would reduce clutter in both infoboxes. Thoughts or ideas? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 05:31, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

I have come to the same conclusion. Info in both of the infoboxes (one of which was removed) is useful. He was widely considered as more than just a boxer. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 15:17, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Cluebot III stinging like a bee

There's a note about automatic archiving after 90 days, but the friendly robot archived a bunch of Talk today, some younger than a day. Problem? InedibleHulk (talk) 19:49, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

ClueBot was also configured to keep no more than five threads on the talk page, which is a pretty terrible idea. I fixed it. Reach Out to the Truth 20:06, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:14, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

I have switched to a more reliable archiver at any rate. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 15:34, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Stance

What is 'stance'? It should be Islam as boxer was muslim.--5.43.73.181 (talk) 03:56, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Please follow the link to Orthodox stance. -- zzuuzz (talk) 04:03, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
Stance can mean way of acting or relating in public to politics or religion. There should be note next to stance in the right box, and article Orthodox stance should change name to Orthodox stance (boxing). There is liberal or communist stance too.--5.43.73.181 (talk) 05:02, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
Feel free to take that up at Template talk:Infobox boxer. Its use in this template is as a boxing term only. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 16:01, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 June 2016

There is a typo in the 'Later Years' section, 3rd paragraph, 1st sentence ( source [68]).

It appears in the article: In 1984, Ali announced his support for the re-election, 1984 of United States President Ronald Reagan, when asked to elaborate on his endorsement of Reagan, Ali told reporters, "He's keeping God in schools and that's enough."[68]. The second 1984 should be removed, thanks.

Agiatezza (talk) 18:59, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

 Done, thanks. -- zzuuzz (talk) 19:10, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Double Content

The passage about the court ruling is included twice in seperate sections which should probably be amended:

Exile and comeback

In 1971, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned his conviction in a unanimous 8–0 ruling (Thurgood Marshall recused himself, as he had been the U.S. Solicitor General at the time of Ali's conviction).

Vietnam War and resistance to the draft

On June 28, 1971, the Supreme Court of the United States in Clay v. United States overturned Ali's conviction by a unanimous 8–0 decision (Justice Thurgood Marshall did not participate). Jellinator (talk) 18:56, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

@Jellinator: OK, I just took a stab at this. Did I go far enough in taking out the repetition? Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 20:34, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Recent reversions

@SourceOhWatch (SrotahaUvacha):, I'm starting this topic to discuss major reversions that you recently did. I have no doubt you are seeking constructive changes, but it may be better to more fully explain major changes, or do the changes more surgically. It's important to realize that even with guidelines, we may interpret them differently. Overlinking is one such area. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 18:01, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Let me at the outset concede where I feel I am in error. Your reverting edit of 17:20, 5 June seems proper. Indeed, birth-places are wikilinked on a few featured bio-pages I clicked open randomly (eg: M. Jordan and B. Ruth). So as a precedent, I concede your birth-city wikilinking, till I show something better (precedent, reasoning, etc).

For all other wikilinks I hold my position. Edit summary of 17:17 has still not been countered by showing any piece of line from the guide pages with which the controverted wikilinking "may be interpreted differently". The rules therein are fairly succinct and clear. Till this is done, I now proceed to revert the remaining wikilinks. SourceOhWatch (स्रोतः उवाच) (talk) 19:31, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

It would be best if you make changes like you've been doing in a more surgical manner so that it will be easier for us to evaluate these things. Many of your changes were common words, but others maybe not so much. We have to look at this from the common readers' perspective, and that perspective generally is not at a scholarly level. If we link a somewhat unusual term or proper name, and it hasn't been linked yet, it is usually reasonable to have that link. Beyond overlinking, if you're going to revert something, it might be best to first try to ascertain why a change was done in the first place, even if there isn't a clear edit summary. It seemed to me that your reversion was too "wholesale" in nature. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 20:02, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
@Stevietheman: Response to a point made earlier by me that "...still not been countered by showing any piece of line from the guide pages..." is still awaited. Meanwhile my latest unwikilink (given with a comprehensive reason) has not been countered either. Instead it has been reverted with a value judgement "..that's not the usual criteria" and "a key concurrent subject". The last two quoted phrases I am unable to find any support on the Linking policies and guide pages. I wait a bit for your response else, proceed to edit. SourceOhWatch (स्रोतः उवाच) (talk) 21:46, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
I am not a wikilawyer. I depend on my 12 years of wikiservice to know what constitutes useful links. It doesn't matter whether you can find specifically worded guidelines to match my reasons or not. Ultimately, a lot of this linking stuff goes by common sense. I say my reason is reasonable and obvious. If you are referring to Thurgood Marshall in a specific way and not linking to that article, that's odd. As for "countering" anything, I don't have to proceed by your terms. I suggested making changes in a more surgical way so that others (including me) can evaluate the changes better. I'm not going to conduct a review of all the changes at once. I simply won't be doing that. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 21:52, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
Also, I will submit we should be spending far more time with concern over the article's content rather than whether some terms are overlinked. I understand how it can be easy to fixate on things like this, but this continual insistence on unlinking might be seen by some as a kind of disruption to improving the article, rather than actually improving the article. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 22:00, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

External Links - Should imdb (movie vendor) be in this section?

Wikipedia:External_links#Links_normally_to_be_avoided:
5. Individual web pages that primarily exist to sell products or services, or to web pages with objectionable amounts of advertising.

With the above wikipedia guideline; the imdb and discogs external links should be removed from this article?

Vwanweb (talk) 04:45, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

No. They are both commonly used (esp. IMDb) as external links in wiki articles. In these cases, they provide extended informational depth on Ali's film/TV roles and discographies. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 11:36, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Memorial listings

Consensus and reliability and noteworthy of post must be discussed. Mlpearc (open channel) 16:50, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

WP:NOTMEMORIAL doesn't seem to apply. The article is merely including significant, reliably sourced information surrounding this majorly famous person's death, and it is rather concise at that. Can you explain how it applies? Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 17:48, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict) @Stevietheman: My edit was based more on nobility and reliability, I should of use a different edit summary, my apologies. Many things (ie. statements, memorials and events) are going to occur and starting a discussion is the best way to work these out. If everyone is OK with the information I removed, I will not argue the point. Cheers, Mlpearc (open channel) 18:10, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
Maybe there's a better way to word and/or source this material, but as long as it's concise, I don't see a problem. Perhaps in the long term it will become more concise by the nature of such things. But with this being such a major globally well-known figure, some coverage of the farewell makes sense. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 18:14, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

2nd Round on Talk - Infobox Biography addition?

The template

Muhammad Ali/Archive 3

is very limited from a biography perspective. Muhammad Ali's social views and actions should be part of the articles overall brief Infobox 'view'. I did not know he was sentenced to three years in prison for failure to submit his military "draft' file, seeing this type eye opening information is what the Infobox is all about. Placing brief dialogue to garner the readers attention.

I have had two editors remove the infobox adult biography that I annexed with over half a dozen items that required alot of time and effort to research. They performed the removals against guidelines, they did not use the articles talk page to have the community review this matter. Muhammad Ali went through alot in his life getting a 'view' of his boxing data, is far away from where this human motivated others.

Vwanweb (talk) 13:05, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

I support making infobox boxer a module inside a more generic biography infobox, effectively keeping both. Ali was obviously much more than just a boxer. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 13:24, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support keeping - I've also reinstated it (twice in fact) as there's been no consensus to remove it, As noted above he was more than just a boxer - I too would prefer to see it all in one box but until that can happen I support keeping this one. –Davey2010Talk 15:02, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
  • For starters I don't appreciate the threats of blocking for edit warring when everybody that has added in this infobox, I have explained the policy that prohibits the second infobox from being added. I have done NOTHING wrong and have followed Wikipedia policies by informing all editors that have insisted on it being added in why cannot be included. There is no debate for it being added in at all. If you want to debate anything, it needs to be the on WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE not on Muhammad Ali's page. So yet again, let me repeat the purpose of an infobox: "The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance." Therefore with that policy right there clear as day, the 2nd infobox and the reason being used for being included, is a CLEAR violation of that policy.

Now outside of the policy, my reason for it not being included, is simple, the infobox used on a profile is for whatever the article's main notability is for. Ali was a boxer. He also isn't the only athlete to be charitable and help lead civil rights. Now he did more then most do, but that isn't a very good to have a 2nd infobox, all with information that is either in the opening or in the boxing infobox. I'm sure there is a boxing project page, I will post there to get more people involved.--Rockchalk717 18:24, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

If they are combined as they are in other articles somewhat commonly, that should satisfy the first concern. It's pretty clear to me that the boxing infobox alone is insufficient to show other biographical aspects of this widely famous and accomplished person. Including it as a module in a common biography infobox is reasonable. And note that just because one person points to a guideline, that doesn't automatically make a final decision about the whole concern. As for the second point, there is in my humble opinion plenty to go into a deeper bio infobox for Muhammad Ali (and perhaps his name should be repeated in all caps). :) Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 18:38, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support keeping – I have no objection to him having two infoboxes. Manny Pacquiao and Vitali Klitschko have them, although I realise they are politicians and would automatically have them anyway. Whilst Ali was not a politician, politics were a huge deal regarding a lot of what he did. He will always be a special exception within the boxing world—and the world over—and thus IMO warrants a second infobox with whatever information editors want to shove in there. My only request would be that {{Infobox boxer}} remains at the top. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 19:27, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Lead

The lead needs some work. I am reposting a discussion I am having with another editor:

People really did say Muhammad Ali was the most well-known person in history. Here are some citations: Page 24, page 33, page 218. Abductive (reasoning) 06:34, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
That paragraph talks about the recognition of his sporting achievements, not his being a recognizable figure. Firebrace (talk) 06:38, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
We can adjust it. After all, the lead has to mention that he was well-known for boxing, converting to Islam, and refusing to serve in Vietnam. Abductive (reasoning) 06:41, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
And let me just add, race-relations and the Olympics. Abductive (reasoning) 06:47, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
It's not an objective fact that he is the most well-known person in history. He is, however, one of the most recognized sports figures of the past 100 years, crowned "Sportsman of the CENTURY" by Sports Illustrated and "Sports Personality of the CENTURY" by the BBC. Firebrace (talk) 06:55, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
"Said to be" covers the lack of objectivity. It took me a couple of minutes to dig up those references. Do you need more? Also, I seem to recall that the "recognizability" thing was backed up by a survey 'round about 1974. In other words, they showed pictures of famous people such as Mahatma Gandhi, Charlie Chaplin and Ali to people all over the world and Ali was the most recognized. Abductive (reasoning) 07:05, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
If "among" and "one of" are weasel words then "said to be" is too... Firebrace (talk) 07:08, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
That is true. Let's leave it as is for now and see if anybody else has an opinion. Abductive (reasoning) 07:10, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
According to http://listverse.com/2013/03/22/top-10-most-famous-people/ which is based to quantitative evidence, Ali does not make even the top 10 most well-known people of all time.Dingowasher (talk) 08:07, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

I am a little bit concerned that the lead claims that Ali "generally considered the greatest heavyweight in the history of the sport." with no citations and no evidence. It would be possible to construct an argument that Ali's win/loss ratio of 56:5 has been surpassed by other fighters and so these other fighters could be regarded as superior. On the wikipeida page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heavyweight that ranks heavyweights, Ali comes 15th, 3rd, and 5th by the metrics presented. Perhaps the sentence in the lead needs to be toned down?Dingowasher (talk) 08:15, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

