Talk:Professional wrestling/Archive 2

Article scope
--69.136.56.244 (talk) 13:41, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Biased
This article seems to be more biased to WWE rather then professional wrestling in general. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.51.225.114 (talk) 04:02, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


 * That's like complaining that an article about professional football is biased to the NFL. Hanxu9 (talk) 23:37, 3 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I know all about football, but what the hell is the NFL? 115.64.174.108 (talk) 12:23, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

The National Football League.

Images
Whenever a wrestler is mentioned, say on a PPV page, it's bull shit that wrestler. I understand it is difficult to find images to use... but it gets very awkward looking. I mean, the recent Slammiversery 2009 page has a picture captioned "the recently returned Raven", for an event that happened yesterday, with an image from years ago. This is just not how an encyclopedia should work.

I think, if you're going to use an image, it should be relevant. If you want random pictures of Raven, click his name. Throwing in random "Randy Orton did this" with a picture of Orton posing with a fan next to a description of his Elimination Chamber match is just not going to cut it. There's no connection, it's illogical, it's misleading, and frankly - after reading a page or two, it gets extremely annoying. The page for the wrestler is where random images should be linked, and the specific event pages should contain images from the specific event.

Shawn Michaels
Shawn should be on the cultural icon list. 64.237.207.36 (talk) 20:41, 12 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry, as great a wrestler he is, he is not a cultural icon. Outside of wrestling, most people would not know who he is. --DanteAgusta (talk) 20:43, 12 October 2008 (

you just allways have to dissagree with me dont u dante? haha72.50.50.54 (talk) 19:31, 14 October 2008 (UTC)


 * As much as I would love pro wrestlers to get the treatment of other pro athletes, we know they don't. It is only a select few who cross over into main stream. Shawn is one of the best ever, but has never done anything but wrestle. So, unfortunately, the rest of the world just does not know about him. --DanteAgusta (talk) 20:52, 14 October 2008 (UTC)


 * That's because you're not a professional athelete. You're a professional actor. Learn the difference. The former competes. The latter acts according to a script. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.131.62.113 (talk) 01:20, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

well then bret hart should be taken out of the canada icons because no one knows who he is out of the wrestling ring —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.237.207.36 (talk) 21:10, 14 October 2008 (UTC)


 * He is known across Canada. --DanteAgusta (talk) 22:01, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

he isnt64.237.200.218 (talk) 01:40, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Really Bret Hart is just a wrestler, nothing else so why is he getting better treatment then Shawn? Hell if it worls like that you might as well toss in Chris Benoit and Chris Jericho on the Canada section64.237.200.218 (talk) 01:40, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * They are all "just wrestlers" unless they are also famous for something else, like the Rock and his acting. This section is filled with petty children.★Trekker (talk) 13:16, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Andre not usa
andre is french not american so you should remove him from the united states cultural icon list. 64.237.207.36 (talk) 22:43, 13 October 2008 (UTC)


 * It also says "adopted" home country, Andre lives and worked in the US for many years, and is an known and remembered to non wrestling fans. --DanteAgusta (talk) 22:49, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Objective characterization
What this article truly lacks is an objective characterisation of the events typical to "pro wrestling", placed near the top of the article, informing laymen about what it really is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JeR (talk • contribs) 06:22, 19 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeah. It's really quite useless as a Wikipedia article because of all the fanbois like Dante rushing to revert edits and write in biased prose. The point of Wikipedia is to explain what X is quickly, efficiently, and completely to someone who doesn't know what X is. If someone from another country where scripted wrestling matches do not exist but competitive wrestling SPORT does were to look this up, they would not actually figure out from this article that it is scripted theater. The first paragraph, or right after it, is where it needs to be clarified. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.131.62.113 (talk) 01:23, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I OBJECT to the term "scripted theater" in that throwaway sense -- especially in the historical sense. The history of pro wrestling is that it has become more and more scripted, that is true, but in the early days all the wrestlers got was a quick play by play from the promoter and a desired finish. THEY (the performers) had to fill out a 20 or 40 or 60 minute match themselves, with a high degree of creativity and originality. The entire concept of "selling" the opponent's moves is missing from the article -- scripted matches would often go off-script if something was found to work (generate "heat") more than something else. IN the modern age, where matches are akin to television shows -- yes, much more is scripted move by move. But even in that highly-scripted environment, there is still an enormous amount of competititon for fan reaction, for generating "heat", for being "put over" and so forth. You don't just get titles and title shots by virtue of seniority in a company -- as you might get a promotion at an office. You get them because whatever you are doing -- whatever you are innovating -- is generating a connection with the fans in the audience. When Stan Stasiak was told he was going to be honored with the WWWF belt (in 1973), he couldn't believe it -- the honor of it almost brought him to tears. These things are NOT NEARLY the same as being told that one's character in a scripted production of "Othello" is going to get more lines, or one's TV character is going to get more exposure. Why? Because generating HEAT is something that a pro wrestler EARNS HIMSELF OR HERSELF. In that respect, oh yes, it is a very, very competitive sport. The focus is not on who wins matches -- but on who has shown their management that they have the skills, athletic prowess and ability to generate heat. THAT is the real sport, not measured in pinfalls and match wins (though as a wrestler shows that he has heat, he will - if management is savvy -- eventually get more wins in the ring. That is why this entire notion of "oh wrestling is fake" is so wrong-headed.   They are looking at the wrong metrics.   It is like judging the durability of a rock group by how well they sing -- rather than the records they sell.  Chesspride 66.19.84.2 (talk) 04:10, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Independent Section
It needs editing, desperately. It reeks of bias; such as the part about how some independent wrestlers are more talents/charismatic than mainstream wrestlers, it is not needed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.13.250.122 (talk) 00:32, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


 * It reads very good to me. And it is true, there are some indy guys who are better than some of WWE's top guys. --DanteAgusta (talk) 00:55, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


 * It is an opinion, which does not belong in an encyclopaedic article. It doesn't matter how true or how false it is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.13.250.122 (talk) 02:35, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't agree it is merely an opinion. It is a fact. But the problem with Pro Wrestling is there is no real way to give credible sources for facts. --DanteAgusta (talk) 02:42, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


 * It is merely opinion, and propaganda. I mean, come on, take a look at it:

"many of the "workers" aren't as chiseled as the ones on television broadcasts" - That isn't relevant at all. "Still, many local wrestlers are extremely talented, with some grapplers' techniques and charisma surpassing some of those on broadcasts of the WWE or TNA" - Once again, irrelevant. "Independent wrestlers normally have "shoot jobs" and usually wrestle for the love of the business only, since most paydays are pretty low" - Blatantly untrue AND irrelevant.

