Talk:WWE/Archive 6

About the argument concerning the WWE/World Tag Team Championship & Unified WWE Tag Team Championship...

After Chris Jericho won both the (WCW) World Heavyweight Championship & WWE Championship, he became the first WWE Undisputed Champion, even though he still carried both belts. Even though both belts weren't considered retired, they were considered ONE championship from that point on, until they were split up into the World Heavyweight & WWE Championships we have now. The current situation with the WWE Tag Team Championship & World Tag Team Championship is the same. The Colons are considered the Unified WWE Tag Team Champions, even though they still carry both sets of tag titles. Even though both sets aren't retired, they are considered ONE championship, the Unified WWE Tag Team Championship. So there, WWE has set a precedent for how their championships are viewed. If you're still unsure of what to do, then hold a poll and ask what should be done with the tag titles. 24.12.89.226 (talk) 02:08, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

First you are incorrect. The WWF and WCW Titles were unified yes. But they were never broken up. The World Heavyweight Championship is not the WCW Championship. It is an entirely new championship. It just has the big gold belt design, which has been used by multiple championships. For now, they just hold both belts, which means neither are retired yet. So for now, we should continue with both on the page until one disappears or a new championship is debuted.--WillC 02:50, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, like Will stated. The current World Heavyweight Championship (WWE) is not the same title as the WCW World Heavyweight Championship. Until one of the WWE Tag Team Championships is retired officially by WWE, which we would know by now because of WWE.com's title histories, then we will denote it as such but for now WWE.com has both titles still active.--Truco ₅₀₃ 03:12, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Will is right. Besides the two titles became one after the creation of the WWE Udisputed title.Sid 4x (talk) 22:10, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Allow me to explain this better

First and foremost on the Jericho point, yes Chris Jericho won the WCW Championship and then went on to win the WWE Championship. Following this, the WCW Championship was unified with the WWE Championship. However, with unification matches, the result of the match can spawn two different outcomes. One outcome results in one of the championships being decommissioned with the champion choosing to hold a single championship (...as was the case with the WCW U.S. and WWE IC unification match at Survivor Series 2001, where Edge chose the IC championship.) The second outcome results in the champion choosing to hold both championships (...as was the case with the WCW Cruiserweight and WWF Lightheavyweight unification match on July 30, 2001, where Xpac continued to defend the two titles both simultaneously and separately.)

With the Undisputed Championship, the WCW Championship was decommissioned and since it hasn't been reactivated, in theory, it is still merged with the WWE Championship. WWE Undisputed Championship wasn't "split" to create the World Heavyweight Championship. Unless the WWE Undisputed Championship was split back into the WCW Championship and WWE Championship, the WWE Undisputed Championship wasn't split. The World Heavyweight Championship spun-off from the WWE Undisputed Championship just as the WWE, ECW, and WCW Championships spun-off from the NWA Championship. It is for this reason that the World Heavyweight Championship is connected and related to the WCW, WWE, and NWA Championships; because it was created from the WWE Championship, which contains the WCW Championship, which was created from the NWA Championship.

So with the WCW Championship decommissioned and still merged with the WWE Championship, it is obvious that the first outcome from the two listed above took place. Now with The Colóns and the situation with Unified Tag Team Championships, it is unfortunately still too early to tell which of the two outcomes listed above will take place. As both title histories on WWE.com still list The Colóns as current champions for both the World Tag Team and WWE Tag Team Championhip without making use of the words "Final Champions" on either page, there is no evidence pointing towards either of the two possible outcomes. It is too early to tell which of the two championships will be decommissioned or whether both titles will continue to be active. It is for that reason that nothing has been done about the Unified Tag Team Championships on the subject's related articles.^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 03:18, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Kind of reminds me of the J-Crown: championships that were still active in one way or another, but unified with a different name. 69.226.236.202 (talk) 22:18, 6 August 2009 (UTC)Rolmo

Cost Cutting

Under the cost cutting header, there is a claim that there were several wrestlers who were let go by the company. Which wrestlers were let go exactly? --Reverend Edward Brain, D.D. (talk) 21:21, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

The note was added in January of this year. The portion of the note regarding the release of talent is not cited by any reliable source and has therefore been removed. ^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 21:39, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

ICP

why isnt the Insane Clown Posse mentioned in this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.149.183.41 (talk) 05:17, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Why would they be? They didn't have any significant role in the company. They made a few appearances with The Oddities and thats it. The Oddities have their own article and they are covered there. TJ Spyke 05:19, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Other Accomplishment Addition

Should we add "Miss Wrestle Mania" to the other Accomplishments? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.138.215.203 (talk) 18:18, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

No. Non notable trivia for this article. !! Justa Punk !! 01:32, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Na. Just a onetime thing. itll probably be retired or something :p <small>FUN WIT AHMED, DUDEZ</small>_{[[user talk:Fun with ahmed|TALK]]} (talk) 21:15, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

They haven't even mentioned it since Santino defeated Vickie back at Extreme Rules. TJ Spyke 21:18, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

They should treat it like it never existed TBH. But we'll wait and see if they do it again at the next Wrestlemania. Podgy Stuffn (talk) 03:39, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I think that the montreal screwjob and the dx takeover of wcw should both have a major part on here sense they were both big parts in wwe history and are very important turning points. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dshawthorne (talk • contribs) 18:24, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

What does that have to do with this section? TJ Spyke 20:46, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

The DX takeover was a big part of history because that was really the beginning of the downfall of the wcw, which lead to it being purcased by the wwe, which was a major accomplishment by DX. And the Montreal Screjob was more of a turning point but it still was an accomplishment in Triple H's career. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.244.3.66 (talk) 18:19, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Besides the fact that neither are accomplishments, Triple H's role in the Montreal Screwjob was minimal. All he did was support the idea, he wasn't involved in the actual screwjob. TJ Spyke 20:10, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Hell, DX didn't do shit to kill WCW. If anything, AOL killed WCW. Neither one you mentioned is any type of accomplishment, plus no source to back them up either.--WillC 22:57, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry I meant to say Shawn Michaels not Triple H. But even if they arent included in accomplishments, because i realize they are not this type of accomplishment, they should have their own thing under this page. The DX takeover was the first time either brand had recognized the other any time, they never even mentioned the other existed on the show. WWF was falling to WCW because all the stars were leaving for it and they needed to get some viewers. Just read the DX biography, it mentions both. At least one of the two should be mentioned. If you mention the acquisition of the WCW you should at least say something about the beggining of the downfall. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dshawthorne (talk • contribs) 18:20, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

First time? No it wasn't. WCW on their very first episode of Nitro (Labor Day 1995) talked about WWF when Lex Luger (who had just appeared on WWF the previous week) showed up. Reigning WWF Women's Champion threw the actual WWF Women's Championship belt into a trash can live on Nitro, every other week Eric Bischoff would give away the spoilers for Raw (since Raw used to be live one week, then they would tape the next weeks episode on Tuesday. So Bischoff would give away th results for the taped episodes). Suffice it to say that WCW had mentioned WWF on many occasions before the DX Army angle. TJ Spyke 21:57, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

i meant to say the first time that the WWE had decided to mention it. The wwe had even made RAW is WAR and went to war with the WCW in april and may. On april 27th of 1998, when both were in Virginia, DX went to the arena and were insulting the WCW to the fans and saying they give out free tickets to fill up seats for tv. They even tried to enter the arena in heir jeep. Another show of RAW is WAR showed Triple HHH flying over the WCW headquarters in a plaine with skywrite saying wcw sucks, and DX says suck it. This was realy the beginning of the takeover, after a rough time for the wwe. Especially after one of their biggest superstars, Shawn Michaels, went out with a back injury. I dont see why this cant have its part in this or even create a new tab with the downfall of WCW and big events between the two companies leading up to the purchase of the WCW by the WWE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.244.3.66 (talk) 18:43, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Storylines