We should also remember that boxing has a long history and to record someone as the greatest we need to examine the entire history. For example, Theagenes of Thasos won over 1300 bouts and went undefeated over his 22-year career. This record seems to make Theagenes of Thasos have a good call on being the greatest?Dingowasher (talk) 08:38, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
Could Theagenes cut a promo? Sell tickets? Dress well? If you carry yourself like a champion (and say you're the greatest in the world), people will believe it, despite the statistically better guy quietly existing. And then they'll tell someone, who will tell someone, and so on. Today, about a hundred reliable sources are saying he was, and quite a few of them said so decades ago, so as far as Wikipedia's concerned, he simply was. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:53, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
Theagenes of Thasos went one stage further than doing an impressive promo, selling tickets, or being a dapper dresser. Theagenes firstly became famous across Greece for an act of heroic strength performed at age 9, and then later on his career really kicked off when he became a famous boxer. Theagenes was worshiped as a God for centuries after his death, with healing and crop harvest powers, he received sacrifices, and was rumored to be the son of Hercules. In fact, 2000 years after his death he is still so revered that a professional football team was named after him. I think that we need to carefully consider what we say about Ali, as you yourself stated he wasn't the greatest at boxing, but could instead be said to be great at something else, perhaps a sportsman (covered at end of lead). He is also not the greatest of all time, so perhaps we should say in the era of the Marquess of Queensberry rules.Dingowasher (talk) 11:42, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I started a new section, but now see my talk belongs here:


Muhammad Ali /ɑːˈliː/;[9] (born Cassius Marcellus Clay Jr.; January 17, 1942 – June 3, 2016) was an American professional boxer, widely regarded as one of the most significant and celebrated sports figures of the 20th century.

I would propose the following opening:

Muhammad Ali /ɑːˈliː/;[9] (born Cassius Marcellus Clay Jr.; January 17, 1942 – June 3, 2016) was an American Olympic and professional World champion heavyweight boxer. He is widely regarded as one of the most significant sports figures of the 20th century. InformationvsInjustice (talk) 22:56, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Parenthetical in Opening.

InformationvsInjustice (talk) 22:38, 6 June 2016 (UTC)It sounds odd to say "born original name of person, birthdate deathdate". The reason is that the deathdate is just hanging on ther end. Either born should be changed to "formerly" or it should be broken into two parentheses.

(born Cassius Marcellus Clay Jr., January 17, 1942 – June 3, 2016)

Suggestion one:

(formerly Cassius Marcellus Clay, Jr., January 17, 1942 - June 3, 2016).

Suggestion two:

(born Cassius Marcellus Clay, Jr.)(January 17-1942 - June 3, 2016)

I prefer the first.

InformationvsInjustice (talk) 22:57, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

The thing is, he was born as Cassius Marcellus Clay, Jr. -- is there any precedent in a bio for 'formerly' in a case like this? Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 17:13, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

"born..." does convey slightly more information than "formerly...". To wit you know something extra about the "when" he was Cassius Clay. However, in this context they mean the exact same thing. The presumption with a name change is that you generally changed it from the name you got at birth.

As a parenthetical phrase, it sucks, because you're talking about his name at birth and then you move logically onto the date at his birth and then you have this other date just hanging out there on the end. The two prior elements in the parens are too strongly connected to the first one as compared to the last one. Anything you put in the same parens should be related to everything else.

The other option is "né". That literally means the name a man was given at birth.InformationvsInjustice (talk) 20:20, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't have an issue with the way it currently is, as I don't think the average reader will misconstrue anything. I'm not absolutely against changing it, but I would like to see examples from other bio articles. What is done in Judy Garland, for example, matches what is done here. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 16:47, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Proposed New Opening Sentence

Muhammad Ali /ɑːˈliː/;[9] (born Cassius Marcellus Clay Jr.; January 17, 1942 – June 3, 2016) was an American professional boxer, widely regarded as one of the most significant and celebrated sports figures of the 20th century.

I would propose the following opening:

Muhammad Ali /ɑːˈliː/;[9] (born Cassius Marcellus Clay Jr.; January 17, 1942 – June 3, 2016) was an American Olympic and professional World champion heavyweight boxer. He is widely regarded as one of the most significant sports figures of the 20th century. InformationvsInjustice (talk) 22:56, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

I can see the necessity of adding "'Olympic and" but breaking it up into two sentences might seem to subtract too much from the reader's first impression of the subject. Breaking it up wouldn't alarm me, though. As for removing "and celebrated", I am not sure. Was he merely one of the most significant, and does that include that he was celebrated? Or was he not one of the most celebrated? Hmmm. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 17:22, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
Also, I thought you had an issue with the pronunciation and accompanying reference as well. Is there anything you would like to do with that? Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 17:23, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
I think that significant is a much more supportable concept than celebrated. How do you compare the degree to which a person is celebrated with another? Celebrated is more vague. Also, It's less important than being significant. His headline should be: "he's significant." not "he's celebrated."
You'll laugh, but I didn't know what the pronunciation and reference were. I thought it was just a broken link.InformationvsInjustice (talk) 22:11, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
We could try: "Muhammad Ali /ɑːˈliː/;[9] (born Cassius Marcellus Clay Jr.; January 17, 1942 – June 3, 2016) was an American Olympic and professional World champion heavyweight boxer and one of the most significant sports figures of the 20th century.InformationvsInjustice (talk) 22:14, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
This has two 'and' clauses, which is avoided in the current opener. I won't mind if "and celebrated" is removed, though. Does anyone else have thoughts here? Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 17:02, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Parkinson's syndrome and dementia pugilistica

The lead currently says he was diagnosed with Parkinson's disease rather than Parkinson's syndrome, and links "boxing-related brain injuries" to dementia pugilistica, despite Ali having no sort of dementia. I've tried six seven times to fix this, and every time the wheel just spins for a minute, then sends me back to the "Editing Muhammad Ali" page. No error message or anything. Can someone else do it? InedibleHulk (talk) 03:43, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

There should be commas after "syndrome" and "worsened", too, but those aren't as important. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:51, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

 Done Strawberry4Ever (talk) 03:59, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:19, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 June 2016

Edit the Stance please his religion is MUSLIM

Not done: His religion is noted in the infobox. The "stance" part is not religion, the Orthodox refers to his boxing stance. If you go further down the page, the infobox says Sunni Islam for his religion. Sir Joseph (talk) 15:24, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
I've edited the stance parameter to say "Orthodox boxing stance" instead of just "Orthodox" in an effort to avoid confusion with Orthodox Christianity. Strawberry4Ever (talk) 04:05, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Religious activist and devout follower - "stance": "orthodox"

The infobox should show his most important achievments. In the late 1960s his notoriety as a dissident/activist/anti-war dude/defendant in a Supreme Court case in which he was not punished - arguable surpassed the notoriety of his boxing achievments. Perhaps the boxing infobox should be removed. Maybe another infobox can be used that can balance the aforementioned achievements with his boxing achievements. When I look at the current infobox, I get the impression that I am viewing a boxrec website. Ali transcended his boxrecs, like few - if any. It can be somewhat odd to read about a man wellknown as Muslim activist whose "stance" is "orthodox". I think wikipedia deserves a better infobox, or version thereof, for this article. 46.15.12.171 (talk) 16:59, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

He's won some awards outside the ring, but none of it would have happened if he hadn't boxed first. So it seems right to have the boxing infobox first. I realize there's a bit of confusion regarding his "stance", but the keyword there is "bit". I think the majority understand that English has synonyms, and if they don't, the Wikilink is there to help. His religion is unambiguously called "religion" just beneath it, and there's a clearly marked "Religion and beliefs" section. We're not fooling general audiences here. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:24, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
I agree that we should continue to use the boxing infobox. I've boldly edited the stance parameter to be "Orthodox boxing stance" instead of just "Orthodox", in an effort to avoid confusion with Orthodox Christianity. Strawberry4Ever (talk) 04:02, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
While that's certainly double clear now, I'm concerned about a slippery slope of dumbening. The Los Angeles Times reports Ali reached far outside the boxing ring, but our infobox says he could only go 78 inches. Doesn't quite add up. Shall we clarify that was his "boxing reach", or is this somehow strongly implied to the average reader already? InedibleHulk (talk) 04:19, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
I've tried a few times to change it back, but it's the same spinning wheel deal as below, so I guess it sticks. For what it's worth, my lost edit summary was "The hidden note suffices. We don't spell it out slowly for other orthodox boxers, whether ordained ministers or just suggestively named." There are literally hundreds of others, with no special treatment. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:40, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
Let's see what others say about it. My feeling is that there has been enough confusion, even after adding the comment, with people thinking that "Orthodox" refers to religion that we need to be doubly clear that Orthodox is a boxing stance. If editors are confused, readers, who can't see the comment and don't know that it's a boxing info box, will also be confused. Strawberry4Ever (talk) 05:01, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
A few will, despite no other infobox on Wikipedia ever calling someone's religion their stance. That's inevitable. I say they're lost causes, but maybe there's some way we can make the boxing infobox appear more like a boxing infobox. A boxing photo might be worth a thousand words. He does appear a tad theological in the current one. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:25, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Infobox - Five years in prison

As far as I know, Ali did not spend 5 years in prison. How should the following wording of the infobox, be rectified?
"Criminal penalty - Five years in prison, fined $10,000 and banned from boxing for three years"; "Criminal status - Conviction overturned"? 178.232.5.235 (talk) 09:17, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

"Penalty", in this sense, means a legal sentence, not necessarily actual punishment. If a conviction is overturned, so is the sentence. We're under no obligation, but it might be best to strike it from his infobox, too. Not guilty, after all. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:47, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

How many months or days in prison/detention?

I can not see that the article is clear about how many months or days that he stayed in prison or police custody. (The article says says that he was not in prison after the appeals court verdict, without saying when that verdict was handed down.) A newspaper in my country said yesterday that he was in prison for 4 years? One way of reading the current wikipedia article: He did not spend a single day in prison or in police custody. 178.232.43.245 (talk) 09:29, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

No prison time, unsure about jail (but more likely days than years, if any) He lost his boxing license for four years, though. Maybe your newspaper got detention and suspension mixed up. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:41, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Neutrality issue

Under the "affiliation with the Nation of Islam" section, one of the sentences leads "Not afraid to antagonize the white establishment... ." This doesn't strike me as a very neutral way of phrasing things. I would have changed it myself, but the article is protected. Ryonne (talk) 19:01, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

I read it and in context, the phrasing makes sense to me. As for neutrality, I'm not sure how it can be more neutral without becoming stiff/technical, or talking around what is actually meant. What alternative phrasing would you propose? Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 19:16, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
I don't mind it, but we might just say "Antagonizing the white establishment, ...". The fact that he did it strongly implies he wasn't afraid to (or at least was brave about it). Not appearing to fear The Man in those days was a rather notable thing for a prominent black to do, but the quote itself says as much without us doubling up on a paraphrase. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:16, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
Fair enough. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 17:10, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
Just dawned on me that you're the man. I meant the other guy, of course. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:33, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Ryonne. The phrase "white establishment" strikes me as very very wrong. Ali was entitled to his protest, but his stand was not on racial grounds and I think he may have upset a lot of Americans by his stand and not just white Americans. Are you happy to imply that the the US Government in the 1960s was racist? I don't think the government of the United States in the 1960s should be described as a "white establishment" unless you want to suggest that the US governments of the early 1960s, the governments of Kennedy and Johnson were racist.