I have written a temporal replacement until someone can write a better one. It is far superior than the previous one though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.13.250.122 (talk) 21:14, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Stop removing my post
i keep adding hhh, taker and hbk and someone keeps removing it. Theres allot of nerds here but that one specific nerd should cut it out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.224.149.195 (talk) 19:40, 16 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Those names are not house hold names. Read the whole sentence. The ones posted are known by non wrestling fans during their respected times. People who know nothing of wrestling knew something about that person. Triple H, Undertaker, HBK are all great wrestlers, but they are not known outside of wrestling to the degree that the others were/are. --DanteAgusta (talk) 21:59, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

oh please like bret hart's a house hold name —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.50.53.157 (talk) 21:23, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * It has been confirmed that in Canada Bret Hart is a house hold name. The guy was on the Simpsons for Pete's sake. --DanteAgusta (talk) 22:22, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Please WWE Lover21 (talk) 09:24, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Adhering to kayfabe
I've noticed that most wrestling articles (I'm putting this in this article because it's the centerpoint of the wrestling articles) are writting a manner that adheres to kayfabe. For example, many wrestlers' biographies are written in a style that you would normally expect to find on kayfabe websites.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't this mean that the articles are written in an in-universe format? I haven't been on Wikipedia for long, but long enough to know that in-universe style of writing is frowned upon. Sure, there are some articles on fictional characters that are mostly in in-universe format, but the doors are wide open for anyone who has sufficient sources to rewrite the article in an out-of-universe style (such as talking about how the character is written, as opposed to what we see on TV).

Shouldn't these wrestling articles be rewritten in a similar manner? For example, Petey Williams didn't loose the Off-the-Wagon Challenge; the TNA writers used it to write out his character to cover up for his release. I think this would be a drastic improvement in the quality of wrestling articles, to the point where some may get nominated for featured articles. Thank you.Wikieditor1988 (talk) 01:48, 18 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Can't you just put in parenthesis why he lost the match? It treats them like it treats TV shows. It doesn't mention "so and so was killed off due to a contract dispute."71.185.250.142 (talk) 03:07, 7 May 2010 (UTC)belthistoryguy


 * By that same token, the idea that professional wrestling has rules (like a game or sport) seems kayfabe. Perhaps this section could be reworked as a description of the kayfabe style of stage production. After all, the breaking of these "rules" is written into the act, they are really just another part of imagining pro-wrestling as a competitive sport.68.228.32.61 (talk) 22:33, 16 October 2010 (UTC)wood0465

Add some warnings?
I think "don't try this at home" warnings should be added. Or at least it should be explained that the moves (if done for real) can be very harmful and even lethal. While you argue if it's "fake" or not, someone could try to jump from 2m and hit someone else in the head with his knee.. (188.126.10.8 (talk) 00:25, 22 February 2010 (UTC))


 * I don't see the point of putting warning signs everywhere. Everyone in their right mind will know that it is dangerous to jump of a ladder face down. Also, most people who read this are either fans or haters. Either of them will know this. Fans see the warnings in each TV show after each commercial break. And, putting in too many warnings will cause the loss of effect for real important warnings. Finally, when will all the warning stop? Somewhere common sense needs to kick in. Darwin will take care of the rest... PeterE23 (talk) 21:10, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that "Darwin will take care of the rest" mentality also leads to the deaths of children who are too young to know better. You should be ashamed of yourself for saying they should be killed off just because you don't want to have warnings. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.102.224.71 (talk) 09:35, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

History?
There's no mention of any professional wrestling history here as such. Surely the concept of the evolution from catch wrestling to professional wrestling (as well as it's reasons) should be mentioned as well as the history of territories giving way to a monopoly (obviously whilst avoiding overlap with the article WWE). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.140.126.241 (talk) 18:12, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * See History of professional wrestling-- Unquestionable Truth -- 08:23, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

The word "mark" goes to the wrong link.
The phrase in question is "working the marks". The word "marks" is currently pointing to this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_%28victim%29

However, the link that the word SHOULD go to is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glossary_of_professional_wrestling_terms#Mark

Could someone please change it? I do not know how to do it. Hanxu9 (talk) 23:39, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

"Originating Culture"?
can we get a source on some of these?--99.101.160.159 (talk) 03:24, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

yeah, I agree. It's United States/Canada. I've been thinking about it for a while, and while Mexico and Japan could be said to have originated their specific styles or sub-genres of pro wrestling, the parent genre (ie, this article's subject) definitely originated in the US and Canada. Same with Brazil.

As far as UK/Ireland and Pakistan go, I can see the argument of "catch" wrestling originating in Britain, and traditional folk wrestling developing in the middle east, but those are ancestor arts, and those locations were not where the development of this article's subject took place. And why anyone decided to tack Germany on there, I have no idea.