Why are the actors' parts outlined from the perspective of a general WWE fan's suspension of disbelief? The ups and downs of the Trish Stratus' "wrestling career" is told as if she were in fact a professional athlete. I chose her at random, of course - it appears a policy decision has been made to portray the characters in this manner. Why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.56.211.96 (talk) 19:31, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Because that is how an encyclopedia like this would record it. !! Justa Punk !! 05:09, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

PG Era

Should The PG Era Be Mentioned? (which sucks I may add) this in cludes the WWE Kids and Bringing the rating down from TV-14 to PG.KingRaven (>$.$)> (talk) 00:41, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Bit out of date

Bit out of date--Awiki90 (talk) 07:11, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

How so?^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 07:12, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

411, others, report that Shane McMahon has left WWE

I attempted to make the edit, but got a "blocked link" message in response. Shane McMahon resigned last week, with a letter to the fans on the WWE site and a lot of coverage in wrestling media.

"It is with great sadness that I announce my resignation from the WWE, effective January 1, 2010.

I have never even considered a future outside the walls of the WWE. However, sometimes life takes an unexpected turn and while it is the most difficult decision I have ever made, it is time for me to move on.

First and foremost, I would like to thank my father for the incredible education working with him has provided and for giving me the opportunity to play a role in building WWE into the global phenomenon that it is today. I am extremely proud to have been the 4th generation in this business, and I am grateful for everyday I was able to work along side not only my own, but the entire WWE family.

Thank you to all of the WWE Superstars both past and present for your passion, pride and dedication. You are truly the engine of the organization and it has been a pleasure to work with, learn from and get to know all of you. Thank you for the privilege of sharing the stage with you and for allowing me to become but a momentary member of your elite brotherhood. I have so much appreciation for the many sacrifices you endure, both physically and personally, to make this business the success that it is. The respect I have for each of you is immeasurable.

Finally, there are no words to express my gratitude to WWE fans the world over for supporting this company through good times and bad and for your unbridled passion that fuels the Superstars' performances. I am profoundly grateful to have been able to entertain you both in front of the camera and from behind the scenes. You are the greatest fans in the world.

I will always love this business and will remain a fan forever.

Shane"214.3.138.234 (talk) 19:18, 21 October 2009 (UTC)Steve

And? What exactly did you want to add? He is still with the company, he won't leave until January (and even then he will still be a large shareholder). He is still with WWE right now and still in his position and will continue to do it for about 2 more months. 19:24, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

He's now left (Jan 1st), and I can't recall my log-in details, so can someone remove Shane from the "Key figures" list?86.134.129.236 (talk) 22:19, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Divas champion

Jillian is not the divas champion, the current champion is Melina. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maht0701 (talk • contribs) 00:48, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Which is what the article says, why bring this up? TJ Spyke 01:03, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

i think he might have read the table wrong but im just guessing Mattspac^talk 03:41, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Well Jillian WAS Divas Champion, for about 2 minutes (lol). Dwibley (talk —Preceding undated comment added 15:13, 21 December 2009 (UTC).

Yeah, what was odd though is that Maht made the comment 3 weeks after Melina won it. TJ Spyke 15:16, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually it was 4 minutes to be precise.--Nascarking (talk) 16:44, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Linda McMahon No Longer on the Board of Directors

In November of 2009, Linda McMahon resigned from the Board of Directors all together. She resigned in September as the CEO. She should be removed from the list of people on the Board of Directors

Source: http://www.sescoops.com/wwe-news/linda-mcmahon-gone-from-wwe-campaign-spending —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brenttowsley (talk • contribs) 22:03, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Copyright

To whoever tagged this article with the copyright concern, where is the problem material? !! Justa Punk !! 09:37, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, somebody needs to provide an explanation here or else the tag should be removed. Jeff Silvers (talk) 02:48, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

WWE Championship

The belt is a RAW brand and RAW owned belt, therefore, it should be placed as such. The article about the belt says it is a RAW belt. The note is enough to say that a current SmackDown superstar holds it, but Raw owns the belt. –Turian (talk) 19:47, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, you might want to check wwe.com (which has it listed under BOTH brands). Also, WWE owns the belt (not any particular brand). TJ Spyke 19:56, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

It is a Raw belt, whether you like it or not. –Turian (talk) 19:57, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

But it's a SD title too, whether YOU like it or not.--Yugiohmike2001 (talk) 20:03, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Exaclty. Turian, you might want to do at least SOME research before spouting false claims. WWE itself considers the title part of BOTH brands. I came up with a neutral compromise, but Turian refuses to accept it (and demanded I revert myself). TJ Spyke 20:05, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Looks like we have a user who needs to review WP:POV before editing. As well as possibly a mark. !! Justa Punk !! 08:13, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

You could also mention the WWE Draft in 2008 that sent Triple H to Smackdown with the WWE Campionship —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hulkamania007 (talk • contribs) 16:53, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes he has a point but on the title it says MON NITE raw on a side (jimmy cracked corn)

Dual-Branded color

I think the color for the Dual-Branded(Unified Tag Team Championship) section should be purple, since they appear on both Raw(which is the Red brand) and SmackDown(which is the Blue brand). I know the purple will remind people of ECW, but since it's not being used now, why not use it for the Dual-Branded section. Anybody disagree?--Yugiohmike2001 (talk) 17:45, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I think the color is just fine there's nothing wrong with it being lite blue--Steam Iron 17:54, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Don't you mean green? SD's lite blue.--Yugiohmike2001 (talk) 18:11, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

In my browser its lite blue.--Steam Iron 01:08, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I see now. Ok.--Yugiohmike2001 (talk) 01:12, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Maybe there's something wrong with your browser?

Entertainment/Post-Attitude Era

Why isn't the Entertainment or Post-Attitude(as WWE calls it) era not apart of this Article? it was an important era that started when The Attitude Era ended.--Rmisdice2 (talk) 04:27, 8 April 2010 (UTC)--Rmisdice2 (talk) 04:27, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Because it's its present. The Attitude Era itself wasn't talked about until after it concluded. ^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 04:56, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

No its past we are currently in the PARENT GUIDEANCE ERA aka PG ERA Rmisdice2 (talk) 01:37, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

PG Era is your typical internet smartass term. No Original Research^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 17:53, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Hey, that's getting too personal. Sine the Attitude Era is over, and the style of programming and advertizing has clearly and obviously changed, something needs to be stated about the current era. And nobody needs somebody making "typical internet smartass term" type comments. Keep that sort of thing to yourself. There's no place for that on wikipedia.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Straw Hat Guy (talk • contribs)

Actually there is a place for that per our universal No Trolling policy. There is no such "Era" because there is no such official source from WWE that 1) calls this an "Era" and 2) uses the term "PG Era." All this is to WWE is a simple change in its rated television content and that is exactly what is already noted in the article (World Wrestling Entertainment#WWE Universe and change in programming) ^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 11:49, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Seriously, Unquestionable Truth has some problems. He is very uncivil, and he should not have ownership over this issue. I have placed info on the PG Era in the article, and it seems 3bulletproof16 and Unquestionabletruth would rather call people "smartasses" and revert good info than use productive discussion. Guys, get a room and stop taking your frustrations on us.--Screwball23 talk 14:37, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, how was it trolling to suggest that the article be restructured to emphasize the end of the Attitude Era, and state more clearly that the modern era(whether it's called the "PG Era" or not) be more clearly illustrated to be significantly different? And just because WWE doesn't refer to it as such doesn't necessarily mean anything. You clearly state that the term is in use by many people, even if is mostly on the internet. I would think that calling somebody an "IWC smartass" is a far more obvious case of trolling, then somebody who makes suggestions about restructuring the article! Straw Hat Guy (talk) 13:34, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Restructuring the article is not needed. This has already been established through WP:PW. !! Justa Punk !! 03:33, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