Robert Kennedy was a member of those governments. He may have been a white man, but he did a huge amount to further the cause of Civil Rights in the US in the 1960s.

You may be fans of Ali, but I think you should use neutral language here and remove the word "white". John2o2o2o (talk) 16:31, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

We'll need something harder than an opinion to change that. It depends on what reliable sources say, not what our personal opinions are. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 16:42, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
Racism in the United States (and to a lesser extent, interminority racism in the United States) has been a contentious issue longer than the United States has existed. As of today, some still say the government tends toward whites and some say it doesn't.
But there is absolutely no disagreement that the entire Johnson Administration ("the establishment") was made of white men with black jackets and white shirts. Since classifying people by the colour of their jackets is a stupid idea, a fair descriptor is "white establishment". That's not a synonym for "racist establishment". Ali made it about race with the "I am America" promo, so it makes sense to note the whiteness of the "you" he was antagonizing. It wasn't unconfidence or uncockiness that set them apart. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:35, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Not arrested by police officers or military police, but ...

The following reference does not use the word arrest. If he was not arrested by police officers or military police, then wikipedia should say what happened: asked to follow into another room and given a warning, and not handcuffed, and then returned to the first room, and then asked/ordered to sign a statement. Ali might have been arrested by a commissioned military officer or a non-commissioned officer of the Army, at some point. Perhaps even by being given that warning, that was classified as an arrest accompanied by a warning, according to federal statutes. Are facsimiles of the military unit's first report on the incident, available on internet?
"Clay had stood in line with 11 other men being called up in a room in the old Post Office building in Houston, Texas, and heard his Black Muslim name called by the officer administering the oath. Clay did not move. Another officer walked up to him and said: "Mr Ali, will you accompany me, please ?" Clay did not speak, but followed him out of the room to be given a warning of the consequences of his refusal. - He was taken back into the room and given a second chance to take the oath, but he again refused. He then signed a statement to that effect. - Soon after he left the centre, to be mobbed by well-wishers". 89.8.51.45 (talk) 21:09, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Muhammad Ali. 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 User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot*this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

  • Corrected formatting/usage for //sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1114630/index.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:51, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

This tabloid source and its false claims should be removed

Consensus is to keep the sentence about Ali's interest in Sufism as part of the article Strawberry4Ever (talk) 14:53, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hello. This tabloid source: [1] and its claims should be removed from this article. Its claims conflict this official website of Muhammad Ali: [2]! This official website of Ali confirms in several pages [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] that Muhammad Ali has converted to Sunni Islam and no single page on any official website of Ali says that he converted to Sufism as that tabloid website claims! So, That tabloid source, its claims and the categories which claim he is a Sufi should be removed from this article immediately. Thanks. Kfaani (talk) 08:12, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Done. Kfaani (talk) 08:33, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for explaining this set of changes. This is one where an edit summary wasn't enough. Now, if anyone has any reliable sources to counter these changes, this is the topic to bring them up. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 11:48, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
You welcome. Kfaani (talk) 12:33, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Beliefnet is not a tabloid source, and it was through an interview with his daughter. The Trinidad Guardian quotes a friend's biography :

2. He’s a Sufi

It’s well documented that on April 28, 1967, Ali refused to be inducted into the US Army and was immediately stripped of his heavyweight title. Ali, a Muslim, cited religious reasons for his decision to forgo military service.

Early on Ali was closely involved with the often militant pro-African American goals of Nation of Islam, but later in life switched to a more mystical Muslim sect.

“Ali announced that he is a Sufi around 2005, saying that of all of the sects of Islam, he feels the closest connection to Sufism,” says Miller, whose book “Approaching Ali” was released in late 2015.

“Sufism is arguably the most peaceful sect of any major or minor religion. Sufis believe that to purposely harm any person is to harm all of humanity, to harm each of us and to damage the world.

“It is the perfect fit for Ali, who had been living in the ways that Sufis do for decades before he’d heard of the religion.

“Few people have heard about the profound ways Ali’s faith has evolved over the years. He has been a world soul for many decades; he has grown from separatist to universalist.”

As a conscientious objector to the Vietnam War, Ali was stripped of his heavyweight title and banned from boxing for almost four years.

There are a great number of other sources, including Juan Cole's Truthdig, The National (UAE), Voice of America, LA Times, Rolling Stone. Although these may be based on that Beliefnet interview, the biography is less likely to. Also consider how the biographies on those Ali Center activity sheets are not expected to cover every single thing in his entire life, so an omission does not mean that something did not happen. '''tAD''' (talk) 03:39, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Pinging Stevietheman Kfaani '''tAD''' (talk) 03:51, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Hello again. These sources copied from the obscure Beliefnet. No sources are trusted about any human more than his own official websites. The religion of any human is a basic attribute. So, if he was converted to anything other than Sunni Islam, his official websites must be mentioning that. And since they didn't, we must not accept any info that conflicts the info of his official websites. Thanks. Kfaani (talk) 06:20, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

I wonder if a number of these reports used BeliefNet or Wikipedia as a source. However, Approaching Ali would seem to be a strong source. I would suggest basing any Sufi-related content off that as a primary source. Also, if there are other biographies that cover this subject, use those as well. Surely these bios as sources eclipse websites and reports where we are unsure of their sources. Thank you The Almightey Drill for bringing that to our attention. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 17:55, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that the Muhammad Ali Center was his official website. But see this interview with a friend of his.[10] which certainly isn't based on a website but his own knowledge. Doug Weller talk 18:02, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
This is the aforementioned author of Approaching Ali. I think that a 40-year friend who has written a book (as opposed to his daughter giving an interview to a small website, which I agree does bring skepticism) can be considered a reliable source. '''tAD''' (talk) 18:31, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

This tweet: [11] from the verified account of Muhammad Ali on Twitter proves that (Ali Center) is one of the main official websites of Muhammad Ali. Kfaani (talk) 19:05, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

It should be noted that an individual's official site does not control all information that appears in this article about that individual. It has been mentioned above that a biography covers Ali's adherence to Sufism. That should be seen as a reliable source. At this point, the repeated removal of this content appears to be a kind of filibuster. It should be added back, but with citations from the aforementioned biography. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 17:22, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

No sources are trusted about any human more than his own official websites. The religion of any human is a basic attribute. So, if he was converted to anything other than Sunni Islam, his official websites must be mentioning that. And since they didn't, we must not accept any info that conflicts the info of his official websites. Kfaani (talk) 13:55, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

That argument doesn't hold much water, and certainly doesn't over reliable biographies. Any website about oneself will not include every last bit of biography about oneself. This bit of info has reliable sources, and that's that. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 14:03, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Michel or Michel Pagliaro?

Re: the "In the media and popular culture" section discussion about Ali's work with Michel... On Discogs, the Michel who worked with Ali is separated from Michael Pagliaro. It's not clear they are the same person. Can anyone sort this out? I've asked in Discogs forums too. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 14:32, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

I think the cite I just added answers the question. It appears Michel didn't have any follow-up releases, so they are not the same person. Also, this Michel insists on being called "Michel" without a last name, while Michael Pagliaro goes by 'Pagliaro' or 'Pag'. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 15:16, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict)They don't appear to be the same person. The article you cited quotes Michel as saying "In 1968, aged 17, I quit school", which means that he was born in 1951 or 1950, whereas the Michel Pagliaro Wikipedia article says Pagliaro was born in 1948. There are many other discrepancies. Is there enough information available about Michel to write a Wikipedia article about him? Strawberry4Ever (talk) 15:19, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
Yes, at this point, I am fully confident they are not the same person. As for whether Michel is notable enough for an article, all he's known for is a musical collaboration with Ali that produced an album that didn't make it to stores and an obscure TV show. I would tend to doubt it. It would be a pretty short article if it was developed. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 15:29, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

According to a recent article in Timeout online Michel (no first name no last name) was a stage name for Robert Williams [1]: Robert Williams is noted in the article as one of the founding members of The Kindness Offensive [2], not sure if this is enough for his own page?? But it's more on this guy Michel — Preceding unsigned comment added by Purge Watcher (talk • contribs) 17:36, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

That looks like a good citation. Thanks, Purge Watcher. I've edited the article to say that Michel's real name is Robert Williams. Strawberry4Ever (talk) 18:22, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://www.timeout.com/london/music/meet-the-busker-who-worked-as-muhammad-alis-personal-musician
  2. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Kindness_Offensive

"generally regarded as the most significant heavyweight in the history of the sport"

That's POV and it is not encyclopedic. Please remove or tone down the unattributed POV. 89.8.49.127 (talk) 14:31, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Per WP:NPOV and the many of sources in the body it is valid. So not sure about unattributed. Everything is POV according to some ip.--169.0.4.120 (talk) 14:52, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
Do any actually say "most significant"? "Greatest" seems much more common. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:38, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
From the archived discussion about the lead the following comments are relevant
I am a little bit concerned that the lead claims that Ali "generally considered the greatest heavyweight in the history of the sport." with no citations and no evidence. It would be possible to construct an argument that Ali's win/loss ratio of 56:5 has been surpassed by other fighters and so these other fighters could be regarded as superior. On the wikipeida page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heavyweight that ranks heavyweights, Ali comes 15th, 3rd, and 5th by the metrics presented. Perhaps the sentence in the lead needs to be toned down?Dingowasher (talk) 08:15, 4 June 2016 (UTC
We should also remember that boxing has a long history and to record someone as the greatest we need to examine the entire history. For example, Theagenes of Thasos won over 1300 bouts and went undefeated over his 22-year career. This record seems to make Theagenes of Thasos have a good call on being the greatest?Dingowasher (talk) 08:38, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
Could Theagenes cut a promo? Sell tickets? Dress well? If you carry yourself like a champion (and say you're the greatest in the world), people will believe it, despite the statistically better guy quietly existing. And then they'll tell someone, who will tell someone, and so on. Today, about a hundred reliable sources are saying he was, and quite a few of them said so decades ago, so as far as Wikipedia's concerned, he simply was. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:53, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
Theagenes of Thasos went one stage further than doing an impressive promo, selling tickets, or being a dapper dresser. Theagenes firstly became famous across Greece for an act of heroic strength performed at age 9, and then later on his career really kicked off when he became a famous boxer. Theagenes was worshiped as a God for centuries after his death, with healing and crop harvest powers, he received sacrifices, and was rumored to be the son of Hercules. In fact, 2000 years after his death he is still so revered that a professional football team was named after him. I think that we need to carefully consider what we say about Ali, as you yourself stated he wasn't the greatest at boxing, but could instead be said to be great at something else, perhaps a sportsman (covered at end of lead). He is also not the greatest of all time, so perhaps we should say in the era of the Marquess of Queensberry rules.Dingowasher (talk) 11:42, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
As Rich Little's head once said to George Foreman while talking about Ali, interesting, if true. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:59, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
It is true, so I thought that it would be an interesting contribution to the discussion.Dingowasher (talk) 10:51, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
As a rule of thumb, I treat everything before the Norman conquest as fishy at best. In theory, though, Dioxippus would have given him a run for his money, and Polydamas of Skotoussa would likely squash them all. But Ali is still the only one with pictures to back him up. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:10, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
It is important that we follow agreed wikipedia policy. Examining WP:RECENTISM tells us that we cannot treat events before the Norman conquest as fishy, both because that would bias wikipedia towards British affairs (whilst this is a US/Greek matter) and also because we must present a long-term historical view which includes events 2500 years ago. It is therefore good that you mention Dioxippus and Polydamas of Skotoussa, however these were competed at the Pankration, whereas Theagenes was a boxer, which is a different sport so we should not compare them if we are writing about boxers. I agree that WP:RS dictates that we use reliable sources, though it does say that they do not necessarily have to be pictures. However, if you would like to reference pictures we are fortunate that there are many excellent pictures of Theagenes. For example http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/Olympics/theag.html, and also part of a statue (a 3D picture) http://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-inscribed-marble-thesauros-for-offerings-to-theagenes-of-thasos-2nd-30599910.html. Therefore it would be fair to say that Ali is not the only one with pictures to back him up and so according to established wikipedia good practice it is proper that we consider Theagenes.Dingowasher (talk) 14:19, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
It's not an arbitrary geographical thing, strictly about time. Everybody has to start believing old stories sometime, and I figure 1066 is as good a line as any to draw. Pankration had a boxing element to it, I say it's fair. Even today, some of the best mixed martial artists can throw hands better than the best boxers in their division. Besides, you were allowed to consider Theagenes' strongman career. Theories aside, the fact remains that these ancient names simply don't come up in mainstream discussion anymore. Even their mythical legacies are over the hill. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:32, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
We need to be careful, it is not for us as individual Editors to decide a date cutoff for inclusion, we need to follow standard wikipedia policy. Please highlight where wikipedia policy says that 1066 is the line to draw, and if it does not then we should not draw the line there.Dingowasher (talk) 06:50, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
The modern sport of boxing is what we're referring to here. We're not comparing to precursors. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 14:48, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
In which case we need to add a qualifying statement, such as under "Marquess of Queensberry rules"Dingowasher (talk) 07:06, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