I'll find a source tonight. TravelingCat (talk) 20:40, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Professional Wrestling has it's roots in the traveling circuit of Europe; specifically Ireland and Britain. Simply watch any pro. wrestling documentary. To leave this out is ridiculous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.197.105 (talk) 21:07, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Spoilers being allowed
By defult how can spoilers be allowed? Until it's shown on TV how can any spoiler be allowed to go under pro-wrestling title reigns and other articles? I thought Wikipedia disallowed independent research? Isn't taking and using spoilers using independent research? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.93.167.109 (talk) 02:51, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

i want wwe vs raw 2011 on my computer please someone send to me the site — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.235.140.82 (talk) 07:01, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Inferno match redirect
I got directed here looking for "Inferno Match" which doesn't have its own page — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZoDiAC Innominate (talk • contribs) 16:55, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

How long the secret has been out
I first read an article about pro wrestling being sports entertainment back in 1969, when one wrestler was describing how he and his "opponent" discussed who would "win". Anyone else have an idea of how long ago it became more common knowledge than "inside info" that the matches are largely fixed (predetermined)? --Uncle Ed (talk) 05:46, 4 January 2012 (UTC)


 * It's very hard to say, for a number of reasons. It depends on where you're talking about, and what degree of notoriety counts as "common knowledge". And to begin with, for there to even *be* a secret to hide or know, one would have to determine a point after which a majority of wrestling exhibitions were "fixed". I've actually been trying to research that specific issue off-and-on in my free time for the last few months, and haven't come close to what I feel would be a definitive answer.
 * But to answer your question, it probably could have been considered an open secret in the 1930s at the latest, but perhaps as early as the 1880s. I would be very interested to read this article you mentioned. -TravelingCat (talk) 04:43, 27 January 2012 (UTC)


 * It had a reputation when I was growing up in the 1970s of the competitions being faked, but this was not openly acknowledged. In fact, people that I knew in the 1980s and 1990s did not believe that it was faked and openly disagreed with its characterization that way. Because of the intensity of these fans' belief that it was authentic and the marketing campaigns that portrayed wrestling as if it were authentic wrestling competitions, New York State, where many of the competitions took place, had begun a governmental initiative to regulate "professional wrestling" in the late 1990s, similar to the way that professional boxing is NY state regulated. This forced the 2 wrestling federations to make public statements saying that their competitions were, in fact, "staged competitions". That is the reason why there is no governmental regulation of wrestling as there currently is of professional boxing. That should actually be included in this article (if it is not already). But this whole circumstance of staged versus real came to a head at this juncture of the late 1990s, early 2000s, and the corresponding movement to regulate these activities. Stevenmitchell (talk) 02:19, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

According to this academic article, fixing matches became popular as a result of a disappointing 1911 match between Frank Gotch and George Hackenschmidt:


 * ''"The failure of these two matches to satisfy audiences, and the accusations of fraud marked a temporary decline in the popularity of wrestling that lasted until the late 1920's."(21) The matches between Gotch and Hackenschmidt presented huge problems for professional wrestling. The first match, like almost all matches at the time, was much too long for fans to enjoy. Furthermore, it was incredibly slow paced. The second match saw Gotch "work" Hackenschmidt's leg and cause him considerable pain in a demonstration of just how dangerous professional wrestling could be. Additionally, while the brevity of the match was unusual, it reinforced the feeling that the times of matches needed to be controlled.


 * These concerns ultimately led to professional wrestling's transformation from contest to show. However, fixing the matches didn't exactly fix professional wrestling. By the mid 1920's almost all competition was gone from professional wrestling, causing a minor resurgence in popularity. Unfortunately, it also posed a whole new set of problems. "When the 'fix' was inadvertently discovered fans were outraged (Note: For example, once in 1929 in New York City, a drunken press agent accidentally released all the next night's winners to the newspapers.)

Interesting read. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:35, 4 March 2013 (UTC) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Professional_wrestling&action=edit&section=15#

I don't know about the USA, but in the UK the 'secret' was officially revealed during the late 1970s as a result of a court case. An African-born wrestler known as Masambula had been injured in a contest when he was thrown against a corner post, and the protective padding gave way. He alleged that the protective padding was not properly attached, and sued the promoters for negligence. During the trial evidence was given, and accepted by both sides, that the contest had been planned to end in a certain way, but was cut short by the accidental injury.86.146.146.236 (talk) 12:59, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Record On Professional Wrestlers Like Boxers
Wikipedia should record professional wrestlers matches just like boxers status. Example: wins to no contests. AnthonyTheGamer (talk) 03:04, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * So add it.Euchrid (talk) 04:53, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Fawning Marktards
This entire entry is poorly written and full of mark bait. If it is not improved in 24 hours I will delete it. 184.4.141.73 (talk) 22:28, 27 April 2012 (UTC) Chad Bryant
 * I have no idea what your heading means, nor what "mark bait" is, but if you aren't an administrator, you can't delete it. --Dweller (talk) 10:33, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The IP in question has made few contributions, and no constructive ones as of yet. This one is typical (except for being relatively polite). But agree the article needs work, lots and lots of it. Andrewa (talk) 07:02, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Neutral notice of an RfC
A Request for Comment has been posted for an article on which you have been an editor. If you wish to comment, go to Talk:List of African-American firsts. --Tenebrae (talk) 12:11, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Article class
This article currently is far closer to Start than to C class, but is rated C class. I quote the WikiProject Professional wrestling criteria (in part):

Start class articles Detailed criteria: ''The article has a usable amount of good content but is weak in many areas, usually in referencing. Quality of the prose may be distinctly unencyclopedic, and MoS compliance non-existent; but the article should satisfy fundamental content policies, such as notability and BLP, and provide enough sources to establish verifiability. No Start-Class article should be in any danger of being speedily deleted. Editing suggestions: Providing references to reliable sources should come first; the article also needs substantial improvement in content and organisation.''

C class articles Detailed criteria: The article is better developed in style, structure, and quality than Start-Class. Editing suggestions: Considerable editing is needed to close gaps in content and solve cleanup problems.

Frankly, this article barely satisfies the start class criteria, let alone C class. It's not a stub, but it doesn't provide verifiability, and smells strongly of original research.