This issue was never settled on the WikiProject. The PG Era is real, and I don't know what is necessary to get you guys convinced that there has been a significant change in the programming. I think you already know that things have changed, but you are afraid of having someone come and improve the article. Heaven forbid someone comes around and does something productive that people are actually talking about!--Screwball23 talk 16:32, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

If the PG era is real than give us reliable sources. NOT third-party sources.--Curtis23's Usalions 21:40, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. Screwball, I suggest you move on. You are not being productive because you fail to provide sources to back up what is at present nothing more than original research - something that will always be reverted. !! Justa Punk !! 10:47, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I do not believe the PG era is "real" wrestling. If there is no reliable sources to prove that it is, then the notion that it is should be disregarded. Wehatweet (talk) 12:36, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Board of Directors/Executive Officers

Updated list of board of directors with reference to corporate.wwe.com, will do so for Executive Officers shortly, several need to be updated! Joe8609 19:51, 18 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joe8609 (talk • contribs)

Updated list of executive officers w/ reference as per corporate.wwe.com website on 4/18/10 Joe8609 16:03, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

International offices

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/113003-report-wwe-closes-down-australia-office

There hasn't been an office in sydney for quite some time. I suggest that this needs to be amended.

Regards —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.179.0.94 (talk) 06:46, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Source is unreliable. It stays. !! Justa Punk !! 10:45, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

WWF/WWE.COM ARTICLE

There Should Be an Article About WWF/WWE.COM and How it was started and what its about and Etc —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rmisdice2 (talk • contribs) 00:20, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

It's covered appropriately here already. !! Justa Punk !! 02:10, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

No its Not i do Not See a Section in This Article About WWF/WWE.com nor do i see its Own Article about it Rmisdice2 (talk) 03:14, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

The whole issue pertains to the abbreviation dispute (i.e. WWF v. WWF), which is covered in the name dispute section of this article, admittedly not in excessive detail. It covers all the important facts about the issue. --The Taerkasten (talk) 13:57, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

WWE financials

The given financial data (Revenue, Income, Operating Income) only state the results of 2010's first quarter. It is highly uncommon to only present a fraction of the fiscal year in a company's overview. Also, since the parentheses read "2010" it could lead to misunderstandings, for it could be read as FY2010.

Therefore, I propose to return to the numbers for the Full Year 2009 as officially given in WWE's Annual Report.

Blocpark (talk) 15:48, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I found it strange how 2010 was listed. When is the fiscal period for the company? Kingjeff (talk) 19:58, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

WWE's fiscal year runs simultaneously to the calendar year. That's why (2010) in the company's overview looks strange. At least it should be altered to (Q1/2010) or something like that. Blocpark (talk) 07:52, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

The "financial year" finished in March, so for WWE their financial year for 2010 finished in March at the end of Q1 2010. Darrenhusted (talk) 10:56, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, this is plainly wrong. After 2006, WWE changed its fiscal year to comply with the calendar year, hence after T2006 (Transition 2006) every fiscal year ends on Dec. 31, i.e. with end of Q4, logically. Thus, Full Year 2009 ended on Dec. 31, 2009. Blocpark (talk) 13:48, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

FY2010 in the US is October 09-September 10. FY means "fiscal year" not "full year". The WWE cannot have a fiscal year run simultaneously with the calendar year. They emphasise Q2 (Jan-March) each year because this contains the WM buys and they end most storylines in April, so they can begin the run to next year's WM. In the UK the FY is March, Q3 in the US will finish in two weeks. And it is not unusual for companies on the FTSE or NYSE to quote quarterly figures, Q1 contains Christmas, Q2 runs with the end of the UK tax year and usually contains Easter, Q3 is the summer and Q4 is the end of the FY. "Full Year" is not an accounting or stock term as Q4 is acknowledged as the end of year results. Darrenhusted (talk) 14:22, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

"The WWE cannot have a fiscal year run simultaneously with the calendar year." Again sorry, this is plain nonsense. As can be easily noticed from WWE's reports (see report of Full Year 2009: http://corporate.wwe.com/documents/PressReleaseQ4092.11FINAL.pdf or of Q1/2010: http://corporate.wwe.com/documents/PressReleaseQ110FINAL5.6clean_002.pdf), WWE's financial year (which can also be called "fiscal year" by companies!!) does NOT end on March 31, but on Dec 31. You seem to confuse the federal(!) fiscal year with the fiscal year of companies. WWE's Q1 runs from Jan through Mar, Q2 from Apr through June, Q3 from July through Sep, and consequently Q4 from Oct through Dec. The timing of WWE's financial year does not correlate with the timing of storylines or WrestleMania (which can indeed impact the comparability of results). WWE's financial year 2010 did NOT end on March 31 - only Q1 of FY2010 did. WWE's FY2010 will end on Dec 31, 2010. Hence, though the numbers given in the article only state the results of WWE's first quarter of 2010, they give a full year in parentheses - and that is simply misleading. Blocpark (talk) 14:46, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Pending changes

This article is one of a number selected for the early stage of the trial of the Wikipedia:Pending Changes system on the English language Wikipedia. All the articles listed at Wikipedia:Pending changes/Queue are being considered for level 1 pending changes protection.

The following request appears on that page:

Comments on the suitability of theis page for "Pending changes" would be appreciated.

Please update the Queue page as appropriate.

Note that I am not involved in this project any much more than any other editor, just posting these notes since it is quite a big change, potentially

Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 00:41, 17 June 2010 (UTC).

Recent edit warring

Has already resulted in one 3RR. Please discuss changes. Don't risk a blocking when "the wrong version" can just stand for a little while to give discussion some time. There is no rush. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 18:35, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

SG, there is already an existing consensus at WP:PW. Screwball has already been told this and he refuses to listen and answer the question as to why the change is notable per WP:N and backs it up with third party sources that proves that notability. Proving that it's happened is not enough. !! Justa Punk !! 00:53, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, the Wikipedia:N is about stand-alone articles, and explicitly gives guidelines about whether a topic should merit its own article. This material is more than notable enough for inclusion into a page on WWE. If it were a stand-alone article, Wikipedia:N would be more relevant to this case.

Secondly, No consensus was developed on this issue, ever. I know this is true because I came across the same deletionist sentiment months ago when I added the first paragraph on the PG rating. JustaPunk deleted it furiously, but then people decided to read it and realized it was true. So yes, the PG rating is real, and it has been an integral part of WWE— marketing, TV/internet product, entertainment style, etc. etc. etc. There is already a paragraph written on it, I see no reason why JustaPunk has issues adding more about the change to TV-PG.

