Talk:ONE Championship

Article title

The article title should have One written in sentence case and not all caps, and the name should appear this way throughout the article. We do not write trademarks that are words (as opposed to acronyms or initialisms) in all capitals, even if the trademark holder does. Please see MOS:TM and MOS:CAPS. Stifle (talk) 09:54, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

@Stifle: Your article move has been reverted. I suggest to file a WP:RM request if you want to further pursue the above opinion. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 18:31, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

This has already been through WP:RM but nobody did me the courtesy of notifying me of it so I could contest it. Stifle (talk) 08:16, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

If I recall correctly, that was just WP:RMTR as a request for a speedy revert of an undiscussed move – a purely procedural matter – not a full RM discussion on the merits of the question. Please feel free to submit an ordinary WP:RM request. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 00:02, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 17 April 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: No consensus. (non-admin closure) EggRoll97 ^(talk) 03:21, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

---

ONE Championship → One Championship – Per previoius discussion on talk page, the "ONE" is a word, not an acronym, so should not be all-caps, per MOS:TM and MOS:CAPS. Dicklyon (talk) 23:53, 17 April 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. – MaterialWorks 22:56, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

• Support it's not an acronym. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:27, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. Per MOS:TMRULES: "Follow standard English text formatting and capitalization practices, even if the trademark owner considers nonstandard formatting "official", as long as this is a style already in widespread use." That last bit is key: virtually all reliable secondary sources use "ONE Championship"[1] - I'm not seeing any evidence of "One Championship" being in widespread use. Per WP:MOSTM: "Do not invent new styles that are not used by independent reliable sources." 162 etc. (talk) 15:54, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Oppose: I don't think the capital "ONE" should've been used for the company purposed. VernardoLau (talk) 09:16, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

References

• Comment Support: Just scanning the quoted headlines of cited sources, besides Sherdog (several articles cited), I see "One" in Business Insider India, Sports Pro Media, MMA Media, MMA Fighting, Nikkei Asia (multiple articles), and Bloomberg. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 17:39, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

I'll note that these cited sources are quite old. More recent articles from MMA Mania[2] and MMA Fighting[3] indeed use "ONE". See also Bloody Elbow[4], MMA Junkie [5], Sportskeeda[6]... 162 etc. (talk) 21:50, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

The Bloomberg article is only one year old, one of the Nikkei Asia articles is only 7 months old, and one of the Sherdog articles is only 3 months old. When sources are mixed, Wikipedia avoids all-caps in such cases. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 01:58, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose: ONE Championship is the company name and most people refer to the organization as ONE and not "One Championship" Marty2Hotty (talk) 16:28, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
• Comment: This RM was originally closed as Not moved. After a discussion with BarrelProof, I decided to reopen it to allow for a clearer consensus. – MaterialWorks 22:56, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Relisting comment: See comment above. – MaterialWorks 22:56, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Martial arts has been notified of this discussion. – MaterialWorks 22:57, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Mixed martial arts has been notified of this discussion. – MaterialWorks 22:57, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

• Regarding policy & guidelines supporting the lowercase, per the above-mentioned discussion, please see WP:TITLETM ("Items in full or partial uppercase (such as Invader ZIM) should have standard capitalization (Invader Zim)") and MOS:ALLCAPS ("Reduce text written in all capitals in trademarks – see WP:Manual of Style/Trademarks") and MOS:TM ("Follow standard English text formatting and capitalization practices, even if the trademark owner considers nonstandard formatting "official", as long as this is a style already in widespread use, ..." and MOS:TMRULES: "Follow standard English text formatting and capitalization practices, even if the trademark owner considers nonstandard formatting "official", as long as this is a style already in widespread use ... avoid: TIME, KISS, ASUS, SONY Mobile") and MOS:CAPS ("Wikipedia avoids unnecessary capitalization.") —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 23:14, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose: As per MOS:TMRULES: Do not invent new styles that are not used by independent reliable sources., I guess it works both ways? Majority of WP:IRS use all-caps ONE in their news articles, so it is fairly widespread. Ticelon (talk) 07:48, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose per User:162 etc. --Jayron32 12:17, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
• Support per guidelines and sources. Not an acronym. Dicklyon (talk) 13:31, 5 May 2023 (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.