To avoid dabbling in original research, we are not even at liberty to look at all the rule sets (which are primary sources - even if we could find them) and compare them to come up with the core rules. We need instead to find secondary sources, writers who have already done this, and report their conclusions and cite them. We are even less at liberty to take comments from match commentaries, whether the sound track on YouTube or published in a news service, and work out from these what the rules must be for a spectacle that has not published its rules. This again is original research. Now note that the only two references currently in the rules section are of exactly the wrong sort... one of them a YouTube with an audio commentary, the other a news website commentary, both of particular matches.

And its structure needs a complete rethink. There was no History section at all despite a request for one above dating from 2010. I have started it by separating out some of the lead and adding a main link to the existing (genuinely C class) article History of professional wrestling. But there's still only one reference in this section, and this one is to the FILA site, dedicated to genuinely competitive wrestling. It is a reliable secondary source at least, so it is far better than nothing but barely on-topic.

I was tempted to boldly change the class to Start, but on reflection have instead requested reassessment by the apparently active WikiProject. 

The alternative I suppose is to remove the unsourced material, which is nearly all of it if the rules and history sections are anything to go by, and instead make it into a good stub. Andrewa (talk) 03:56, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Kayfabe
"Kayfabe" is a technical term. Although it is explained, the whole article is so long that a reader wanting to know what this word means (seeing it as a section title), is left baffled, since the section itself assumes the reader knows the meaning of the term.211.225.33.104 (talk) 10:14, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Naming confirmation please
Could someone please clarify how come the real thing, real wrestling is called AMATEUR (WTF!?) while this set-up nonsense played by ridiculous ACTORS (not even SPORTSMEN) is called pro? I'm sure it's not just me, but millions of other hard-time fans of REAL wrestling who despise this joke of a sports called pro wrestling and seek to turn the tables. 95.220.225.145 (talk) 01:14, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Professional - "engaged in a specified activity as one's main paid occupation rather than as an amateur."

Amateur - "one who engages in a pursuit, study, science, or sport as a pastime rather than as a profession."

Hope that answers your question.

However, there have been, and are, professional sport leagues of wrestling, which surely you and the "millions of other hard-time fans of REAL wrestling" will of course already be following and supporting. You wouldn't be hard-time fans otherwise would you?

2.27.16.131 (talk) 03:41, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Request For Approval/Sanction to Improve Opening Paragraphs
Hey there, I'm new here just joined today.

Big time pro wrestling and Wikipedia fanatic. Have been wanting to make changes to things of interest to me on here for years but just never really knew how to go about it. I think I tried once years ago and gave up easily and quickly. I think I had to be some type of a privileged member. Anyway, I thought I'd give it a try today and discovered I do now have the ability to edit pages and got started on on a piece immediately. I was just going to post it out of excitement but then I started to remember and appreciate the concept of discussion you guys have here and decided it'd be best to run it by you first, especially since someone/people have probably worked hard on the current piece on the page and of course I'm new here, so forgive me if I've done/or am doing things wrong already. I'll make sure to keep all the important links of course and maybe even add some new ones. The only problem is I think it's lacking in commas significantly. I dunno I've just been in a vast confusion of when I'm sure to use them recently, so I thought it'd be best to allow someone to advise me on that or maybe insert themselves. So here it is:

Professional wrestling (Colloquially abbreviated to pro wrestling or wrestling) is a form of fictional entertainment based on a highly exaggerated portrayal of a combat sport. It combines athleticism and theatricality. In accordance with what is commonplace for combat sports it takes place in the form of live events held by specific promotions and is generally televised depending on weather the event is meant for both a television audience and live audience or exclusively the latter. The style of combat is based on a combination of an innovative style as well as various other adopted styles including classical wrestling, catch wrestling, various forms of martial arts, et cetera. All these separate aspects of the style can be classified in to four categories of moves - Grappling, submission, striking and aerial. The style is also based on usage of weaponry to varying degrees.

As the events displayed including both match and non-match combat and the outcomes are fictitious they are acted out by all participants. The combative actions and reactions are carefully executed in specific manners for the purpose of maximal impact but minimal injury. The fictional aspects were once kept highly secretive and were deceitfully claimed to be legitimate but are now openly shared and honestly declared as fictitious. The basis of portrayal in official media varies between fictional and non-fictional. Fiction based portrayals will ignore reality focusing on the fictional world and presenting the craft as an exaggerated form of a combat sport where as non-fiction based portrayals will ignore fiction focusing on reality and presenting it as a form fictional entertainment based on a highly exaggerated portrayal of a combat sport.

In vast distinction to the mainstream reputation of immense derision for pro wrestling due to it being fictitious (Leading people to mistaken it's purpose for a cowardly substitute for people incapable of legitimately fighting/deceitfully claimed sportive combat) the purpose of pro wrestling is to showcase an exaggerated portrayal of a combat sport for the purpose of fictional entertainment. It is not a legitimate combat sport. Another aspect of the negative mainstream reputation of the craft is the misconception that because what is being portrayed is fictional that the craft in general is of minimal to devoid legitimacy. However although the violence is fictitious their are legitimate physical hazards as creation of the combative content is highly realistic and therefore impossible to not be significantly hurt by at some stage in the whole process. O-LamGU21 (talk) 19:09, 30 September 2015 (UTC)


 * One problem. No sources. Wikipedia requires sources for content or it can be seen as original research and won't be allowed. Mega Z090 (talk) 23:23, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

But all of the information I've presented is generally well known fact, surely that deems the need for sources invalid? For example - "the combative actions and reactions are carefully executed in specific manners for the purpose of maximal impact but minimal injury" - Everybody knows that's true, what's the point in a specific source? O-LamGU21 (talk) 21:35, 1 October 2015 (UTC)


 * No it's not generally well know fact, so you have to prove it with sources. There are many instances in pro wrestling where your quote just does not happen (and injuries occur). Mega Z090 (talk) 21:54, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

I understand now. I was aware that sources were essential for content that can be challenged, but obviously I was misjudging what qualifies as content that can't be challenged. I will make sure I add sources for the appropriate content. However, if content I'm changing is still of the same meaning I assume that means it is acceptable for me to keep the same source? O-LamGU21 (talk) 02:41, 3 October 2015 (UTC)