Third, I've seen no logical explanation by JustaPunk on why the material should not stay — ever. Proving that it's happened is not enough is a vague and confusing objection to the material. JustaPunk has a habit of being highly uncivil and emotionally reactive, which is making this especially difficult to resolve. I would like any editors reading about this edit war to share their comments on the issue of including a section on WWE#TV-PG rating--Screwball23 talk 06:43, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Notability Does apply even in this instance, but I'm not going to go into that I just have one question Why do you think its notably and should be included in the article. You have been asked this question over and over again and have not answers it.--Steam Iron 09:13, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Dcheagle, WP:N applies to sections of articles as well as articles entirely. I've taken a look at the content being warred over. Firstly, the ref [2] is a deadlink so a new one would have to be found. I've copy-and-pasted the section below, and it should remain here, not in the article until we have some conclusions.

the disputed section
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
In 2008, WWE initiated a change in its programming content. The United States parental guidelines rating system now rates all WWE television programs "PG" indicating family-friendly content in the programming. WWE has reportedly gained more business sponsorships and celebrity involvement as a result of its change to PG The reasons for the change to PG are debated. Vince McMahon has noted that the change to more family-friendly content is due to the changing demographics in WWE viewership. As of 2010, women and young children make up 40% of the company's audience. The PG change may have helped lay a groundwork for Linda McMahon's Senate campaign in 2010. It has also been suggested that WWE always had a tendency towards PG entertainment, and after the collapse of its main competitors, WCW and ECW, it became free to express itself. Many older wrestling fans, who were more accustomed to the violence and controversy of WWE's Attitude Era switched over to TNA or ROH, or stopped watching altogether.

If JustaPunk is aware of previous consensus, could they provide a link to it? I'll drop a line to WP:PW asking for the project members to come here and lend a voice, and await Screwball's message regarding the sections notability. In the mean time, don't re-add the content, please. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 12:31, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

With regards to the addition of "TV-PG rating" heading, this chunk of text "The reasons for the change to PG are debated. Vince McMahon has noted that the change to more family-friendly content is due to the changing demographics in WWE viewership." has no source and is OR. This chunk "It has also been suggested that WWE always had a tendency towards PG entertainment, and after the collapse of its main competitors, WCW and ECW, it became free to express itself." has only a blog to back it up, and "Many older wrestling fans, who were more accustomed to the violence and controversy of WWE's Attitude Era switched over to TNA or ROH, or stopped watching altogether." is an assertion not supported by the ref. In addition the use of "TV-PG rating" is not a suitable section heading as it is a US only identifier, as the UK does not have a TV rating system. Darrenhusted (talk) 15:49, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I'll add to that by saying that in Australia all WWE programming is still rated M. Ditto TNA for the record. Well reviewed, Darren. The whole point here is that there is no sourced evidence that this is a notable change. There is only the opinion of Screwball. No one else is buying it and it should be noted that I'm not the only one reverting Screwball's edits. I'll chase up the WP:PW link because I think it may have been archived. !! Justa Punk !! 04:43, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Hang on, I've just seen that the references listed below from the disputed text includes an unreliable source per the WP:PW MOS - the Bleach Report. So don't use that. !! Justa Punk !! 05:04, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

These have also been my main concerns; the lack of reliable sources and assertions that are seemingly based on pure original research.^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 17:57, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

All noted, wait for a couple more WPPW members to pop down, then we will see if we can wrap this up. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 17:36, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

The change to PG is a hotly discussed topic regarding WWE. It has brought about much discussion and is an ongoing topic. Vince McMahon has spoken on it, and even the Bryan Danielson termination has been implicated in this. I have defended the section's notability many times, and I think there are alternative motives for silencing the topic from discussion. The argument that WWE is still rated differently in Australia/UK is not relevant because WWE programming has changed its storylines and ratings here in the US, which is documented and which has been brought about by the direction of Vince McMahon. The fact that TNA is rated M in Australia again makes the rating completely useless as a barometer of entertainment style.

I would like to remind you that there is already a paragraph on the PG rating, which I had to fight the same senseless arguments to finally get placed. This material is not Original Research, and even those who are trying to delete this material know that it is documented in my references. The Sun article, "The Game Had to Change", discusses the change in WWE entertainment fully, including Linda's run for Senate, the population of WWE's audience, and the shift of many viewers to TNA and ROH for edgier entertainment. If Darrenhusted is interested in reading the article, it is included in the references list. Again, please suspend your biases before you put more of these faulty arguments on the page. I look forward to having a much more intellectual and unbiased discussion on this issue. --Screwball23 talk 03:42, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

[3] ". I understand you are a strong WWE fan, and you do not want anyone calling your form of entertainment childish." I think it is you most of all who should put away your bias. ^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 06:05, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I am putting factual information on the page. You are attempting to censor it, making the WWE's changes completely absent to readers. That is not just bias, that is dishonesty.--Screwball23 talk 16:49, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

The change to PG is a hotly discussed topic regarding WWE.
Where?
It has brought about much discussion and is an ongoing topic.
Where?
Vince McMahon has spoken on it, and even the Bryan Danielson termination has been implicated in this. Where and how?
The argument that WWE is still rated differently in Australia/UK is not relevant because WWE programming has changed its storylines and ratings here in the US, which is documented and which has been brought about by the direction of Vince McMahon.
WWE is a worldwide company with a worldwide presence. Therefore it is relevant and proves that basing an era on it's rating requires more appropriate sourcing.
The fact that TNA is rated M in Australia again makes the rating completely useless as a barometer of entertainment style.
WWE is also rated M in Australia.
I would like to remind you that there is already a paragraph on the PG rating, which I had to fight the same senseless arguments to finally get placed.
No, the argument was about notability and still is. You wanted a new section. The rest of the Project made a concession in order to be balanced over the whole argument. That should have been enough to satify you, but it wasn't.
This material is not Original Research, and even those who are trying to delete this material know that it is documented in my references.
It is WP:OR because it is YOU (not the sources) that is asserting that the change in rating represents an era. The change in rating is easy to source. Proving that this is an era is what you are refusing to do in your sourcing. Where is it on the WWE website (primary source), and given it's controversial nature where are the back up sources?
The Sun article, "The Game Had to Change", discusses the change in WWE entertainment fully, including Linda's run for Senate, the population of WWE's audience, and the shift of many viewers to TNA and ROH for edgier entertainment.
Not notable because they have done that before - at the time of the Rock'n'Wrestling connection. Linda's run for the senate is completely unrelated because she is no longer on the board of the WWE.
Again, please suspend your biases before you put more of these faulty arguments on the page.
I believe in this manner (and I apologise for being "long winded" [LOL]) I have proven the fault in Screwball's arguments and supports the view that the version as it stands is the correct one under WP rules. !! Justa Punk !! 04:20, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

You are still getting this backwards. The Change in WWE programming is in report after report, is on forum after forum, and is in article after article. I've given sources on them, and I encourage you to read them. The fact that TNA and WWE are both rated M in Australia is the reason I do not see it as a clear barometer of the entertainment's style. If you watch TNA, you will notice it is considered more edgy than WWE, so if both are rated M, that means the rating M in Australia is not that useful here.

The fact that the WWE had a more child-oriented show at the time of the Rock'n'wrestling connection is again a part of the argument that WWE had a tendency towards PG entertainment but became the Attitude Era in response to WCW's Monday Night wars. Many people talk about a "PG Era" but since this has been vehemently deleted in past edits, I am willing to compromise and say it has been a Change to PG.--Screwball23 talk 04:32, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Most of the sources that you have used have been called in to question as one is a blog and another is an unreliable source per the WP:PW MOS--Steam Iron 04:39, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

The Sun is a reliable source. I have no idea where this is coming from.--Screwball23 talk 04:46, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

the Bleach Report is the one in question.--Steam Iron 04:48, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Report after report? Article after article? Where? By who? You only provide five links (one of which is unreliable as said and another is a blog which is also not reliable). You should be able to provide a whole lot more, but you don't. Forums are unreliable full stop. You have to show that it is an era recognised as such by WWE. You are in fact trying to use a ratings change as a barometer, contrary to your claim otherwise, and I proved it irrelevant anyway purely on the fact that both WWE and TNA are rated the same in Australia. Let's see all these reports and articles. As many as you can get. I challenge you to provide 24 original reports (no mirrors) that prove that this is a major change in direction AND that it is called an "era" of any sort. !! Justa Punk !! 04:50, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Man, someone is having a rough life, it seems. Chill down. I know you want to feel important, but providing 24 original reports so you can tear into them is not what wikipedia is about. It's not what this discussion is supposed to be about either, btw. Wikipedia, to me, is about citing meaningful information from sources and producing factually—not emotionally—driven content and discussions.