One can not "generally" conclude that he was "the greatest", out of what one hundred sources have said. One can find people who are excited about Ali, and one can find people who know nothing about him, and one can find people who are indifferent to his achievements. Please let go of the word "generally", and perhaps stick to the "who said what" about his various achievments, including "greatest of all time" - with all time being circa three generations or 75 years. 178.232.222.31 (talk) 06:30, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

"of all time" means all the time we've had the modern sport of boxing, like when we might say someone is one of the the greatest basketball players of all time, it doesn't literally mean "all time". "of all time" is a common vernacular. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 14:52, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
In which case we need to add a qualifying statement, such as under "Marquess of Queensberry rules"Dingowasher (talk) 07:06, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Community discussion on the lead's general statement on how Ali is regarded

I recommend we start an RfC to decide what statement we go with, so that we can have an actual decision on record. Currently, we have the two alternatives:

  • "Ali is regarded as one of the greatest boxers of all time."
  • "Ali is regarded as one of the leading heavyweight boxers of the 20th century."

Perhaps other approaches will work better than either of these. At any rate, having a community decide this is better than the current back-and-forth. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 19:12, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Good plan (we should remember to refer to two earlier discussions on this also). Firstly we need to conform with WP:PEACOCK, which specifically warns against calling somebody the "greatest of all time". Instead we should present the evidence and allow the reader to decide. Secondly there is an argument that Ali is not the greatest: boxing has a long history and to record someone as the greatest we need to examine the entire history. For example, Theagenes of Thasos won over 1300 bouts in a row so went undefeated over his 22-year career, was worshiped as a god, and 2000 years later still gets things named after him. This record seems to make Theagenes of Thasos have a good call on being the greatest? There are also many other contemporary boxers in both heavyweight and other weight divisions that have superior fight records to Ali. Therefore I would suggest that Ali is not the "greatest of all time", but we need something more measured. Dingowasher (talk) 20:33, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
Ali wasn't being called "the greatest of all time", but instead "one of the greatest boxers of all time" with the understanding that 'boxing' refers to modern boxing; but even if there's not that understanding, Ali could still be one of the greatest with Theagenes also being one of the greatest.. Anyway, we should realize that the lead is a summary of the article. This statement, whichever we go with, would normally reflect what has been said about him in reliable sources and covered (or potentially covered) in the article. In an RfC, we and others can go into detail on that and hopefully reach a consensus. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 20:58, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
Reference to the Wikipedia article on boxing shows that it is a sport with thousands of years of history. We need Wikipedia to be precise, Wikipedia protocol WP:ASOF and WP:RELTIME requires that if we include a sentence about Ali's prowess it is important to add the clarification "of the 20th century" or in the era of "Marquess of Queensberry rules until 2000"Dingowasher (talk) 11:26, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
To be classified as "one of the greatest boxers of all time" Ali needs to be within the top 10 or so. Referring to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_heavyweight_boxing_champions Ali's reign as champion puts him as 7th best male heavyweight in the previous century. There are also female boxers of whom we expect 7 to be better than Ali, placing Ali as 14th best male/female heavyweight in the previous century. There are 17 boxing weight classes, so we expect those in other categories would be better than Ali, placing Ali as 14*17=238th best in the previous century. Boxing has also be going on for over 2000 years, so if we include the expected performance of other historical boxers e.g. Theagenes of Thasos, Ali would be ranked 238*20=4760th best in the history of boxing. Being the 4760th best boxer is so far short of the premier level it seems to mislead the reader to call Ali "one of the greatest boxers of all time". We also need to remember that even if Ali was among the greatest of all time that wikipedia guidelines on WP:PEACOCK state that we should not call him the greatest, but just list the facts. There are therefore two good reasons why we should not call Ali "one of the greatest boxers of all time".Dingowasher (talk) 07:42, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Please save the discussion for the RfC. I'm not adding any more thoughts until I create that. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 13:48, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

When Did Ali Convert To Sunni Islam

The article that it occurred in 1975, but in post fight interviews from 1976, and 1977 Ali sent out a greeting to NOI leader Wallace Deen Muhammad. In his post fight interview after the Jimmy Young fight, he called Wallace Muhammad his leader, and after the Alfredo Evangelista fight in 1977 he referred to him as the chief minister of the religion of Islam in the West. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lewgr10 (talk • contribs) 20:19, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Ali was a Nation of Islam member in 1975 when its leader, Elijah Muhammad, died and his son, Warith Deen Mohammed (also known as Wallace D. Muhammad), took leadership of the organization. The younger Muhammad, who had some Sunni Islamic education and had been excommunicated several times by his father, quickly rejected many of his father's teachings, renamed the Nation of Islam the World Community of Islam in the West, and tried to orient it toward Sunni Islam. Ali stayed with Muhammad. (By contrast, some former Nation of Islam members left and joined Louis Farrakhan's newly re-established Nation of Islam, which upheld the old teachings.) I don't know whether Ali "officially" converted to Sunni Islam in 1975 (or ever), but he—and other former members of the Nation of Islam—had rejected the organization's past teachings and was heading toward Sunni Islam. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 07:03, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

"Affiliation with the Nation of Islam" section is badly garbled

Under Elijah Muhammad's guidance, Clay changed his name to Cassius X (not Muhammad Ali) when he publicly announced his embrace of the Nation of Islam. Source found at random. Malcolm X was being forced out of the Nation, and he was trying to convince Clay—their biggest star by far—to come with him as he left. Muhammad countered by offering Clay his "true Islamic name" of Muhammad Ali, something he hadn't offered Malcolm X (who had been working in the Nation for a dozen years) or Louis X (later known as Louis Farrakhan). Evidently it worked, because Clay stayed when Malcolm left. You can read Ali's misty-eyed account of it here. You can read a different account of it here or in this book, which appears not to be accessible through Google Books:

Elijah seethed when he learned that Malcolm had escorted Cassius to the UN again. He knew that his former minister “was out to destroy” him, but he refused to let Malcolm “snatch Cassius Clay” away from him. ... After Cassius returned from the UN, Elijah called him at the Theresa and made clear that he could no longer associate with the exiled minister. Cassius understood, promising that he would “stop seeing Malcolm starting today.” ...
Hours after he left Cassius and Rudy at the Theresa, Malcolm turned up the volume on his car radio when he heard the voice of Elijah on WWRL. Over a nationwide broadcast, Muhammad announced that the name Cassius Clay “has no divine meaning. I hope he will accept being called by a better name. Muhammad Ali is what I will give to him as long as he believes in Allah and follows me.”
Malcolm erupted behind the wheel, shouting to one of his aides, “That’s political! That’s a political move! He did it to prevent him from coming with me.” In the past, the boxer had professed great admiration for his name. It was hard for him to imagine being anyone other than Cassius Clay. Knowing that there were lifelong members in the Nation who never received their “original” names from Elijah made him doubt that he had earned such an honor. But the Messenger reminded him that his “original” name meant “one who is worthy of praise,” and no one was more deserving of the distinction than him. ...
Ultimately, he submitted to Elijah. When he denounced his “slave name” and accepted the name Muhammad Ali, he symbolically broke with a heritage tied to bondage. It signified an awakening, a reclamation of freedom from the white world. But it also cut his ties with Malcolm. Instinctively more than intellectually, he understood the choice he had to make. And as he had so often before, he chose the less dangerous path. ...
Once Cassius Clay became Muhammad Ali, Elijah won his political chess match with Malcolm. When Malcolm heard Elijah’s radio address, Clay had not yet publicly announced that he had accepted the Muslim name, but it did not matter to Malcolm. When Malcolm lost the contest for Clay’s loyalty, he had no more moves, no more pawns to sacrifice. At that moment Malcolm was expendable. At that moment his life was in jeopardy.
Roberts, Randy; Smith, Johnny (2016). Blood Brothers: The Fatal Friendship Between Muhammad Ali and Malcolm X. New York: Basic Books. ISBN 978-0-465-07970-4.

I know some of this is unrelated to Ali's biography, but this is a talk page and it gives the name change some context.