 * No. If it's the same meaning then there is no reason to change it to begin with. Mega Z090 (talk) 00:00, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

I think that there can be better wording in particular to explain that same meaning. Thanks for the help, appreciate it. - Fwitasfm (talk) 04:51, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Professional wrestling. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100616104548/http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com:80/vault/article/magazine/MAG1091721/index.htm to http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1091721/index.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 02:53, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Decisions do not exist
I have once again reverted the claim of the existence of the decisions "technical knockout" and "technical submission". Neither exist as a decision in professional wrestling. Adding it is expressing an opinion with the meaning of original research and without a source such things are not permitted. The user concerned has been warning twice now and if a third warning is needed we will need administrative intervention. 101.189.22.150 (talk) 23:23, 19 December 2015 (UTC)


 * The decisions definitely do exist. They're obviously not as common as pin/DQ/countout though and far from original. Come to a consensus so 101.whatever you and World whoever stop editing so much. I hope my edit will acceptable to both contributors so as to reflect the occurrence of the decisions. The Jobber is Here (talk) 05:25, 20 December 2015 (UTC)


 * No it's not because it's not sourced. You can't insert original research. Anything controversial and unsourced can be rightfully removed without a consensus. This is both. NO such decisions exist so you have to prove that they do with sources. And consider yourself fortunate that I don't have you investigated as a sock of the other user under the duck rule because there's too much grey there for a case. 101.189.22.150 (talk) 06:33, 20 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I would prefer they be separated since really, they are separate decisions, but I'd be willing go with the one line each. It at least reflects the commonness (or lack of) and removes ambiguity. Also, you've never sourced any of your changes here, so please don't patronize me or other editors. And let's not even get started on how you and the other random IP totally aren't the same person. WHWC (talk) 09:53, 20 December 2015 (UTC)


 * You never sourced your additions. That's the key here. You are the one adding material. I'm removing it as controversial and unsourced. It's original research and you can't do that. As it stands, there is no such decision as "technical knockout" or "technical submission". And I never said I wasn't the other IP. My modem re-booted. Nothing more. 101.189.22.150 (talk) 10:57, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

To whoever changed the title by adding brackets, don't do that. The issue here is twofold. First, both of you are edit warring. The article should be left alone for now until this is sorted out. Second, I agree with the IP. I have previously reverted the insertion of this matter due to the lack of sourcing. I agree that it's controversial as well because it represents an attempt to introduce decisions from boxing and MMA. Neither belong in wrestling. The decisions that are there however are very much a part of wrestling to the point that sourcing isn't needed. If WHWC and Jobber want to press that point then maybe some sources can be found confirming the use of those decisions, but frankly I don't see the point. They are common enough. Jobber even admitted that these new decisions weren't common, but he provided no proof of any decision being rendered. Recommend that - in light of a brief search bringing up nothing major or reliable - this process be dropped and the page stay as is. Mega Z090 (talk) 11:34, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah well WHWC has gone ahead and taken advantage of me being stopped from editing!! That's unsourced claptrap and should be removed! 101.189.22.150 (talk) 23:08, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * It has been and I have stated in the edit summary to come here and discuss it. The admin who semi protected can't have been a person familiar with wrestling so don't be too angry. Maybe get an account to overcome the problem. Mega Z090 (talk) 23:32, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, and you're the second person to suggest I get an account. The answer's the same. Nah. I prefer IP. 101.189.22.150 (talk) 00:18, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Neither WHWC nor I have added anything, but have only reverted your improper additions to the page, particularly your "referee stoppage" section, as I have yet to see any source either. Everyone has acknowledged that most of the page is unsourced, but that's no reason to vandalize the page. Obviously, every match ends in referee stoppage. As opposed to what? Announcer stoppage? Fan stoppage? I agree we should leave it as is until resolved though. Jobber (talk) 00:54, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes you have! "Technical knockout" and "Technical submission". That's what you added! Referee stoppage? Rusev v Neville on Main Event not that long ago. Edge v Matt Hardy at Summerslam in 2005. Referee stoppage is any stoppage for injury or being unable to continue, not pinfall, submission, DQ or countout! All you are doing is adding your own opinion AKA original research which you can't do! 101.189.22.150 (talk) 01:28, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Do you listen to yourself?! You just described your own opinion and apparently are harassing others for calling you out on your own "original research." To all others who may be (but probably aren't) reading this, I would not engage with this 101 person or their apparent tactics any further beyond unfortunately fixing their vandalism. Sexypolarbear6 (talk) 04:21, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Excuse me, but what was there has NO OBJECTIONS - except from you! You are vandalising the article with original research. You're being challenged to source your changes! There is no OR in what was there before! Are you saying that there's no such thing as a "referee stoppage" decision? So what happened with the two matches I used as examples? Someone revert that controversial and unsourced rubbish please! 101.189.22.150 (talk) 05:13, 21 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Right I've had enough. Obviously the only way to stop this is to source "referee stoppage" and I will do that now even though it shouldn't be needed. But as there is a pechant for adding unsourced material and a failure to recognise the difference between original research and general knowledge there is no choice. Mega Z090 (talk) 05:32, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I have now added a source to three referee stoppage results from 2005. That should be the end of it (note that the source says "referee stopped" the match), unless you people can source alternative material. Mega Z090 (talk) 05:37, 21 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I haven't had the opportunity to chime in yet. This debate just got really long and stupid. You're all aware that a 'knockout' and a 'referee stoppage' is the same thing, right? I feel like I just saved you all a lot of arguing. And a technical submission is when you pass out in a submission, which is def not the same as a KO or a regular submission. Period. I'm not familiar with the TKO in wrestling though. If it exists, I imagine it would be the same thing as a KO as such and not worth distinguishing. And there's no way anything regarding wrestling 'rules' could be sourced LOL. Every promotion pretty much writes its own rules and then may or may not follow them. Even if a big company like WWE wrote a book, it would still be full of kayfabe BS. And then they would blatantly violate and change their rules without notice. AngeloPerante (talk) 06:03, 21 December 2015 (UTC)