I will explain this again. If the Australian rating system is M regardless of content, where TNA and WWE both receive the same rating, that could be a sign that the M rating is not the best measure of how edgy the material is. If China or Singapore or France or Iran or wherever. etc., rated American television differently, which they might, it really doesn't change the inherent rating of Family Guy or the Simpsons, etc.

I don't see why you are so adamant on this "Show me the Era" issue. I want to make it clear that the WWE is currently different from the Attitude Era that longer-time fans are used to. The Change to PG is significant, and if you don't want to call it an Era, you are entitled to your opinion. I personally am satisfied with an explanation of the change in programming, and the title "PG Era" doesn't necessarily have to be there for the material to make sense to readers.--Screwball23 talk 05:20, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I find the arrogant manner in which you've handled this situation entirely ridiculous. You don't just jump to revert back to the disputed version after each new rambling section you post up on this talk page with the same basic rant, thinking your point has been heard loud and clear and everyone is just going to fall in line and agree with you. Your content has been disputed and the majority of the project agrees that it is not only poorly cited, and also contains personal claims based on original research, but that it is ultimately not notable. You don't revert just "because, because"..... That's not how Wikipedia works, especially when the matter is still being discussed. In fact the only thing you've proven after your initial block is that you are still more than willing to engage in edit warring.^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 06:05, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Bullett, the reality is he can't produce 24 original sources. That's why I challenged him, because I knew he couldn't do it. He went ahead and made excuses instead. If he went ahead and produced 24 original sources with no mirrors that backed him up, I would be forced the shut up and let the edit go through and I wouldn't be the only one. The best way to win a debate on Wikipedia is to produce reliable sources and so far he hasn't - and won't. The fact that he won't swings this issue towards WP:OR against him. What do other readers think? !! Justa Punk !! 07:23, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you. The reply above referred to the fact that since his block expired, Screwball23 has continued to revert the page here and here. ^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 08:53, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm in agreement with you there Justa you and many others have asked him to produce other sources and he has not produced even one if he would I might be more for his little add in but tell then its a no go from me.--Steam Iron 07:34, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Again, your challenges are admitted to be nothing but cons and trickery. I have provided sources and no one wants to discuss the issues at hand - the fact that the WWE has changed and there are many implications, effects, and numerous reasons why this has happened. We are doing a disservice to the readers by deleting good content for the sake of making scam challenges and gang edit wars.--Screwball23 talk 16:34, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Stop splitting this discussion. It is one discussion about your obsessions with adding your own original research which has no good references. We are not "doing a disservice to the readers", and you are heading for a topic ban at this rate. Darrenhusted (talk) 16:40, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

There are editors who are disputing the fact that WWE has changed to PG. For those of you who may not be familiar, I would like to list some links for your convenience. I am not saying this is a good or a bad change, but I am sure each one of you has your own opinion, and you are entitled to that.

Vince McMahon, Linda McMahon have both commented on it, Triple H has been quoted in the NY Times talking about how the WWE has changed from the days of the Attitude Era, and I want readers to know the truth about WWE's shift.

Here are my links. Enjoy!

http://fans.wwe.com/nomorekids - a forum on the PG change

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/228564-wwes-pg-rating-a-product-of-greed-or-change - an article on the WWE's change

http://newsblaze.com/story/20100506061700j112.nb/topstory.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/10/business/media/10wrestle.html

Please list your opinions below. I think there should be a section about "Change to PG". What do you think? Should the issue be covered? Should it be called the PG Era so people will know WWE has changed from the days of the Attitude Era? Please list your thoughts below. Thank you! :-) --Screwball23 talk 05:04, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Im sorry but why have you started another section when were talking about the same damn thing right here with this section.--Steam Iron 05:26, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Because he knows he was being thrashed, Steamer. It's already clear in the article that times have changed and there's no need to note it in the way he wants because the sourcing doesn't justify it. The first two sources fail WP:RS - no forums are permitted as sources and the Bleach Report is in the MOS as unreliable. !! Justa Punk !! 07:20, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you there just wish he would say it over but i doubt he'll drop this.--Steam Iron 07:34, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Paraphrasing WP:RS, forums are not reliable sources so that one is out. The New York Times one sees the best. Is it possible ton include somewhere in a "history" section that they attempted to remove blood and vulgar gestures to make it more familiy friendly, without having a section of "PG-TV" because of all the aforementioned problems of that section? I don't know about this bleacherreport thing, but as I understand it that is like a Wikipedia for amateur news articles by fans (correct?) so not reliable. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 09:10, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

The NYT article does not say there is a new era, there is a quote from HHH about how they have "evolved". There is no direct reference to a "TV-PG era", which it has been agreed is a US term and does not reflect a world view. If you want we can hold a straw poll, though the results would be fairly easy to guess. Darrenhusted (talk) 09:53, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

It has been agreed? - be sensible here. The purpose of this is to give an acknowledgement of the WWE's change in programming.--Screwball23 talk 16:47, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Might a one line reference in some sort of "history" section stating, only from the NYT cite, that there is an attempt to make it more family friendly by reducing blood and offensive guestures? No need to mention any of this controversial PGTV stuff - that one line might be prudent though. Thoughts? S.G.^(GH) _ping! 11:44, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

No, all of the amendments are assertions that offer no references. The NYT ref does not support the idea that a recent change has been made to move the product towards a US TV-PG rating and that in doing so they have begun an new "era". That the WWE has tempered its product is not disputed (starting with the WWE Universe) but we are stuck with one single obsessed editor determined to change the text (and having been reverted by five other editors) and not willing to provide relevant good sources. Screwball's text should stay out until he can provide something other than assertion and forum post refs. Darrenhusted (talk) 15:59, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Forget your ego for a minute. Why can't the Change in programming be mentioned? I am not insisting on calling it a PG-era, but I want to make it clear that the WWE has taken a new direction. Older fans who were familiar with the gimmicks of the Attitude Era should be able to read about WWE and realize that there has been a change in the company's product. This should not be censored because a deletion-hungry editor wants to resist any change to the article's text.--Screwball23 talk 16:47, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

