Talk:Robert Baker

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Robert Baker article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (`~~~~`). New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite, and welcoming to new users Assume good faith Do not attack other users For disputes, please see our guideline	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

"Controversial"[change source]

The term controversial is not simple and certainly needs to be defined (at wiktionary) and linked. I previously tried to replace the term with an easier to understand "that many people did not think more was correct" but this was edited out. Also, the statement "Both Baker-Hurricane fights should have been called draws" is an opinion due to the usage of the word should. Could would remove the opinion but may not be totally correct in meaning. "Many people believe that both fights should have.." would be more correct, but would likely require sources to back up the statement. -- Creol(talk) 19:27, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to take away some of the opinion and simplify some language. For example, calling someone the "logical" contender seems to me an opinion statement. Just leaving it at "leading" contender (which can be proven by looking at the ratings at the time) makes more sense. I also simplified "thunder struck" since I don't think that's a simple term.

I do not want to talk about done deal. Thunder struck was reported in papers, the term confusion means nothing, because confusion can arise from everything, confusion does not explain the bad decisions fans felt./

That's fine if you want to use a different word other than "confused." My point was that "thunder struck" does not seem to be simple English. Something like "amazed" or "shocked" or "confused and angry" or whatever. MKil 18:53, 24 May 2007 (UTC)MKil[reply]

The statement that many publications thought the Baker-Jackson fight was a draw seems to be false. As written, it seems that different publications thought that different men won. That does not mean they thought it was a draw; instead, there was a split in opinion among the publications. So I changed that. MKil 14:06, 24 May 2007 (UTC)MKil[reply]

No, back in those years, whoever was best opponent was called logical and only opponent, remember that. Outstanding opponent was usually #1, but not logical, so everything here is correct. If you check old newspapers you will realize that. Freddy 18:45, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]