If nobody else fixes the section, I'll do it myself some time soon. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 06:34, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

This is a "talk page" insofar as discussing improvements to the article. Anyway, given the current content is reliably sourced, please make sure to give the existing cites due heed when revising. We can't simply overwrite based on a contradictory source. Also, I'm not sure exactly what text you're changing because you didn't say what the "badly garbled" parts were. If you give us a "change x to y" kind of request, someone besides yourself could take it on more conveniently. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 14:41, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Template Issue

i have updated the template given at the bottom of the main article (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Muhammad_Ali ) but for some reason which i am unable to understand the updated template is not showing up at the bottom of the main article, and the old template continues to be displayed. Would request someone more experienced to look into the issue. Soham321 (talk) 21:04, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

@Soham321: I just ran a purge on the article page to bring the newer version of the template to the surface. See WP:PURGE for future reference. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 22:22, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Stevietheman, Thank you. Soham321 (talk) 23:03, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Maryum "May May" Ali

As per Maryum's own website (www.maryumali.com/bio/), her nickname is "May May". She is mentioned by this nickname in one section(Muhammad_Ali#Illness_and_death), but it is not listed for her under the section about his children. To clarify, it would be ideal if someone would add her nickname to the section on his children so that when she is listed as "May May" later, it is obvious who is being discussed. The citation already given for her in the personal life section is sufficient, because it identifies her by both her given name and nickname right in the article title. 64.72.65.120 (talk) 08:25, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for the catch. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 14:46, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Ali–Frazier III result type

BoxRec has recently amended the result to RTD, which by definition is correct because Frazier/his corner pulled out of the fight. The referee did not wave it off, so by rights it cannot be a TKO. However, sources apparently say otherwise. Which brings us to the classic WP problem: do we go with common sense, or treat sources (however inaccurate by contemporary hindsight) as gospel? I say it's flat-out wrong to label the result as a TKO, when it clearly was not. BoxRec isn't right all the time, but they've got it nailed for this one. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 21:44, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

On what authority can BoxRec rewrite the result from a 1975 fight? Has an actual boxing authority amended it since then? At any rate, perhaps there is a way to show it was called TKO at the time, and declared RTD later, given an authority did that. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 21:47, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
Well, that's our task. IMO it'll suck if it has to stay as TKO just because the contemporary definitions have changed, but I won't revert over it. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 21:55, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
A few contemporary sources which do not describe the result as a TKO, but correctly as a corner stoppage/retirement:
I believe that kind of stuff should overrule the historical sources. Also, I'd like a look at them please. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 22:04, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
Per WP:VNT, WP:SYNTH, along with sources from 1975 and near-today saying "TKO", and none of the above sources saying "RTD" or straight-on contradicting "TKO", I can't agree with this position. I'm having trouble re-locating 1975 sources, but a couple of such sources in Thrilla in Manila, now dead links, are ones I've seen with my own eyes, and they clearly said "TKO" (I can remember this as I looked at these during a previous dispute). If you perform a Google search with "thrilla in manila" tko -site:wikipedia.org -wikipedia -encyclopedia, you will see plenty of contemporary/recent sources maintaining this as "TKO", including:
  • Boxing.com from June 2016: 1) "It was on this day in 1975 that Ali retained his heavyweight title with a 14th round TKO of Frazier in Manila, the Philippines."; 2) "Muhammad Ali, slumped in his corner in a state of near collapse, is awarded the technical knockout victory."
  • Newsday from June 2016: "A swollen right eye is apparent on Joe Frazier's face as he is almost covered over by a towel in Manila Oct. 1, 1975 after losing by TKO in the 14th round to heavyweight champion Muhammad Ali."
  • CBS News from circa 2015: "The contest for the Heavyweight Championship of the World waged at Araneta Coliseum in Manila's Quezon City in the Philippines was won by Ali by TKO (technical knockout) when Frazier's second, Eddie Futch, refused to let Frazier, near-blind from the punishing fight, start the 15th round."
In my opinion, at most, we would show "TKO" with an asterisk note that shows contemporary stats site(s) contradicting it, or other articles that could be found that straight-on contradict "TKO" without us synthesizing that based on our own knowledge or "common sense". Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 15:27, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
I'm fine with that, and am aware that WP:SYNTH is against me here. In which case, per your suggestion, perhaps we could include a special mention in the Notes column stating "Retained WBA, WBC, The Ring, and lineal heavyweight titles;<br />RTD according to some contemporary sources". There is already a tooltip earlier in the table (vs. Donnie Fleeman) explaining the RTD abbreviation, so no need to pipe it. Would that be OK? Mac Dreamstate (talk) 15:46, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Yes, that is a straightforward presentation of it. This is definitely a conflict of contemporary sources. Perhaps deeper examination could determine how much weight to give to various contemporary sources, and try to figure out how boxing authorities look at it, but until then (if that ever happens), this should suffice. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 17:52, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
 Done, and have also amended my original edit to Frazier's record so that they both match. I'm otherwise highly against including routine details regarding methods of stoppage in the Notes column, per MOS:BOXING/RECORD, but with historical and special fighters come special exceptions. To me it looks non-intrusive and concisely conveys the discrepancy between the two result types. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 18:09, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

"Professional Boxing Record" Section

In the "Professional Boxing Record" section in the main article two changes have been made which have in my opinion made the article worse. First, the Notes column used to include links to WP articles about those fights of Ali for which WP articles existed. Of course, this info can be obtained from the template but there is no harm in also including it in the Notes column. Second, there was an empty row between his 29th and 30th fight with something like 'Suspended' in this row indicating Ali's 3.5 years suspension from boxing. I don't know why this information has also been removed. Soham321 (talk) 11:10, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Per MOS:BOXING/RECORD, the links to Ali's fight articles are now in the Date column—makes sense to have them there, since the events happened on a specific date. Otherwise, the Notes column is strictly for titles and reasons for a TD/DQ/NC; no scorecards, knockdowns, or title vacations/strippings. Bare minimum. As for the "Suspended" row, to me it looks ever garish to have such a thing breaking up a linear, uniform table. We already don't include "Took time off" or "Temporary retirement" in other boxers' records (e.g., Floyd Mayweather Jr., Vitali Klitschko, Juan Díaz). Would you not agree that readers who are curious and diligent enough would be expected to have read the prose on why there is a relatively minor gap between fights? Mac Dreamstate (talk) 11:41, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
I had missed the fact that the date of the fight potentially includes a link to the WP article of the fight (if such a WP article exists). I don't think i am the only person who would miss this. I preferred the earlier version where the link to the WP article of the fight is given in the Notes column since that is much harder to miss or overlook. You are of course right about the fact that MOS:BOXING/RECORD says that links to the fight articles should be in the date column. Regarding the 'suspended' row, i have two points to make. First, it was not a minor gap between fights. It was a gap of more than 3.5 years. Second, George Foreman had a gap of 10 years between his 47th and 48th fight and this was clearly mentioned in a row in the 'Professional boxing record' in his WP article ( George Foreman), but this information has also been removed now. WP is an encyclopedia for generalists, and there is no need to make assumptions about the reader being "curious and diligent" about why there is a long break between two fights of a boxer. However, all this is just my individual opinion and i will agree to whatever is the consensus on the issue. At the end of the day, these are minor things.Soham321 (talk) 12:06, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
As I have mentioned before, Ali and Foreman are special fighters, therefore special exceptions can indeed be made. I have no problem reinstating the "Suspended" and "Retired" rows, and will do so now. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 12:19, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 Done for both Ali and Foreman's record tables. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 12:25, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
Thank you Mac Dreamstate Soham321 (talk) 12:33, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Muhammad Ali Fights

I am continuing to add more fights to the Muhammad Ali template and its beginning to look ugly. The Fights section in the template now has a third row, and this will keep increasing as i add more fights to it. I propose that the Fights section be converted into a separate template, something like 'Muhammad Ali Fights' and so we'll have two manageable templates for Ali, instead of one unwieldy Muhammad Ali template. Soham321 (talk) 11:29, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Meh. I don't see an issue here. There are nav templates far deeper than this, and "Fights" aren't contributing much to its depth. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 12:24, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
I don't see a problem either—it looks just fine. {{Mike Tyson}}, {{The Beatles}}, or {{Hillary Clinton}} are just as detailed. Keep going! Mac Dreamstate (talk) 12:42, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
ok. Soham321 (talk) 15:17, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Muhammad Ali Fight articles

I have been creating new Muhammad Ali fight articles and adding them to the template. While some of these articles are relatively complete, many are still stubs which i plan to complete later (in the event someone else does not start working on them). Sjrct has put a notability tag on Muhammad Ali vs. George Chuvalo. This seems fairly arbitrary considering Ali fought two matches with Chuvalo both of which went the full distance and both of which are covered in several boxing books. Additionally, my plan was to create WP articles for every fight of Ali.Am i to now understand that some fights of Ali are notable and others are not? Or does Sjrct want all Ali fights to be merged into a single WP article? I think some clarification from Sjrct is in order. Soham321 (talk) 03:44, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

It did not seem notable to me because the article merely mentions the event taking place, and provides no indication of notability beyond the fact that it was a fight involving Muhammad Ali. People of note being involved in an event does not imply the notability of that event. I do not know about this fight or the coverage thereof, I only saw what was in the article. If the coverage in the sources goes beyond mere mention then it is quite reasonable to call the article notable, otherwise I would say not.
Also, sorry if the tag came off as arbitrary. I was going through the new pages feed and this was the only of your fight articles I stumbled upon, which is why it may seem arbitrarily tagged out of all the fight articles you created. Sjrct (talk) 03:54, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
This matter has now been resolved. Soham321 (talk) 04:10, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Relationship with Frazier

We have a single source asserting, "Ali's characterizations of Frazier during the lead-up to the fight cemented a personal animosity toward Ali by Frazier that lasted until Frazier's death." This short video from 1978 shows a completely different picture. At the least there should be some nuancing in the article. Thanks. Spicemix (talk) 22:16, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

I have removed the words, and actually that whole section, from the main article. I gave my reason in the edit history.Soham321 (talk) 02:26, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
Thank you. The wrestling too of course may have been just a stunt. Spicemix (talk) 16:08, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Ali vs Bonavena

i have been creating new WP articles for Ali's fights and adding them to the Muhammad Ali template which is included in the main article of this page.One of the fight articles i have created has been tagged for deletion. If you wish to offer a comment on whether the article should be deleted, please do so at the article's entry in the pages marked for deletion. The article in question is this one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_Ali_vs._Oscar_Bonavena Soham321 (talk) 16:43, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

I have supported keeping all the articles listed. Many thanks for your excellent work. Don't let this discourage you. Spicemix (talk) 18:52, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Feedback needed for Clark and Fleeman fights

can i get some advise on how to use the following material as references for the Clay vs Fleeman and Clay vs Clark fights:

I also need guidance on whether we can use images like this in the article space: http://www.webgalleria.com/assets/images/product/PR-2031_ClayFleeman-poster-2_l.jpg Soham321 (talk) 12:17, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Stevie for putting the poster in the article space. Soham321 (talk) 17:25, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Hauser book

Stevietheman, can we use a different section header for the Hauser book then? Its kind of awkward to have two different sections in the article both of which are named "References". Also please note that i have the 1991 edition of the book and the material and quotes i am giving is from the 1991 edition of the book. Soham321 (talk) 00:56, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Note also that the 1991 edition of the book was published by Simon & Schuster which is a much more renowned publishing company than Robson books which published the 2004 edition. Also, this June 2016 review of Ali books in the New York Times refers (appreciatively) to the 1991 edition of the Hauser book: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/24/books/review-for-muhammad-ali-an-endless-round-of-books.html?_r=0 So why the 2004 edition of the book published by Robson books is so significant as to deserve its own separate Reference section is not clear to me. Soham321 (talk) 01:01, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
@Soham321: First of all, it is actually normal to have a listed reference that is referred to by economical cites. We should continue to do that, aligning all the Muhammad Ali: His Life and Times references under it, noting there are 2012 cites for it as well. This book is used a LOT in this article, so I think we should want to be more economical with the cites instead of repeating all the same information over and over again. If you want to use 1991 as the standard bearer, that should be generally all right, but make sure all the page numbers are correct and the content is reflected in the source. Also, the newer editions might have added information, so it's possible at least one of them will have to be kept as cites (I don't know in advance without reviewing them all). Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 11:50, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
ok Soham321 (talk) 12:56, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Ali and Frazier

I am contemplating adding a new section to the main article titled "Ali and Frazier". This would be something along the lines of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voltaire#Voltaire_and_Rousseau and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baron_d%27Holbach#D.27Holbach_and_his_Contemporaries The source material would include (but would not be limited to) the chapter on Frazier in the book Facing Ali (book), the book Muhammad Ali: His Life and Times, and the article http://www.si.com/vault/1996/09/30/208924/muhammad-ali-joe-frazier-war-of-words Please share your thoughts. Soham321 (talk) 01:19, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