You rant and rant and yet continue to forget that the "Change in Programming" IS already mentioned, (World Wrestling Entertainment#WWE Universe and change invprogramming) and it is so without the added commentary, original research, and other cruft that you continue to add. ^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 04:37, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I gave you a line by line reason as to why each assertion was either not correct or not backed up and you still insist on adding it back in. It is not being "censored", and don't cry foul when five different editors disagree with your reading of the text. "Older fans who were familiar with the gimmicks of the Attitude Era should be able to read about WWE and realize that there has been a change in the company's product.", and they can, in the section which starts with WWE Universe, but your edit does not have the references to back it up and at this point you seemed to have stopped listening to other editors and started to obsess about your version of the text. I will say it one final time; WWE has tempered its product in the last few years, but that alone does not mean that changes in the last 12 months are a new or significantly different "era" than what they were doing six or twelve months ago. You have been pushing this for over a month but don't realise that it does not meet the minimum standards required, so provide refs or stop adding it. Darrenhusted (talk) 17:08, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I want to make it very clear that when I added the first paragraph I had a number of editors set on deletion mode, and they finally admitted they were playing games and let is stay. JustaPunk has admitted to his shenanigans, and I see again and again a lack of discussion on the issues. The issue I am putting forth is very clear : WWE has changed, and this is not just a 12 month change. It is a few years, and readers have the right to know this. I see no reason why the new WWE Superstars show and WWE Universe can each receive 1 paragraph, while the Change to PG is only given one. This is outrageous and illogical. Readers are not being allowed to learn valuable information on the Change to PG, and the short bit that is there is simply not enough. The Change itself, and the context surrounding the change to PG should be addressed. Everything in the material that I added is incredibly notable: Linda McMahon's run for senate should be included. Again and again, McMahon's campaign is implicated in covering a controversial aspect of the WWE. It is not original research in any way to state that many have pointed to the McMahon campaign as a source of the PG-change. The business changes, including new child-freindly sponsorships, like Mattel, is unquestionable, and still I have seen it removed. The celebrity guest host involvement is significant, and that again has not been addressed. The change that Triple H and Vince McMahon have spoken about is in the references, and yes it is true they never used the word "era", but that does not change the material I am adding in any way. Everyone that has been battling this issue thinks I put it down as "PG ERA" in big block letters, and wants to take it out because of the implications and connotations involved. To be clear, I am not saying there is a new "era". I have reached out an olive branch and placed the material without a separate subsection just because I had faith that editors would read it and understand it is the material and not the title I am interested in.--Screwball23 talk 07:42, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

And that is all wonderful, except that the assertions that you continually added are unsupported. Darrenhusted (talk) 10:04, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

That is not true and you know it. I have included many references, some of them with primary source info - interviews with Triple H and Vince McMahon. If you would like to contribute to a meaningful discussion, please discuss the material, and avoid these vague assertions that you are making about my work being unsupported. -Screwball23 talk 14:49, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I gave you a line by line on the section you added eight times into the article, and others have asked for good sources and all you have done is cry "deletion" and "shenanigans", when a revert is not a deletion and five editors reverted you and you still rolled through 3RR twice in one week. Don't tell me that I am not contributing, and don't call me vague when I have been nothing but precise. You stopped adding the level 3 header, but the rest of the text kept going back in and once reverted by a number of different editors you kept reverting, and were blocked twice for doing it. There is no evidence that WWE have changed their product significantly in the last 12 months, with the exception of dropping ECW, and there is no evidence that the demographics have changed significantly.

The problem you have is that other editors do not accept your premise and vague unsupported statements do not an encyclopaedia make. Darrenhusted (talk) 15:15, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Please do not speak for other editors. There is no evidence that WWE have changed their product significantly in the last 12 months, with the exception of dropping ECW, and there is no evidence that the demographics have changed significantly. - Again, the PG change began in 2008. I do not understand why you are citing 12 months. And in my references, you can read there has been a significant change; the idea that there is no evidence is outright false. Please, read my references.--Screwball23 talk 01:29, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

"Please do not speak for other editors."? You were reverted by five different editors,actions speak louder than words. "there has been a significant change", no, there hasn't, not in the last 12 months, other than ECW finishing. As said below you are trying to add unrelated commentary. Darrenhusted (talk) 15:35, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

You are linking up unrelated events. You are trying to create a scenario by using these events. That is WP:OR. You can't use these references because they do not prove your root desire that the PG rating is an intended and significant change in direction by WWE. Notwithstanding that Bleach Report is unreliable per the MOS, and according to other editors the others also fail - except for the NY Times and that as I said only backs up one event. The change in mentioned in the article already. It is not a significant change, and that's the end of it as far as I'm concerned. I will not be participating in the mediation on the grounds that I believe that Screwball is abusing WP process in order to get his way. He clearly doesn't understand the rules of sourcing and the difference between evidence and opinion AKA original research. I don't know what it will take to teach him this to be honest, and if he can't be taught or refuses to learnr then I don't think he could ever be a useful WP editor. He can of course prove me wrong as is his right by providing sources that back up the significance of this change. No opinion pieces - facts. !! Justa Punk !! 02:10, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Seconded. It's dragged on long enough. ^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 02:58, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree. If I can just place these paragraphs on the WWE's change in programming, we can all part ways and have made a positive contribution to WP. You see, I know and you know that I will win mediation on this. --Screwball23 talk 03:32, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

See, now I know you are full of baloney. You do not want to agree to a mediation with an impartial moderator because you know you will lose. You have thrown every excuse and nonsense policy you could make up, and you even made up lectures on "how wikpedia works" - like making requests for 24 references. It's nice to see your true colors, but I am here to do a service for Wikipedia's readers. This is a significant change, and there are many references that all state the same thing. There is no Original Research involved, and you know it down in your heart.

And don't take your inability to win a losing battle out on me personally. I am a useful editor here on WP. I'd like you to do the same and man up. Join the mediation.--Screwball23 talk 02:17, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

This is a significant change, and there are many references that all state the same thing.

WHERE ARE THEY??

That's the problem here. You are yet to provide those references that prove what YOU are saying is correct. All you've provided is material that says something only loosely related - and you make the link. YOU make the link. THAT'S ORIGINAL RESEARCH!!!!. The person who needs to man up is you, and admit that your edit is a fail under WP rules. SGGH has seen what's been happening, and you've already copped two bans for edit warring so you're behind the eight ball from the start. A neutral party will see this, and you'll have to back off. I have confidence in this, and that's why I'm not bothering with the mediation. It's a waste of time. And before anyone applies WP:CIVIL on me for this comment, I feel sufficiently provoked by Screwball's sheer ignorance of what's blindingly obvious - and I'm done here per WP:IPAT. !! Justa Punk !! 10:59, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I understand you are frustrated that you are losing ownership of the article and you are losing an edit war. That still gives you no right to disrespect anyone. My material is not original research in any way, and you have seen me use references again and again. Join the mediation and we can settle this. I see no reason why you have to lose your mind with your personal attacks when we can easily discuss this with an impartial moderator. --Screwball23 talk 16:01, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Wow you really don't get it do you? The consensus is pretty clear in that a substantial majority agrees that your text with added commentary, OR, NPOV vios, and other cruft has no place in the article. The subject is already noted within the article and the fact of the matter is no one has any need to enter a mediation process other than you - the only opposing user contesting the consensus. ^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 16:24, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I see you just shut down another editor for adding material on the PG change on History of World Wrestling Entertainment. I see several editors have introduced this topic again and again, and each time it has been deleted on faulty grounds. That is not consensus. That is vandalism and abuse of editors' hard work and effort. I do not see any established consensus here, and I see from your refusal to join mediation that there is a desperate desire to avoid building consensus. When I first added the material, it was deleted, and I have seen editors cite every policy they could to remove it. If these objections you are putting forth were legitimate arguments, Justa_Punk and yourself would be willing to join mediation. Again, I encourage you to join a cooperative discussion on this issue. Join the mediation.--Screwball23 talk 16:45, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

pssss the content was an WP:OR violation as it contained no sources and added commentary much like your own version. In fact, I suspect WP:SOCK vios. Hmmm.^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 16:48, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Regret to inform you...

Response to third opinion request:

I regret to inform you That I am unable to give a WP:Third opinion due to more than 2 Editors being involved. Might i suggest an WP:RFC or Help From an associated WikiPRoject?—Weaponbb7 (talk) 22:31, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

.

Yes. Thank you!