"Caymanian" promotion

It's pretty clear that this is a tax related move by the org in relation to their expansion/US-based IPO as evidenced by sources on and off the page. Calling ONE a "Caymanian" promotion seems disingenuous considering no fights will likely ever happen in the Cayman Islands and their headquarters remains in Singapore. I'd rather not comment on any of the financial relationships that have appeared in relation to this, however, I think it would make more sense to call them a multinational promotion considering the American & Middle Eastern expansion (one completed fight in the USA, MoU in Qatar). There is also the option to call them a Singaporean promotion legally domiciled in the Cayman Islands, considering they continue to have the largest presence in Asia. I will be changing the language to say multinational in the mean time. 30Four (talk) 15:56, 30 October 2023 (UTC) 30Four (talk) 15:56, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

I see the nationality was removed entirely - this also doesn't seem right. There should be some sort of description. 30Four (talk) 16:03, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

References

Spin-off of ONE's "History" section

Clearly, this article is a mess and needs a clean-up. In the interim, I suggest spinning-off the "History" section into its own article. Thecleanerand (talk) 21:34, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Paid Edit requests for September 2024

This page needs improvement in order to be brought up to editorial standards. I have some suggestions for doing so. Please note that I have a conflict of interest as a consultant for WhiteHatWiki.com, which was hired by the subject of this article.

1. Please remove the first paragraph of the “Financials section:

Per the company's 2021 publicly available financial statements, the company has generated an accumulated net loss of US$383 millions. The company's dire financial performance and rumored potential bankruptcy have been widely reported by the MMA journal, Bloody Elbow. When confronted with questions related to the poor financial performance and non-standard financial reporting, Chatri Sityodtong has repeatedly avoided directly answering reporters on the matter.  There is also an ongoing question regarding what portion of the company's reported revenue is actually from non-cash barter transactions, due to an unexplained US$400,000,000 barter transaction with a subsidiary for "intellectual property rights".

Reason for the change: The entire paragraph is based on a source that has been found to be generally unreliable pre-March 2024 because it is a blog, most recently in this RfC [7]. Altogether, the source has been evaluated by several editors in three different discussions; the others happening in 2010 and earlier in 2024. [8], [9]. According to WP:RSPCRITERIA, For a source to be added to reliable sources/perennial sources list, editors generally expect two or more significant discussions about the source's reliability in the past, or an uninterrupted request for comment on the source's reliability that took place on the reliable sources noticeboard. That has happened here. And because the source pre-March 2024 has been found to be generally unreliable through WP:CONSENSUS, information supported solely by this source should be removed. In March 2024 there was a change of ownership, resulting in a deletion of all 14 years of the previous blog posts (including the posts cited here), firing of the very small staff,[10] and relaunch as a news source with a credible editorial model and journalistic editorial policy. [11] When evaluating Bloody Elbow, it’s important to realize that the current site and how the current site conducts itself is the opposite of the Bloody Elbow blog prior to March 2024. It’s impossible to even freshly evaluate the pre-March 2024 blog for editorial standards because it has been deleted.

Previously, Bloody Elbow tended toward sensationalism and printed rumors without verification, which is probably why the new owners just deleted the old posts. You can see the impact of their lack of editorial standards reflected in Wikipedia. The paragraph contains numerous violations of WP:NPOV such as the phrasing “dire financial performance,” “confronted with questions” and “has repeatedly avoided directly answering reporters.” These biased phrases are all based on writing on Bloody Elbow that is characteristic of a blog post, freely mixing in opinion. The paragraph also contains language that reports speculation -”rumored potential bankruptcy” - that violates WP:NOT, which states “Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation, rumors, or presumptions.” The author of this blog post lists no expert credential relevant to combat sports other than working for Bloody Elbow.