 * No, it's not the same thing. A knockout is "unconscious" and Matt Hardy wasn't unconscious against Edge. Passing out from a submission hold is a submission (see Austin v Hart at Wrestlemania 13) and nothing else. Like Mega Z090 rightly pointed out, this isn't boxing or MMA! If there have been decisions of that nature, they will be in results. So show us! 101.189.22.150 (talk) 07:02, 21 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Going unconscious in a match would result in a knockout be declared, but unconsciousness is not an exclusive requirement for a knockout in any sport(s entertainment). There's more than one way to win by KO. KO is when you knock your opponent out of the ability to fight (e.g. unconsciousness, injury, inability to defend themselves) using strikes (and has prior been linked), which as you've pointed out, should have been general knowledge, yet you continue to add your own original research and attempt to accuse other editors of your own misdoings. And if you think passing out from a submission hold is a submission (which it is and apparently we agree to) and nothing else (which it isn't), then it shouldn't be repeatedly moved back the knockout section. World Heavyweight Wrestling Champion (talk) 23:33, 21 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, but knockout is only achieved as a result by being knocked unconscious. In all other instances it is referee stoppage as indicated by my source which you removed against the reliable source list on WP:PW. Go to the link and search for "referee stopped" and all three matches I listed will come up. All three were referee stoppages. I can't confirm 101's assertion that Matt Hardy was or wasn't unconscious but given the description of being "unable to continue" it makes sense. However I disagree with 101 that a submission is a submission by passing out. The difference between a submission and a referee stoppage in that instance is whether or not the three arm drop is used. If it is, it's a submission. If it's not it's a referee stoppage. The current edit is not original research. Adding the two technical decisions is. Mega Z090 (talk) 01:00, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm in agreement on the topic of "technical submission" as it related to pro wrestling. A search of Google for the phrase "technical submission" in realtion to professional wrestling (here) reveals no reliable source within the first four pages of results. A similar result comes up if you search on "technical knockout" - any result that comes up in the first few pages on Google is usually talking about either boxing or MMA, not pro wrestling. Tabercil (talk) 23:03, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Does anyone have sources that work?
In a recent edit User:World Heavyweight Wrestling Champion provided new sources but these links don't appear to work. (I think too many https:). Even if you fix the link, I don't see how this provides a reference for the disputed point. EdJohnston (talk) 00:50, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * It doesn't. I checked the link manually removing one of the http's and looked for the word "technical" on the page, and nothing came up. So I am reverted it as not proving the claim. Mega Z090 (talk) 00:52, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it just needed minor fixing. It's an easy fix that I was about to do. Unfortunately, there's no "true" encyclopedia of the subject. Mega Z090 had a source previously, but the information contradicted his point as it essentially stated that the referee stopped the match due to a submission move, which is a submission. I had two reliable sources, one of which made explicit reference to technical submissions, but of course, he just reverted them without discussion and clearly did not check both articles. The previous source that had been added was contradictory to what it was supposed to be proving, so I did go ahead and remove it. It pretty much referred to the referee stopping the match due to a submission hold (which is a submission) and another by not being able to continue (which is a knockout). It was just a description, not an actual decision.

It should also be noted that Mega Z090 has a sockpuppet investigation against him now brought up by another editor on an unrelated article (Sockpuppet investigations/Mega Z090). It seems likely that all of these IPs doing edits and reverts are the same user and we're not the only ones having problems with his editing. World Heavyweight Wrestling Champion (talk) 01:47, 22 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I will be addressing that sock thing there. Meanwhile, your first source does not say "technical submission" so it gets reverted. My source gives three examples of "referee stopped" (referee stoppage). Mega Z090 (talk) 01:52, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh and the second source is listed as unreliable in the WP:PW source list Mega Z090 (talk) 02:03, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The page is still being vandalized, but I'm willing to wait until the sock complaint is resolved before troll feeding any further. World Heavyweight Wrestling Champion (talk) 03:55, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * No it's not. Inserting correct information with a reliable source is not vandalism. You don't own the article. You're the one who should stop trolling. Mega Z090 (talk) 04:15, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Professional wrestling. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20151107062153/https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=eBAmAAAAIBAJ&sjid=TE4DAAAAIBAJ&pg=3682,1484670&dq=ginger-the-wrestling-bear&hl=en to https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=eBAmAAAAIBAJ&sjid=TE4DAAAAIBAJ&pg=3682,1484670&dq=ginger-the-wrestling-bear&hl=en
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20151107062155/https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=SodUAAAAIBAJ&sjid=QY8DAAAAIBAJ&pg=1912,1008343&dq=victor-the-wrestling-bear&hl=en to https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=SodUAAAAIBAJ&sjid=QY8DAAAAIBAJ&pg=1912,1008343&dq=victor-the-wrestling-bear&hl=en

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 11:10, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 February 2016
Add the term Mock combat in the description:

wrestling) is an athletic form of Mock combat entertainment

189.223.103.11 (talk) 23:10, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 02:09, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