I have initiated a mediation request, but the other editors refuse to join. In your opinion, what would be the best solution in this case? I want a third party to step in and share their views. --Screwball23 talk 22:41, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

WP:RFC those tend to drag in alot of people in. Weaponbb7 (talk) 22:59, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

mixed reactions of WWEs return of PG

Okay so i may not be a wrestling fan but there are too many or few or attitude era fans who dont like the PGs return they want it to see some barbaric things again,Although i like the PG which is just like the 80s,I guess they dont want the PG rating what do you think? is it alright to let me edit about the Fans PG criticism? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Belrien12 (talk • contribs) 12:59, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

WWE Change in programming

I would like third party opinions to join the discussion on World Wrestling Entertainment. There has been a change in its programming that is more family-oriented, and it is currently under dispute whether it should be in the article or not.

This article is on wrestling, but anyone's opinion is just as valuable here. We ask for a open mind and willingness to be fair. Thank you! -- Screwball23 talk 04:30, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

In 2008, WWE initiated a change in its programming content. The United States parental guidelines rating system now rates all WWE television programs "PG" indicating family-friendly content in the programming.[21][22] Vince McMahon noted that the change to more family-friendly content is due to the changing demographics in WWE viewership. As of 2010, women and young children make up 40% of the company's audience.[22] -- excerpt Article, as of 12:17:50, 6/25/2010

What you are requesting is already in the article. Hazardous Matt (talk) 12:18, 25 June 2010 (UTC)\

Okay well to start with many fans of the attitude aand post attitude dont like it,Though some fans and some wrestlers accept it,so what caused the PG rating and did many fans dont like it? Editor didn't sign

Okay well to start with many fans of the attitude aand post attitude dont like it

WP:OR - Original research and speculation.

Though some fans and some wrestlers accept it

WP:OR - Original research and speculation, again

so what caused the PG rating

"Vince McMahon noted that the change to more family-friendly content is due to the changing demographics... ...women and young children make up 40% of the company's audience" -- already stated in the Change in Programming section in the article.

and did many fans dont like it

WP:OR - Original research and speculation, yet again.

You cannot prove that many fans of the attitude aand[sic] post attitude don't like it. That is purely speculative. There is no source backing up these facts. In fact, I very much doubt you will find a reliable source that has polled 100% of WWE's audience (past and present, as your claims would require) asking their opinion of the new programming.

The reason for the change in programming, as officially stated by WWE, is stated in the article. To imply any reason other than what has been stated is, again, speculation.

There is no need to give the section undue weight. Hazardous Matt (talk) 13:11, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Noted. Additionally, contrary to Screwball's belief, the "Change in Programming" in question is already mentioned, (World Wrestling Entertainment#WWE Universe and change invprogramming) and it is so without the added commentary, original research, and other cruft that the user continues to add.^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 15:23, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I would like to make it clear I faced a lot of resentment from 3bulletproof16 and JustaPunk when I put that last bit in. Even the idea of putting a subsection on it was outrageous at the time.--Screwball23 talk 04:22, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

An RFC and mediation is overkill. I have twice given Screwball a line by line rebuttal, and now the list of editors in disagreement is six and he keeps going, like the Duracell Bunny. The change in programming is already in, the additional text is superfluous and consists of OR commentary, I post this here because I'm not going to be involved in mediation when one editor refuses to listen, and does not see being reverted by five editors as an opposition to his extra text. Darrenhusted (talk) 15:29, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I mentioned such in my reply to Screwball23. I would hope other interested parties would read replies to others and not just their own. I'm not sure if it is intentional or not, but as I follow through the conversations above, there seems to be quite a bit of information that is falling by the wayside. Hazardous Matt (talk) 15:36, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

From what I can tell from this dispute, Matt, the information that is falling by the wayside (if you mean the claims that Screwball23 is making) is not sourced. If I can review the objection, the editors are saying that Screwball23 is putting two and two together from references and creating something that isn't there. I'll lok at the links, but can I say to Screwball23 that articles that display opinion do not prove fact. The key here is do WWE recognise this as a new era? I see that there's a quote from Triple H but that's just an opinion from a family member most likely. Is it formally recognised by the board? If so, where?

I sort of understand editors being frustrated by Screwball. He seems to be like a stuck record, or the Duracell Bunny as Darren observed, and not listening to reason from what I can tell. it should be easy to source if what Screwball says is true, but for whatever the reason he is only presenting bits and pieces. I just wonder if he is in violation of WP:GAME here in the manner he is presenting his case, what with Darren's claim of using numerous dispute resolution tactics.

I strongly disagree. Everything that I have placed in my material is true, and sources were given.--Screwball23 talk 04:22, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I guess the whole problem can not be solved without Screwball providing us with evidence of the significance of the change. There's been a change and it has been mentioned already as you have said, Matt. Screwball has to prove the extra weight of significance that is recognised by WWE as a new era of note. To date, it appears he has not except with original research.

I also see that Screwball has been accused of running a sock account, just to add to matters. Perhaps this should be resolved quickly as it appears to be already out of hand. Podgy Stuffn (talk) 22:43, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Here's my two cents on this whole matter. Count me as the seventh editor who agrees with the other six in that what Screwball is trying to add is non-sequitor information in which he has been told NUMEROUS times to stop adding the info. In fact, he even has a 3RR block (or two, I'm not sure). The fact of this matter is that Screwball doesn't believe he is in the wrong, but he is. This whole insane issue could have been avoided completely had Screwball simply accepted Darren's explanation.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 18:05, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

EVERYONE JUST STOP IT! This argument is pointless and it seems that nothing will be resolved from here I suggest we just end this argument because it seems that the consensus it to keep the page as it currently is.--Curtis23's Usalions 03:33, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Line by line rebuttal

I want to lay this discussion out in very clear terms. This is my material, line by line, which is true and verifiable. There has not been any productive discussion on this, and I am going to do a line-by-line talk on each point in the material, which is the first time this has been done.

The last discussion on this issue was fruitless because no one was willing to discuss the facts with me, and everyone was much to happy to claim consensus and make up wikipedia policies. Please read the material and debate the material. Any other discussions are useless, and I can say that because the objections that have been raised have served no one in the past few weeks.

In 2008, WWE initiated a change in its programming content. The United States parental guidelines rating system now rates all WWE television programs "PG" indicating family-friendly content in the programming.[1][2] WWE has reportedly gained more business sponsorships and celebrity involvement as a result of its change to PG[3]

These two lines are absolutely noncontroversial, and the sources given are more than adequate.

The reasons for the change to PG are debated. Vince McMahon has noted that the change to more family-friendly content is due to the changing demographics in WWE viewership. As of 2010, women and young children make up 40% of the company's audience.[2]

Nothing I am saying here is under dispute. The reasons for the change are debated. That is true. Vince McMahon has noted in an interview that the change is due to changing demographics in WWE viewership. He was interviewed, and the interview is provided.

The PG change may have helped lay a groundwork for Linda McMahon's Senate campaign in 2010.[4]

The Sun wrote an article which has mentioned Linda's Senate campaign as a possible reason for the change to more family-friendly entertainment. [4]

It has also been suggested that WWE always had a tendency towards PG entertainment, and after the collapse of its main competitors, WCW and ECW, it became free to express itself.[5]

I am open to let this one go because the sources I have found on this are the most contentious to the Original Research and Verifiability people.