2. Please remove the second paragraph of the “Financials” section

Financial scrutiny of ONE Championship has increased since 2018, particularly regarding its accounting practices. The organization's barter transactions, previously a distinct category, have been integrated into broadcasting and sponsorship revenue. This change has made it more difficult to discern the proportion of revenue derived from cash versus non-cash transactions, potentially obscuring the organization's financial health.

Reason for the change: This is a standalone paragraph containing no citations. This is especially problematic because it contains inflammatory accusations.

3. Please remove the third paragraph of the “Financials” section:

According to Kristie Neo from DealStreetAsia, financial projections indicated that ONE Championship's financial resources could be depleted by the third quarter of 2024. The organization reportedly generated revenue between $5-8 million in 2022, a modest figure for a promotion of its size. ONE Championship also faced organizational challenges, implementing two rounds of layoffs between March and July 2023, affecting 12 to 15 staff members each time.

Reason for the change: The first sentence speculates about a future outcome, violating WP:CRYSTALBALL and WP:RUMORS. The second sentence relies on unsubstantiated speculative claims (“reportedly”) WP:RUMORS and violates WP:NPOV (“a modest figure for a promotion of its size”). The third sentence also violates NPOV and WP: VERIFY by editorializing beyond anything said in the article, which notes layoffs but does not say ONE Championship faced organizational challenges. All of these statements are attributed to one anonymous source in the article, with no description of their expertise. By contrast, on April 23, 2024, Forbes (staff written) listed ONE Championship as #4 on a list of the most valuable combat sports brands in 2024, citing an estimated 2023 revenue of $144 million.[12].This is a case where the Forbes story is so much more credible than the anonymous person quoted by a trade pub, that the minor source should just be excluded. “Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects.” WP:DUE I will propose adding the most recent financial figures reported by Forbes to the History section at a later date.

What remains is reporting about a small number of layoffs, which does not justify an entire section. (See #4 - more reporting by Bloody Elbow that should be deleted.) The layoffs are only one line toward the end of the trade pub, Deal Street Asia, and don’t merit even being moved to History. WP:NOTNEWS.

4. Please remove the fourth paragraph of the “Financials” section

In 2021, ONE secured significant funding, raising $150 million through investments from the Qatar Investment Authority (QIA) and Guggenheim Investments. Despite this influx of capital, reports as of November 2023 suggest that these funds are nearly exhausted. Furthermore, investment enthusiasm in Qatar has waned, with key local partners Qatar Airways and Ooredoo discontinuing their financial backing. This withdrawal of support has led to the postponement of a planned ONE event in Qatar, which later took place 2024.

Reason for the change: Three and a half sentences of the four sentences are supported by Bloody Elbow, which, as outlined in item #1, has repeatedly been determined on WP:RSN to be generally unreliable. It therefore cannot be used to verify facts. Additionally, the sentences violate WP:RUMORS (“...reports as of November 2023 suggest that these funds are nearly exhausted.”) and WP:NPOV (“investment enthusiasm in Qatar has waned.”) This style of writing, with rumors and editorializing, is further evidence that this is an unreliable blog post. Only the second clause of the last sentence (“[The postponed event]...which later took place 2024.”) is supported by the South China Morning Post. The only reliable clause, therefore, contradicts the gist of these sentences, which speculates Qatar investment enthusiasm “waned” because an event in Qatar did not take place on the scheduled date, when in fact, according to the South China Morning Post, it only ended up being delayed, undermining the entire rumor published by Bloody Elbow. The financial health and value of the organization, as reported by a tier-one business sources known for its investigations into finances (Forbes,described above in request #3), completely contradicts the rumors published by this generally unreliable blog. This gives further weight to deleting all facts sourced to Bloody Elbow, as they are often just unsubstantiated speculation. At a later date, I will propose that the one verifiable fact – that there was a 2024 event held in Qatar – be added to History.