This looks like a reasonable idea to me. I wonder if there might be enough material for a spin-off article at some point. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 15:42, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
Perhaps there can be an "Ali and his Contemporaries" section. This can include "Ali and Frazier" as a sub-section. I would also like to include "Ali and Bruce Lee" as a sub-section. See: http://www.maxim.com/entertainment/bruce-lee-muhammad-ali-ronda-rousey-2016-6 , and http://massappeal.com/the-time-bruce-lee-said-muhammad-ali-would-kill-him/ The heading of the Maxim article is inaccurate in my opinion; Bruce Lee did not specify he was talking about a "street fight", he only spoke of a "fight" by which he may have meant a "boxing fight". I agree that the "Ali and Frazier" section could eventually result in a spin-off article; there is a LOT of very notable material involving these two. Soham321 (talk) 19:28, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
I think this new section is verging toward magazine-style content and away from succinct encyclopedia material. The Frazier quote is overlong and lacks sparkle that might justify its length. I didn't comment when you proposed this section, but the initial text looks like 'feature article' filler material in an already long article, rather than the wiry sinew of an encyclopedia entry. Sorry to sound a little blunt, and be assured I won't revert anything you add, but do consider this point of view. DonFB (talk) 00:59, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

DonFB, would you care to do any editing on the section i have added. Feel free to paraphrase or summarize the Frazier quote or any other quote. More importantly, is such a section justified at all in the first place? Also pinging Stevietheman for feedback. Please note that the Frazier section is still incomplete. I should probably wait for some feedback before doing any further expansion on it. Soham321 (talk) 01:09, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't think the section is justified, now that I have a sense of its content. Not to say the material isn't interesting, but it really seems to lie outside the boundaries of the encyclopedia. Perhaps a few of the most salient points and reduced-size quotes might be incorporated into relevant existing sections of the article. Creating an entirely new section such as this tends to create 'permission' to write at greater length than needed, whereas inserting material into the appropriate places will tend to encourage succinctness. Again, though, if other editors don't object to the section, so be it, though I would then probably accept your invitation to edit the quotations and other text. DonFB (talk) 01:55, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

I've given this some more thought. I think the section is justified on account of precedence. If we can have such a section on the Voltaire page or D'Holbach page (links to these given in my first post in this section) then we can have it here as well. Also, if you scroll to the top you'll find a 'To-do' list for this article from a GA review. In this you'll find mentioned "Mention the fact that Ali called Frazier an "Uncle Tom" and "a dumb gorilla," both of which were widely reported in the press at the time." This section is ideal for describing the name calling that took place (mostly by Ali), and the fact that Ali later offered apologies on multiple occasions to Frazier but these were rejected. Soham321 (talk) 03:15, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

The William Nack quote could be slimmed to only its first sentence, or maybe the first two. I would have mentioned its length when I commented on the Frazier quote, but I hadn't yet seen the Nack quote. Strictly speaking, I think such long quotations are not in accord with rules here about copyrights and long quotations, although I know many articles honor those rules in the breach. Regarding the suggestion in the To-Do List about Ali's insults: that comment was made in 2009, and the article does mention the insults in the section about the first Frazier fight. DonFB (talk) 06:41, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
Let's honor consensus on this. As far as long quotations are concerned, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean-Jacques_Rousseau#Appreciation_and_influence . If the consensus is not to put the Nack quote in the main article's text, perhaps it can be included as a footnote. As far as the name calling is concerned, it was the third fight which had resulted in the ugliest name calling (Ali calling Frazier a "gorilla"). The emotional wounds inflicted on Frazier by Ali in the buildup to this fight would never heal and Frazier continued being bitter for the rest of his life despite Ali offering many apologies to him. Soham321 (talk) 09:23, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

This is Ali commenting on Frazier (quote taken Muhammad Ali: His Life and Times):

I don't think two big men ever fought fights like me and Joe Frazier. One fight, maybe. But three times; we were the only ones. Of all the men I fought in boxing, Sonny Liston was the scariest; George Foreman was the most powerful; Floyd Patterson was the most skilled as a boxer. But the roughest and toughest was Joe Frazier. He brought out the best in me, and the best fight we fought was in Manila.

Soham321 (talk) 09:30, 26 October 2016 (UTC) This is Larry Holmes commenting on the name calling that took place (quote taken from Facing Ali):

Ali called him ignorant. That hurts your feelings, but you've got to know how to come back. Joe didn't know how to come back. You know, Joe don't want everybody to say he's dumb and can't read and write and spell. Joe had to come up with something like, 'Yeah, okay, I might be ignorant, but this ignorant man is going to kick your ass.' But he didn't know how to come back at it. He just took it. And it bothered him. And you can't let shit like that bother you.

Soham321 (talk) 10:12, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

I reduced the length of the Nack quote as per feedback of DonFB. I was also going to write a third sub-section tentatively titled "Frenemies" to describe the Ali-Frazier relationship after their retirement from boxing. Finally, i haven't yet mentioned the name calling yet in the Frazier section. Soham321 (talk) 10:45, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

After reading the section, it's easy to see its usefulness and contribution to the overall subject, but I would agree with DonFB insofar as the tone being somewhat magazine-ish. But that's just a matter of copyediting -- there's no harm done by the current prose. Thank you Soham321 for tackling this. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 13:14, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

The Ali–Frazier relationship was huge in the 70s and I agree with Stevie that it could merit a daughter article. Meantime many thanks to Soham for making such a good start. Spicemix (talk) 22:22, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Stevietheman and Spicemix, please give feedback about whether i should continue expanding the Ali and Frazier section. I was planning to add a new section titled "Frenemies" in which i intended to give details about Frazier's feelings for Ali from Thrilla to Manilla to his death including what Frazier said about Ali in his autobiography, what he said about Ali lighting the Olympic flame, and other details. Soham321 (talk) 17:28, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

I think the epansion is merited, but I'd be cautious about naming the sub-section Frenemies, unless it's a quotation from a source and in quotes. Thanks for your tireless work. Spicemix (talk) 17:45, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
Agreed with Spicemix. I'm not sure of a really good title, but "Ups and downs" comes immediately to mind. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 19:15, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
The section title "Ali and his contemporaries" denotes very broad subject matter that I think would require an independent (linked) article, given the present and possibly future amount of text on just the Frazier relationship. If the section is renamed to refer only to Ali-Frazier, it might be able to remain within this article, although I don't doubt that you would be able to expand that topic into a standalone article, linked from this one. A separate article (either on "Contemporaries" or only Ali-Frazier) would give you the freedom to add plenty more material, which I think you'd like to do, and which I'm sure would be worthy. DonFB (talk) 22:43, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
Good query and i would like Stevietheman and Spicemix to advise on how to go forward with this. Soham321 (talk) 00:47, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Pitching some ideas for the Ali and his contemporaries section (for feedback):

Ali and Liston get good coverage at the article on their fights, so that would have to be borne in mind in this section. The other two, yes: JHM had more influence on Ali than maybe anyone, and that should be better represented. Spicemix (talk) 21:54, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Spicemix. You are right. The Ali vs Liston fights have a very exhaustive article, and that might be the best place to add anything more about Liston. I'll add info about the other two, and then after reducing/condensing the stuff about the Marciano fantasy fight i would propose that this article be sent for another GA review. Soham321 (talk) 00:39, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Incoherence on religion - perhaps show all sects Ali belonged to

After the latest changes, Ali is categorized as a Sufi but is shown as a Sunni in the infobox. I am thinking we should show all the religious sects he belonged to (per reliable sources), by category and in the infobox (in chronological order). Is there any objection to doing this? Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 10:34, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

I don't think that's necessary. In my opinion the religion in the infobox should also be changed to either Sufism or Sufi Islam. This much said, i think we should follow precedents here. Is there any other WP biography for which different religions or religious sects in chronological order are given for a person who has changed these on multiple occasions? Soham321 (talk) 15:34, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
Ali was Sunni for decades. Ignoring that would be anti-historical. Using categorization for only Ali's final religious destination has a bad smell to it as it is covering up part of who Ali was. As for the infobox, I don't know of any prohibition against showing a chronological series of religious sects like this. However, if we wanted to boil it all down to one religion, we would say 'Islam' and leave it at that. But I don't think we have to do that. If there is an expectation for me to show an example, think of this: how many notable folks publicly switch their religious sects as much as Ali did? Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 16:13, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
My earlier comment only pertained to the infobox. I have no objection to adding any categories based on Ali's previous religious affiliations. I don't think its a good idea to mention 'Islam' in the infobox. Sufism (or Sufi Islam) is vastly different from orthodox Islam and many ultra-orthodox muslims consider Sufis to be heretics. See for example: Link. I think for any WP biography, irrespective of earlier religious affiliations, the final or last religious affiliation of the person being profiled should be mentioned in the infobox. To give an example, if a person is an atheist then only 'Atheism' should be mentioned in the infobox and not his earlier religious affiliations. Soham321 (talk) 16:27, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Stevietheman, I also want clarification about one other issue. After Elijah Muhammad's death, Ali followed Warith Deen Mohammed (Elijah's son who assumed leadership of the Nation of Islam) into sunni Islam. As the WP article about Warith (see the lead) says, Warith changed the name of the organization from 'Nation of Islam' to 'World Community of Al-Islam in the West' which later became the 'American Society of Muslims'. Meanwhile, one of Elijah's followers (Louis Farrakhan) had started an organization called 'Final Call' after Elijah's death which he later renamed to 'Nation of Islam'. So the Nation of Islam as it exists today is not the same organization of which Ali was a member of. Now, does this fact that the existing Nation of Islam is a different organization from the one Ali was a member of need to be mentioned in the main article (probably as a footnote) or should it not be mentioned because of WP:COAT? Soham321 (talk) 16:51, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

The lead in the main article says that Ali 'disavowed' the Nation of Islam (NOI). He did no such thing. After Elijah Muhammad's death, Ali followed Elijah's son Warith who assumed leadership of the NOI into Sunni Islam. In other words, it was Warith who changed the religious outlook and ideology of the organization and Ali went along with it. Warith renamed the organization from Nation of Islam to "World community of Islam in the West", then renamed this organization to "American Muslim Mission" and then again renamed it to "American Society of Muslims". In 2003 this organization of Warith, which represented the original Nation of Islam, was disbanded. See American Society of Muslims for more on this. In 2005, Ali embraced Sufism. Soham321 (talk) 20:25, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Per Template:Infobox person#Parameters, the religion parameter in the infobox "should include only religions (i.e. Hinduism, Christianity) and not denominations (i.e. Shi'ism, Digambara, Shengdao, Vaishnavism)." So Islam would be appropriate.
Also, if you want examples of "notable folks [who] publicly switch their religious sects as much as Ali did", you don't have to look far. Warith Deen Mohammed and Malcolm X, both of whom are mentioned in this article as religious influences on Ali, are examples. Their infoboxes both show "Sunni Islam" as their religion. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 20:27, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
Of course, Warith Deen Muhammad and Malcolm X had religious influence on Ali but there is no evidence of either Warith or Malcolm having any attraction for Sufism. However, there is ample evidence that Ali converted to Sufism in 2005. (Three references about this have been given in the main article in the 'Later Beliefs' section.) What this means is that Ali simply evolved with respect to his religious outlook and went beyond what were the religious beliefs of Warith or Malcolm. So the question boils down to whether we should have Islam as Ali's religion or Sufism as Ali's religion. With respect to the template that Malik Shabazz has referred to, the template has a separate field for religion and another field for denomination. So we can give Islam as Ali's religion, and Sufism as the denomination to which Ali adhered to. If we insist on mentioning Sunni Islam also in the infobox because that was his prior belief system then we would be obliged to mention Christianity also because before embracing Sunni Islam and before embracing the beliefs of the Nation of Islam, he had been a Christian. It is important to mention the denomination in Ali's case because he had converted from one denomination of Islam to another in 2005. Soham321 (talk) 20:48, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
My two cents: The "denomination" parameter in the info box could show his affiliation, and could include a footnote to a comment such as, "His affiliation at death. See article for Ali's progression of religious beliefs and affiliations." The article itself certainly should contain thorough information about his various changes in affiliation. DonFB (talk) 22:18, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
Sounds reasonable to me. Soham321 (talk) 22:31, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
This may be a fair solution to the overwhelming nature of this information, so I'm not going to contest it. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 14:12, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
In the final analysis, due to the complexity of Ali's religious beliefs over time, it's probably best to let the article prose deal with that, as apparently there's no precedent to show religious progression in infoboxes. As for various questions, I'm not very knowledgeable on these particular subjects, so I am sanguine to let other editors tackle them. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 14:17, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Title reigns