"While it has completely disappeared from Europe," NOT TRUE
The above line in the History section is just plain FALSE. There are many Europeam promoters, including some like All Star Wresting in the UK, who specialise in old school European pro wrestling styles. Please amend or remove this line.62.190.148.115 (talk) 13:25, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done: logged into my account and did it myself! Romomusicfan (talk) 14:10, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Incidentally, there was a previous instance where a different editor also picked up on a "completely disappeared" claim and - quite correctly - changed it to "greatly declined".
 * Perhaps would like to explain why he/she changed it back to "completely disappeared"?  It's a weird claim to make which smacks of an agenda. 62.190.148.115 (talk) 15:19, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Origins
The "originating culture" list is getting way too big in my opinion. Pro-wrestling originates from Europe (Western Europe specifically) according to the article. I think it's origin should be listed simply as "Europe" or France to be literal. Thoughts? Bbx118 (talk) 20:49, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Performing Art
I have not seen one source stating that Professional Wrestling is a performing or performance art. All I have seen is a bunch of original research with no sources reliable or otherwise. If one does not find sources the material should be removed. Please see No original research -Rainbowofpeace (talk) 13:01, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
 * This is not WP:OR this is clearly stated in the source. Saying that it does not use the same choice of wording is just ridiculous. The sources and article as a whole clearly show that it is performing art but its exact definition. There is no question it fits the definition exactly. -  Galatz Talk  13:48, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for engaging in discussion. Listen I really do think if this hypothesis you have is substantial you should be able to show me at least one source that does call this form of entertainment a performing art. I will admit Professional Wrestling is not my forte of knowledge however I did study the arts especially performing arts and I can tell you the discussion of Professional Wrestling never came from any of my professors. Now if you insist on not finding a source that states so I'm afraid I will have to go to the Original Research noticeboard.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 13:54, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Can you honestly tell me that based on the source given (which is heavily used across hundreds for articles on WP), does not say its a type of art? It discusses it being choreographed.
 * Per the given source writers work on plots and storylines well in advance, and every match is another chapter in the story. Who wins and who loses is all in the script. It also says It's true that the plots are predetermined and the moves are choreographed. Its a script and its choreographed. Just because it doesnt use the term "performing arts" it doesn't mean that using that source is WP:SYNTH.
 * The second page goes further into it, saying that the illusion that the characters and storylines are real. Is this any different than the way you would descripe a play? -  Galatz  Talk  14:13, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
 * You might want to use this Routlege book as a source.Icewhiz (talk) 07:42, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
 * While script and choreography might be aspects of the theater arts, they are not what define theater art. So we can't say that simply because something is choreographed that it can be defined as performing art. As well, performance art is a very specific art form within the fine, visual and performing arts. I think the lead here, "is a form of sports entertainment[1][2][3] which combines athletics with theatrical performance." is fine now.(Littleolive oil (talk) 15:05, 10 April 2018 (UTC))

Per our own article on Performance art. "The meaning of the term in the narrower sense is related to postmodernist traditions in Western culture. From about the mid-1960s into the 1970s, often derived from concepts of visual art, with respect to Antonin Artaud, Dada, the Situationists, Fluxus, installation art and conceptual art, performance art tended to be defined as an antithesis to theatre,... Performance art is a term usually reserved to refer to a conceptual art which conveys a content-based meaning in a more drama-related sense, rather than being simple performance for its own sake for entertainment purposes...." bold mine.(Littleolive oil (talk) 14:36, 8 May 2018 (UTC))

Mock combat
Although I'm not a fan of pro wrestling, I don't hate it either. I was trying to be fair. "Mock" in this context does not mean "mockery", it means "simulated". When I was in school, we did "mock exams" to prepare us for the real thing. I also think that the characters in pro wrestling parody the antics of real prizefighters. And they're often deliberately comedic. How is that untrue and unfair? Muhammad Ali and Mike Tyson were pretty wild, and the pro wrestlers take that pattern to ridiculous degrees. Fans love it. Kurzon (talk) 17:19, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi. I have seen your recents edition in the article. First, I think the terms aren't correct. As other user told you, the factual term is staged or scripted. Mock combater, parody... aren't neutral, looks like a anti-pro wrestling article.

Also, sources. The first section is sourced. Not described as mock combat, but performance art instead. I know, pro wrestling it's several things: its a theatre, it's a scripted fight, a choreogaphy. But your editions hasn't sources to support your claims. I included the sources and some parts of your editions, I think the current is a good approach. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 18:09, 2 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Uh, is English your first language? Because your page makes me think you're Spanish.  Mock combat and parody ARE neutral terms.  I don't know where you got the idea that they are  biased.  Methinks you don't know English so well. Kurzon (talk) 19:24, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi. No, English isn't my first language. As I said, User MPJ-DK told ""mock" is not neutral - staged is factual", which it's true. Most sources call wrestling staged or scripted. Sources in the lead say "performance". Also, Parody has negative connotations. Wikipedia says "is a work which is created to imitate, make fun of or comment on an original work." I prefer "pro wrestlers perform" or "pro wrestlers have characters", which is more neutral. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 20:16, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

And how is "parody" offensive? This is all theater, and not meant to be taken seriously. Kurzon (talk) 06:02, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * .As I said, sources and words. I don't think your editions are WP:NPOV, since you see pro wrestling as "not serious". Is pro wrestling theatre? Yes. Has pro wrestling drama? Yes. Is pro wrestling simulated fights? Yes. Pro wrestlers aren't real fighters, they are acting like one. But not every wrestler is a parody. Several of them are serious wrestlers, like Kazuchika Okada, Bret Hart, Minoru Suzuki, Walter. Other are comical, like Joey Ryan, Toru Yano, Otis... but not every pro wrestler is comical. They are acting, they are playing a role, which is more neutral than "parody of a fighter".  " copies a particular situation, making the features or qualities of the original more noticeable in a way that is humorous" but also "[ C ] disapproving, something that so obviously fails to achieve the effect that was intended that it is stupid". As I said, Parody has negative connotation, it's easy to avoid. About Mock Combat, as  said, staged is more factual and sources say it's a performance. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 10:06, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

OK, have it your way. "Stage" combat it is. Stage combat is a specific type of mock combat, and thus it is a more precise term. And perhaps "parody" is the wrong word after all, as pro wrestling isn't really meant to make fun of real combat sports, it's just theater that never took itself seriously. I'm keeping the word "theater" in because theater is a specific type of performance art, one that include drama (as opposed to, say, stage magic and animal acts).