5. Please remove the fifth paragraph of the financials section:

In a November 27, 2023 interview with the MMA Hour, amid the acquisition of Bellator MMA by the Professional Fighters League, Bellator exec Mike Kogan claimed ONE was close to going out of business, calling the promotion a ten-year start-up. "I've been at this sport for a long time. I don't have it in me to start from scratch. There just isn't anybody else. If you don't go to PFL, obviously, I'm not getting hired by the UFC. ONE FC pissed away $600 million and is about to go out of business, where do you go? They're gonna go out of business. These people scammed everybody they could scam. It's the truth. I mean come on. Ten years. You can't be a start-up for ten years. At some point, you've got to start showing something. So, they're gonna go out, so where's there to go? There's nowhere else to go."

Reason for the change: The paragraph relies entirely on an inflammatory and excessively long quote from an executive at a rival MMA league. Per WP:COPYQUOTE, direct quotes must be useful and aid understanding of the subject and irrelevant quotations should be removed. This quote is a “claim” made by a competitor that cites no evidence and offers no meaningful information. By including baseless speculation and attacks on a business rival, the paragraph is a clear violation of WP:RUMORS and WP:CRYSTALBALL, which state: “Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation, rumors, or presumptions. Wikipedia does not predict the future” What’s more, this speculation from 2023 has proven to be false. In April 2024, Forbes listed it as the fourth most valuable combat sports brands, citing an estimated 2023 revenue of $144 million.[13].

5. If all requests are approved, please delete the “Financials” heading as the section is now empty.

Thanks for reviewing. Brucemyboy1212 (talk) 16:14, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: The financials section is good as is, and the reasons you gave for removing it have no standing at all. Also, you were the one that opened the Bloody Elbow RfC, which ended with no result. Absolutely denied. Quetstar (talk) 02:35, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Reporting vandalism

Reporting vandalism. User:HeinzMaster has removed/deleted a Request Edit from this page on the grounds that it was created by a declared COI editor: diff. See also these deletions:diff, diff, diff. Paid COI Request Edits are routine, and all disclosures were properly made. Blanking a Talk post denies all other editors the opportunity to participate on Wikipedia. I’d ask that the Request Edits be restored and that the user be cautioned and/or blocked from this page on the grounds of vandalism and their expression of personal hostility toward the subject of this article. FYI, this editor mischaracterizes the RfC at WP:RSN. I made a COI disclosure there as well, noting ONE Championship was a client, and at one point specifically mentioning that I was seeking guidance because of the use of Bloody Elbow on the ONE Championship page. Regardless, removal of the Talk post is vandalism. Brucemyboy1212 (talk) 15:44, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

If you have a complaint about another user's conduct, you should bring it to WP:ANI (after first discussing your complaint with the user). Using the admin help template is not the right way to go.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:00, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

I applaud that ONE finally had employees who admit to working for ONE instead of just making fake accounts like they had in years past. Also why running right away to the admins and wasting their time. Bbb23 is correct, you are abusing the system.

My big issue is not the request, it's that you actively went to discredit a media source so that information about your client would be removed. This is after years of ONE using fake accounts to remove information about their own publicly disclosed financial information to the Singaporean government. Is ONE admitting to committing fraud and reporting fake information to a governmental entity? Shall we also discuss the pages use of paid contributors from Business Insider, Nikkei Review, Neilsen, etc? HeinzMaster (talk) 16:16, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

@HeinzMaster: Are you prepared to restore the Request Edit that you deleted in full? Otherwise, I will go to ANI, as advised above. Brucemyboy1212 (talk) 16:31, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Great discussion, want to reply to anything else or are the Wikipedia pinkertons just gonna try to bulldoze through their clients opinions and biases? HeinzMaster (talk) 16:36, 25 September 2024 (UTC)