Many older wrestling fans, who were more accustomed to the violence and controversy of WWE's Attitude Era switched over to TNA or ROH, or stopped watching altogether.[4]

Again, this is in The Sun article. [5]

--Screwball23 talk 04:32, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Soooo now you are basically citing the entire text with only just the UK Sun? What happened to all those perfectly good sources you spent the last month arguing for? ^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 05:51, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't think I have anything further to add to my comments regarding the RFC. The argument has become circular with only one proponent for the specific, lengthy addition (of which most of the sources were dismissed as unreliable or taken out of context). This diff leads me to believe the filing party may not be interested in legitimate discussion, and appears to be reaching out to Administrators for assistance and states those disagreeing with him have "been using any means necessary to avoid an objective discussion on this issue". I've shared my opinion. I do not believe there is anything else to add on this matter. Hazardous Matt (talk) 13:18, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Again, line by line, the material is defended. I want to have a discussion on the material, which is not happening again. Again and again, I see editors who want to fight me but refuse to discuss the content that I am putting forward. I want it to be realized that this is a real contribution that means quite a bit to me and many other wrestling fans. It's a shame people have spent so much time building up resistance to change that there is no willingness to negotiate. --Screwball23 talk 03:43, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Screwball, It's not the end of the world if we don't have a section for the change in programming so why do you keep arguing for it when the past 2 discussion on this at WT:PW have had the consensus to stay as it is.--Curtis23's Usalions 22:32, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I have not seen a consensus on this issue. I have seen a strong resistance to discuss the material being presented. Please do not be one of those people. --Screwball23 talk 03:43, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

The subject is already noted neutrally without the added OR and commentary. Everyone now let it go and move on to more productive things. ^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 22:42, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

read the refs and you will see each line makes sense. Quit putting your labels like "OR and commentary" when it is clear you have not read the refs or looked at the material. The purpose of this was to avoid the childish talk that prevailed in the past discussion.--Screwball23 talk 03:43, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

We have looked at the refs which all have been brought into question and seeing as you will not provide any other sources like many other editors have asked you to do the information is OR as its not backed up by a reliable source. And as for the childish talk that has been on your end of this dessication.--Steam Iron 03:52, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely false. The Sun is a reputable source. The Acorn online article is already used as citation in the article. The Sports Journal online is also reputable. You are only talking about the Bleacher Report, and you clearly have not read any of the others. And coming from someone who [removed] my references for no sensible reason except for spite, I don't think this "childish" accusation means much.--Screwball23 talk 04:34, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

"for no sensible reason except for spite" ah Screwball, again thinking the world is against you... your sources weren't removed, your edit was plain and simply reverted for removing my comment "for no sensible reason" - a violation of Talk page guidelines. ^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 04:57, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

• I'll care to explain it more thoroughly so please do care to read it carefully. The subject you are arguing for (PG and WWE) is already noted as folllows...
  • "In 2008, WWE initiated a change in its programming content. The United States parental guidelines rating system now rates all WWE television programs "PG" indicating family-friendly content in the programming.[22][23] Vince McMahon noted that the change to more family-friendly content is due to the changing demographics in WWE viewership. As of 2010, women and young children make up 40% of the company's audience.[23]"
• ...Now just so that we are clear, sources 22 and 23 are the same links you are currently using in your proposed text. (Acorn-online.com [a Southwestern Connecticut and Westchester County, New York covering newspaper] and Corporate.wwe.com [WWE's corporate site).
• Now the first portion of your proposed text is essentially the same as the current text and in fact the sportsbusinessjournal.com is a useful source currently missing from the present text that should be added... but that's not were the problem is. First of all "It has also been suggested that WWE always had a tendency towards PG entertainment, and after the collapse of its main competitors, WCW and ECW, it became free to express itself." is cited with Bleacherreport.com - a social network-like amature news site. This statement is an indisputable WP:OR vio. You now seem to agree with this so as we now move on were does that leave us? One source - The UK Sun. The proposed text you cite with the UK Sun is...
  • "The PG change may have helped lay a groundwork for Linda McMahon's Senate campaign in 2010. Many older wrestling fans, who were more accustomed to the violence and controversy of WWE's Attitude Era switched over to TNA or ROH, or stopped watching altogether."
• For a heavy statement like that including the suggestion that the program rating was changed for the purpose of helping Linda McMahon's US Senate campaign, additional reliable sources are needed and some from a non-wrestling news related site at that. Of we course the UK Sun isn't primarly a wrestling news site at all. However, for citing statements as those above, more reliable sources are need other than the editor's final comments which he fails to go into further detail with at the end of an article.^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 04:54, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Again, I am not making a statement that the Senate campaign was the cause of the Change to PG. I want to make it clear that what I have stated is directly supported by the source. As far as your demands go, I am afraid you are making arbitrary rules that do not apply to the rest of the WikiProject ProWrestling. These rules are not actual rules, they are subjective and seem to be enforced without good faith. I must stress again and again I am not making a statement declaring the campaign caused the change. It is sourced, how many sources are necessary? What counts as a nonwrestling source? Why is it necessary? How much detail does the article need to to into? Again an again, the demands are too subjective to be constructive in this case.--Screwball23 talk 03:55, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Finally, someone read something. Thank you! Thank you! I appreciate it. I really do. And yes, the Bleacher Report has seemed to flare up a lot of anger here, so I am going to let it go. Now, in regards to the Sun article, I really don't know where these supposed rules on "additional sources" and "non-wrestling news" are coming from. I have a feeling these are arbitrarily-imposed rules, especially in light of the fact that the Sun does both wrestling and non-wrestling news, and I have not seen a duo of wrestling/nonwrestling article sources in the majority of wrestling articles. This is not in any way a heavy statement, and in my writing, I have not presented it as rock-solid fact. Were my goal to prove definitively that "WWE changed because of Linda McMahon's run for Senate", then things would be a different story. --Screwball23 talk 05:13, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Then if the statement is even remotely suggesting that the rating change is somehow related to Linda's campaign, an addition reliable source needs to be used to back it up. It's not that there needs to be A) a non-wrestling news source to complement B) a wrestling news source, but the thing is wrestling-news sites aren't all that reliable. If its about something political then a source like CNN or a newspaper should do. Reliable publishers... and when it come to the UK Sun source, the only thing you have citing the two statements in question are the editor's final comments which he fails to go into further detail with at the end of an article. That I'm afraid isn't sufficient.^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 05:26, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

oh hey lets just delete all the talk page..idiot! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.222.227.22 (talk) 15:15, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

First please, WP:AGF. Secondly, there's a difference between deletion and archiving. Look through the archives, or bring everything back if you so wish. And the talk will always remain in the history of this page, anyway. --The Taerkasten (talk) 15:20, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

GA nomination

Why is this being nominated for GA? This article clearly fails the criteria. Just to show this, I'm going to review it against the quick-fail criteria real quick.

1. The article completely lacks reliable sources?
   1. Not completely, but 46 is low for an article this size with alot of paragraphs not even having one ref. Reference are not properly assembled as well. Alot of self-published references add abundant in the article. That may break neutral point of view for information, since WWE is going to tell history in a bias way.
2. The topic is treated in an obviously non-neutral way?
   1. Passes this somewhat.
3. There are cleanup banners that are obviously still valid, including cleanup, wikify, POV, unreferenced or large numbers of fact, citation needed, clarifyme, or similar tags.
   1. Fails this. Also, there could be several added to this article considering several sections have only one reference. Take the "Capitol Wrestling Corporation" section that has one reference for one of three paragraphs.
4. The article is or has been the subject of ongoing or recent, unresolved edit wars.
   1. I'd say this fails too since edit wars happen on this article weekly.

The article specifically concerns a rapidly unfolding current event with a definite endpoint.

1. Passes this one.

According to the quick-fail criteria if the article fails at least one of the following it can be failed without a full review. This one fails at least three. I say this should be removed from GAN because this needs alot of work. It certainly is no where, and I repeat no where near a GA.--WillC 05:48, 19 August 2010 (UTC)