All discussion on Ali's title reigns, inititated by User:Tmacmusicmagician's recent edits, should go here. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 05:23, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

From Boxrec.com: On September 14, 1964, Ali was stripped of the World Boxing Association title for signing to fight Sonny Liston in a rematch. The contract for their first fight included a return clause, which the WBA did not allow. Tmacmusicmagician (talk) 08:11, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

From Boxrec.com: When Ali and Liston signed to fight a rematch, the WBA voted unanimously to strip Ali of the title and drop Liston from its rankings. However, the World Boxing Council, the New York State Athletic Commission and The Ring magazine continued to recognize Ali as champion. Tmacmusicmagician (talk) 08:22, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

From Boxrec.com: Terrell defeated Eddie Machen by a fifteen-round unanimous decision to win the vacant WBA Heavyweight Championship on March 3, 1965. The WBA had stripped Muhammad Ali of the title for signing to fight Sonny Liston in a rematch, which took place on May 25, 1965 Tmacmusicmagician (talk) 08:30, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

User:Tmacmusicmagician, boxrec.com by itself cannot be used as a WP:RS for this article in my opinion. This is what WP has to say about BoxRec: "BoxRec has been criticized for not keeping correct records for boxers, especially historic fighters." Soham321 (talk) 10:59, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

The reference for the quote i gave is this article: http://www.secondsout.com/columns?cs=26706&ccs=208 here are some relevant quotes from this article:

Promoter Russell Peltz observes, “There’s no such thing as perfect record-keeping. Very few things in life are one hundred percent. But I’ve come across some glaring errors at Boxrec, mostly in the historical records.” And Dan Rafael notes, “So many people have a hand in Boxrec that the records aren’t always accurate. Ricardo Mayorga’s record has been wrong for years. There’s a mistake on Derrick Gainer’s record too.”

Soham321 (talk) 11:03, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

What must be highlighted is that the above quotes provided by User:Tmacmusicmagician are blurring the transition from the NBA to WBA. Neither Ali nor Liston's BoxRec profiles list their fights as having had the National Boxing Association (NBA) title at stake—only the "(undisputed) world heavyweight championship", which at that point comprised the Ring and lineal titles, and WBC (although the latter needs a better source than just WP's list of WBC titleholders).
So, to reiterate, we need to establish whether Liston was the NBA champion going into the first Ali fight; whether Ali was stripped after the organisation had transitioned to being known as the WBA; and if that means he is effectively a four-time WBA champion. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 15:22, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Mac Dreamstate, This is from the book "McIlvanney on Boxing" 1982 edition by Hugh McIlvanney; this book is a collection of the author's published newspaper articles and the extract is from an article published after Muhammad Ali vs. Larry Holmes and just before Drama in Bahama:

But that he[Ali] told us was what he was about to do. He was going to clear Berbick out of his path inside the ten rounds allotted for the purpose and then he would take care of Mike Weaver, the World Boxing Association heavyweight champion, and,probably, he'd go on to prove to Larry Holmes and the rest of us that he had been an invalid in Las Vegas last autumn. By taking a world title for a fourth time, he would make us think hard about the saying that records are meant to be broken. "They'd have to change that and say, "Records are meant to be broken, all but Muhammad Ali's.""

Soham321 (talk) 16:07, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

The above extract seems to suggest to me that Ali never won a world title for a fourth time. Soham321 (talk) 16:12, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

From ibro.com 1962-World Boxing Association

The National Boxing Association changed its name to the World Boxing Association at its annual convention in 1962. The reasons?  Increased membership of foreign bodies, the growing internationalization of the sport, and the fact that, with the growing popularity of professional basketball (thanks in no small part with network television), the NBA’s initials meant the National Basketball Association to most sports fans. Tmacmusicmagician (talk) 15:34, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

https://books.google.com/books?id=NN4DAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA106&lpg=PA106&dq=sonny+liston+wba+heavyweight+champion&source=bl&ots=HvzAMIKSdk&sig=C41zZ5KG9_e-N1pmhTnLRJHqaM8&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjuwpH67trQAhUFxWMKHYULDJI4FBDoAQgcMAE#v=onepage&q=sonny%20liston%20wba%20heavyweight%20champion&f=false

This article from Ebony magazine will prove that Muhammad Ali was stripped of the WBA title in 1964 but still recognized as the world heavyweight champion Tmacmusicmagician (talk) 15:39, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

It will also provide evidence of Sonny Liston's problems with the WBA, which should prove that Liston was recognized as champion by the WBA before Ali defeated him. Tmacmusicmagician (talk) 15:41, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

http://www.thesweetscience.com/feature-articles/20025-the-myth-of-qwhats-my-nameq-rip-ernie-terrell

Another article from thesweetscience.com proving my claim. Tmacmusicmagician (talk) 15:53, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Look, Tmacmusicmagician, these are great sources. You probably have a point here about Ali and the WBA title. But please let us read over them before making sweeping changes to the article and getting reverted every time. It's poor form on your part to just go ahead with changes that are disputed before coming to a consensus with the community. Give us time! Mac Dreamstate (talk) 16:31, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

I know I have a point about Ali and the WBA title. He won it 4 times but his victory over Terrell gets clouded because most casual fans did not recognize Terrell as a titleholder. Tmacmusicmagician (talk) 16:35, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

And also because Ali was still recognized as champion by the WBC, Ring Magazine and the NYSAC. Tmacmusicmagician (talk) 16:38, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Sure you have a point. We get it. But it is still poor form of you to insert the content before any of us have had a chance to read over it. With that said, the Ebony article does indeed appear to support the claim that Liston held the WBA title going into the first Ali fight. It was obviously a huge muddle, but this extract looks good enough to me:

To back its allegations, Ring contacted Archie Hindman, executive secretary of the WBA who, it said, admitted that Liston was never reinstated. However, when questioned by Ebony, Hindman refuted the Ring statement, explaining that the WBA could not have suspended Liston because that function is left entirely to state commissions.

I therefore have no issue in amending the Ali article to reflect four WBA title reigns. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 16:41, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

You'll have to change it for me sir. Tmacmusicmagician (talk) 16:56, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Can do, but I want to hear the opinion of other editors first. There's a lot of elements to change (infobox, record table, succession box), so we need to be certain before going ahead with them. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 16:59, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

That works Tmacmusicmagician (talk) 17:00, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

This is not something that piques my interest and i haven't done sufficient reading about it so i'll go along with whatever Mac Dreamstate, Stevietheman, MShabazz, DonFB, Spicemix, ToonIsALoon, and others decide. Soham321 (talk) 17:08, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

User:Stevietheman in particular I would like to hear from, as we recently had a discussion about a record table element. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 17:25, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
While I don't have any strong feelings on the subject, I would note that the overwheming majority of reliable sources refer to Ali as a "three-time world champion". If we're going to say something different, we better have exceptionally reliable sources, not boxing websites and Ebony. See WP:REDFLAG. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 17:37, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

MShabazz as I stated before, the majority of people don't consider Ali a 4-time champion because he was stripped of and regained the WBA title during his first reign as the world champion. But officially he has won the WBA version of the title 4 times. The WBA title and the world title are not one and the same.Tmacmusicmagician (talk) 17:46, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

If it was "official", then you should be able to cite an official WBA source. As I wrote, see WP:REDFLAG. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 18:12, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Another thing that should be made clear is when Ali held the NYSAC title. He won it from Liston, but when was he stripped of it—or did he vacate? Mac Dreamstate (talk) 18:07, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't have time to look into the issues in depth, but it seems that the point raised should have some weight in the article. We can reflect a complex or confused situation if that's what the sources dictate. Thanks. Spicemix (talk) 18:58, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

https://books.google.com/books?id=QRYGWUlo474C&pg=PA1959&lpg=PA1959&dq=world+boxing+association+muhammad+ali&source=bl&ots=sUniqVwQMd&sig=E36Tep3MGTzhlF6s6IugvMCwPtM&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwidgq-XnNvQAhXPq5QKHQ5NDG04ChDoAQgpMAY#v=onepage&q=world%20boxing%20association%20muhammad%20ali&f=false

Another excerpt from a book on Muhammad Ali claiming 2 WBA title wins during Ali's first reign as the world heavyweight champion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tmacmusicmagician (talk • contribs) 19:02, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

This one's not working on my end. I'm only seeing the book's information, rather than a page. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 19:13, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Would an article from HBO's website regarding Ali vs. Terrell count as a credible source?

http://www.hbo.com/boxing/inside/features/article/heavyweight-title-unification-a-history.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tmacmusicmagician (talk • contribs) 23:09, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

While I agree with MShabazz that Ali is a 3-time world heavyweight champion. I have proven my claim that Ali won the WBA heavyweight title 4 times (twice during his first reign as the world champion). And that the WBA title differs from the world championship. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tmacmusicmagician (talk • contribs) 23:17, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

And still there's such a rush to make changes before consensus. What is the goddamn hurry? User:Tmacmusicmagician, you're not trying some of that ol' sockpuppeting, are you? You made an identical edit today. Not a good look, my man.. Not a good look. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 00:10, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

What changes? Everything looks the same to me Tmacmusicmagician (talk) 01:22, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

I made a copy/paste error above. I'll try again: you made this change earlier in the day, which was reverted because consensus has still not yet been reached. An IP then made a very similar change about an hour ago. That's.. interesting, to say the least. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 01:25, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm continuing to find a credible source that will satisfy MShabazz and convince him that Ali had 4 WBA title wins. Then we can discuss other issues with Ali's title reigns. Tmacmusicmagician (talk) 01:25, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Continuation

I still reckon the Ebony source above warrants consideration, at least inclusion as an alternative version of events in prose—just not in the titles box and record table, which need to be concrete and without fringe theories. After all, Ebony themselves cite both the NBA/WBA and The Ring as sources within the article, so it doesn't seem like a statistic they've plucked out of nowhere—as a bonus, they explain the situation in quite a lot of detail. Furthermore, it's nigh-on impossible to find a timeline of title reigns from an official WBA source, as the search function on their site only goes back as far as 2000. Therefore, taking WP:REDFLAG into consideration, could we not simply include Ebony's version of events as an alternative, in prose? Mac Dreamstate (talk) 13:25, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Mac Dreamstate, do you propose to include the information from Ebony in the main article or as a footnote, or are you ok with either alternative? Soham321 (talk) 16:49, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
A footnote sounds good to me. Since it's only one source, albeit a published one with a nice amount of detail to explain it, it should be mentioned in the prose, but not with any more weight than necessary. Simple fact is, the majority of sources omit Ali having an NBA/WBA reign following the first Liston fight, so we can't do anything about that. 16:56, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
I endorse your suggestion of including this information in the main article as a footnote providing something like "According to Ebony" is mentioned in the edit. If other sources can be found to validate this information we can consider shifting the content to the main article. Soham321 (talk) 16:59, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
Can be done. I'll try and cook up a paragraph and slot it in. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 18:30, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Marciano Fantasy fight

The section about Ali's fantasy fight with Marciano needs to be condensed and greatly reduced. This was not so significant a fight, and besides, it has its own WP page where more details about this fight can be given. I would not recommend more than one paragraph (or maximum two) for this section. Soham321 (talk) 17:32, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. The current section is outweighing its importance to the main subject. I just haven't had the nerve to trim it yet. :) Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 17:45, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
Lets leave it. It's an interesting read and doesn't go into excessive detail about who the judges were, other fights that Woroner predicted, the fact that Marciano also received a belt made of gold and diamonds as a result of him winning the fictional tournament and that the $10,000 payoff was equal to what Rocky received.
Like you said it wasn't such a significant fight, however this is due to Ali's ban from boxing and the fight may have been real if the ban had not occurred.
There are some die hard Ali fans who debate whether this should be considered as Ali's 1st loss although the fight was filmed as oppose to planned, etc. I wasn't a fan of the sectioning of his exile and comeback though, perhaps just leave as one section? ToonIsALoon (talk) 14:14, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
ToonIsALoon, there was no possibility of this being a real fight because Marciano had retired as a boxer a long time ago, and in the context of boxing was "an old man". (In fact he was wearing a wig during this fight which Ali would keep knocking off). The details you mention can be added to the main article pertaining to the Marciano vs Ali fight: The Super Fight. Finally, the section about the Marciano vs Ali fight is omitting one important detail: when this fight was shown in move screens across the US, Marciano was shown as the winner; but when it was shown in movie screens across Europe, Ali was shown as the winner. When Ali publicly stated that there was no chance of Marciano beating him in a real fight the producers of the fight/film sued or threatened to sue Ali, but then had to eat humble pie and back off when some predictions of their computer algorithm for determining outcomes of different bouts involving other boxers turned out to predict the wrong outcome. Soham321 (talk) 14:47, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
No worries about it not being a real fight I think it's clearly explained it wasn't. Was only suggesting for people who look hard into it but as you said the main page is there for that. Regarding Ali being shown as the winner, I've stated that an alternate ending exists where Ali won. I've clearly stated that Ali criticized the film stating his negative feedback, don't think there's any omission there, but regarding European theaters showing Ali winning, do you have a link to support? If so please add it to the CCTV section, this may offer a window for reduction of paragraphs etc. ToonIsALoon (talk) 17:34, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

ToonIsALoon Many sources for the fact that European theaters had Ali winning. Here is one: Link Soham321 (talk) 17:43, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. I've readded the paragraph stating Ali's feedback and the destruction of the prints. Its small and doesn't add excessive detail. (my login isnt working) ToonIsALoon — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.143.249.158 (talk) 17:04, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

I am not in favor of this additional paragraph being kept in the main article. Per WP:ONUS I seek its removal. Let me give more details. The edit is:

Marciano died in a plane crash three weeks after the completion of filming, which prevented any form of feedback regarding the film,[69] while Ali criticized the film for being promoted as an actual fight, stating American audiences were left angered by the depicted outcome, though he praised Marciano as a boxer and said they left the filming on good terms.[70] As Ali was still banned from boxing, the filmmakers proceeded to destroy remaining prints of the film to prevent legal action. In 2005, it was discovered that one print had survived, allowing for a DVD release.[71]

(Note: In above, [71] refers to Reference 71 in the main article as it exists right now. The numbering might change depending on when you read this if someone adds more references to the main article.)

In the above, Reference 71 is a reference to a DVD available for sale on amazon.co.uk. The reference being used is itself amazon.co.uk. This cannot be considered to satisfy WP:RS and WP:V in my opinion. Even if a reference satisfying WP:RS and WP:V is obtained to support this edit, I would suggest that this detail be excluded from this article and included in The Super Fight per WP:ONUS. With respect to the edit using Reference 70 to support it, Ali said many things about this film including the fact that the computer which the producers claimed determined the outcome of the fight must have been made in Alabama (a wolf whistle about racism). Per WP:ONUS I suggest all these comments of Ali be given in detail in the main Ali vs Marciano fight article: The Super Fight.

The fact that Marciano died 3 weeks after filming (this edit uses Reference 69 to support it) was already present in the main article as a footnote. I would not object to transferring this content from a footnote to the main article although the words "which prevented any form of feedback regarding the film" which Toon has included here are superfluous. We know Marciano could not give feedback about the result of the fight because he was dead by the time the film was released. This detail by the way is not complete. Marciano's brother (i think--i'll have to check) had asked him about the outcome of the fight, before Marciano's death, and Marciano had smiled and winked indicating he knew he would be the winner. It has been commented that Marciano was very protective about his undefeated record and there was no way he would have returned to the ring without being given the assurance that he would be the winner of the fantasy fight with Ali. Note that the film was not shown simultaneously in Europe at the time it was shown in the US. As per the book Muhammad Ali: His Life and Times, the film was released in Europe a few days after its release in the US, and the producers were obliged to change the ending of the film after they came to know that the news of an aging Marciano having won the fantasy fight had outraged many Europeans. But, in my opinion, as per WP:ONUS all this is not suitable for the main article of Muhammad Ali. It can be included in the main article of the Ali-Marciano fantasy fight.

I will point out also that Ali's fight with Bonavena, which was a much more important fight, has been given exactly one sentence in the main article. So there is no reason to give so much importance to the Ali-Marciano fantasy fight which was really a fake fight (with Marciano applying ketchup on his face so that the film's viewers would think his face was covered with blood) and the two boxers avoiding throwing head punches and only tapping each other's stomach.

Pinging the other regulars of this article for feedback: Mac Dreamstate, Stevietheman, MShabazz, DonFB, Spicemix Soham321 (talk) 23:59, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

The entire section is somewhat long, considering there is a main article. I don't really have an opinion about inclusion of the various particulars (whether the DVD needs to be mentioned, for example). As a reader, however, I find the information quite interesting. I don't think I was ever aware of the fantasy fight with Marciano. Below, I offer a version of the section rewritten/condensed to a more reasonable length. I made a few changes to unclear wording and added mention of Ali's financial situation, which helps make his motivation clear:

In 1968 radio producer Murray Woroner created a series of computer-simulated fantasy fights among boxing greats like Joe Louis, Jack Dempsey and Ali to determine the greatest heavyweight of all time. Ali lost in a match against Jim Jeffries, a boxer Ali had called "history's clumsiest, most slow-footed heavyweight." Ali sued Woroner for $1 million, claiming defamation.[61][62][63][b] Marciano was declared the tournament winner.

Ali, who was still barred from professional boxing and faced financial problems, settled for a $10,000 payoff in exchange for his participation in a filmed version of a fantasy fight with Marciano.[65] They sparred in restrained fashion for 75 one-minute rounds,[c] and several possible endings were filmed.[62][66] The winner was supposedly determined by computer, but two versions of the film were released in 1970. In the U.S. Marciano was shown as winner; in Europe, Ali was shown victorious.[65][67][68][d]

Ali criticized the film for being promoted as an actual fight and said American audiences were angry at the depicted outcome.[70] The producers destroyed prints of the film to prevent legal action by Ali. Marciano died in a plane crash three weeks after completion of filming. In 2005 a surviving print was discovered, allowing for a DVD release.[71]

DonFB (talk) 02:55, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Addendum: In the main article, The Super Fight, there is no mention of a different ending shown in Europe with Ali as winner. DonFB (talk) 03:21, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm happy with the above mentioned revision, except I believe Marciano's death should remain at the start of the sentence, or after 'depicted outcome': -

Ali criticized the film for being promoted as an actual fight and said American audiences were angry at the depicted outcome.[70] Marciano had died in a plane crash three weeks after completion of filming. The producers destroyed prints of the film to prevent legal action by Ali. In 2005 a surviving print was discovered, allowing for a DVD release.[71] DonFB (talk) 02:55, 8 December 2016 (UTC)}}

ToonIsALoon (talk) 17:02, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

I fully agree with Soham321's opening statement in the thread and Stevie's response. The section should be pared right back to an accurate minimum and editors can look at the main article to get all the detail straight. I am very much not a deletionist, but a) this topic has its own article and b) it is given undue weight here compared to other events in Ali's life and career. Thanks. Spicemix (talk) 23:31, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
I accept that even my shortened version above remains overlong. Here's another offering, which would be preceded by the existing link to the main article:
"While still banned from sanctioned bouts, Ali accepted $10,000 to appear in a non-public staged fantasy fight against retired champion Rocky Marciano. The boxers were filmed sparring for about 70 one-minute rounds; they acted out several different endings. A computer program purportedly determined the winner, based on data about the fighters. An edited version of the bout, in which Ali lost by knockout in the 13th round, was shown in movie theaters in 1970."
DonFB (talk) 06:06, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

DonFB, could you tweak the last sentence to indicate that Ali lost the fantasy fight in the US, but won it in Europe? Soham321 (talk) 13:37, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Is there a good source for that detail? As I mentioned earlier, the main article does not say anything about a European version of the video with Ali winning. With a RS, the text could say: "Edited versions of the bout were shown in movie theaters in 1970. In the U.S. Ali was shown losing by knockout in the 13th round. In Europe Marciano was shown losing to Ali after suffering (simulated) cuts." Or, more briefly: "Edited versions of the bout were shown in movie theaters in 1970. In the U.S. Ali was shown losing, but the European version showed him winning." DonFB (talk) 21:22, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
Here is one reference: Link. Note that this book is co-authored by Howard Bingham. A second reference containing information about this is the book Muhammad Ali: His Life and Times. Yes, the main article of the Ali-Marciano fight does not contain this information of Ali winning the fantasy fight in Europe. It needs to be updated as well. Soham321 (talk) 21:58, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

And I am fine with both your longer and your shorter version about the last sentences of the fantasy fight. So I'll leave it to you and others to decide which one should go in the main article. Soham321 (talk) 22:04, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Ok, and I've checked the source, which looks all right. Others can comment if they want the new short text, or the even shorter text--or something else. Absent further comment soon, I'll make the change. DonFB (talk) 22:38, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

if you choose the longer version i'd like to change "In the U.S. Ali was shown losing by knockout" to "In the U.S. Ali was shown losing by a simulated knockout". Soham321 (talk) 22:36, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I was thinking the same thing. DonFB (talk) 22:49, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
DonFB, thanks for rewriting this section. If you wish you can consider adding an expanded version of this section to the main Ali vs Marciano fight article. Soham321 (talk) 15:55, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Muhammad_Ali/Archive_3&oldid=1087720420"