A little note about references: a paragraph isn't necessarily better because it has lots of references. References merely validate facts, they don't make them relevant. You write good paragraph first, and get references later. This is a mistake too many editors make. A rubbish paragraphs is rubbish no matter how many references you jam in. Kurzon (talk) 08:02, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

A book I just found (Chow et al. 2017) describes pro wrestling as both performance art and theater because their physical feats are real and often painful, whereas stage combat in plays usually involve no injury at all. It's a little weird to me but it seems lots of people don't think performance art and theater are the same thing so I will just roll with it. Kurzon (talk) 08:28, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

"Template:WWE Match Types" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Template:WWE Match Types. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 June 3 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Hog Farm Talk 03:35, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Annotation
Ain't no footnotes in cite like the ref got straight kicked out the ring.

I know this is an article about stage-fighting, in some ways the real-world equivalent of arguing on the Internet, but could someone with a depth of knowledge please spend a couple minutes productively instead by adding reliable external links to tackle some of the long-overdue "citation needed" markers? This is too prominent a topic for how stale some of those have gotten, but it really needs a true fan who is already familiar with other sources on the subject and who can immediately bring to mind the right ones rather than a conventional Wikinerd with no specific attachment to this topic who will just start Bing'ing hopelessly off into the wilderness. Thanks in advance :D — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.66.245.172 (talk) 00:06, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Extremely low quality video
Please stop edit warring to keep low quality home movies in the article. Thanks. MrOllie (talk) 15:45, 31 July 2022 (UTC)


 * I put your video back in, but it's not really appropriate for the History section. Put it somewhere else. Kurzon (talk) 18:18, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
 * It's not my video, I've been removing it. Please revert yourself. You have already breached the WP:3RR. MrOllie (talk) 18:19, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Seen the video, it's described as learning how to run and bounce against the ropes but it's just a lad climbing a turnbuckle and then rolling off. Walloper1980 (talk) 16:15, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Better terminology
Good to have a pro wrestler giving some input. So you don't like the term "choreographed moves". What are better terms? I want something along the line of "pulled punches". I want to say something like "the wrestlers used pulled punches to minimize injury". But obviously you don't just use punches in the ring, so we need a more general term for attacks that are meant to look serious but are actually safe. I don't like "practiced movements" because boxers and MMA fighters also "practice" their movements. Kurzon (talk) 18:22, 8 August 2022 (UTC)


 * I understand your choice and your critique of my choice, however, I see the term "choreographed" as being more of a controlled and well-planned-out performance which contradicts how professional wrestling is sometimes nearly completely improvised (as seen by how workers like Eddie Guerrero or The Rock would sometimes 'call' their matches in the ring and choose their moves by what they felt was necessary in order to get a good response). Of course, there are extremely detailed and choreographed matches (a famous example would be how Randy Savage often scripted his matches to a fine point), nonetheless, the term "choreographed moves" gives off the notion that every single match is completely and professionally rehearsed to me.
 * I used "practiced movements" almost BECAUSE of how boxers and MMA fighters also practice their movements, as there's multiple moves and spots that almost every wrestler should know how to properly execute without one-to-one training sessions before a match. In fact, I believe that it was Juice Robinson in Colt Cabana's "Art of Wrestling Podcast" who stated that working with Japanese-speaking wrestlers is actually pretty easy despite the language barrier due to how most moves are either so well-known and practiced that they could be done without speaking or that the names of the moves were universal (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DGsxTjz0Egw).
 * Of course, there are huge spots in matches which are definitely choreographed and rehearsed, but I just wanted to change the vocabulary to fit almost every match. While I think that the term "cooperative moves" could work, that almost feels too broad in my opinion.
 * I apologize if any of this seems superfluous or if any of my points need to be further explained, but hopefully my point still makes sense. 2601:204:D880:7A90:0:0:0:C54D (talk) 16:09, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

I understand. "Choreography" implies a planned sequence of moves, whereas pro wrestling is largely improvised. Kurzon (talk) 06:44, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

I have settled on "simulated attacks" until I think of something better. Kurzon (talk) 14:55, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Theater or sport?
There have been some disputes with Acekard over the language of the lede, so I want to give everyone the opportunity to lay out their issues here. My only insistence is that pro wrestling be described as theater in the first line. It is not a martial sport like MMA or boxing. Kurzon (talk) 15:09, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
 * We shall await for more people responses before making high changes like the ones have been made, this discussion will begin. In my mind its a combat sport, not a theater, so I am fine with he current revision. TheBellaTwins1445 (talk) 15:26, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Vince McMahon testified in 1989 before the New Jersey Senate that pro wrestling is not a sport. Kurzon (talk) 15:42, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Care to make a few comments? Kurzon (talk) 17:21, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

https://casetext.com/statute/new-jersey-statutes/title-5-amusements-public-exhibitions-and-meetings/chapter-52a/section-52a-1-definitions

N.J. Stat. § 5:2A-1

m. "Professional wrestling" means an activity in which participants struggle hand-in-hand primarily for the purpose of providing entertainment to spectators rather than conducting a bona fide athletic contest. n. "Wrestling" means a bona fide athletic contest in which participants struggle hand-in-hand with the object of winning by throwing an opponent or scoring points and in which any purpose of providing entertainment is secondary.

The state of New Jersey officially recognizes professional wrestling as a non-sport. Shouldn't we do so too? Kurzon (talk) 09:34, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

The book Performance and Professional Wrestling, which is an academic treatise, treats pro wrestling as either a weird form of theater or something really similar to theater.

I don't think pro wrestling counts as performance art because the wrestling is not meant to be artistic. I've read the article on performance art and I don't see pro wrestling in there. Pro wrestling is definitely a performing art, which is a different thing.

Pro wrestling isn't a sport just because it requires serious physical exertion. Ballet requires great physical exertion. A sport is a competition; Wikipedia's own article on sport says so. Kurzon (talk) 07:53, 8 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Professional wrestling is definitely a sport. Its extreme popularity in the United States proves this point.WWE YouTube has over 90 million subscribers and no other sports company even comes close. Also, WrestleMania 38 has over 2 billion views, which is a sign of the popularity of sport of professional wrestling. WWE Lover Fan Forever (talk) 20:42, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Popularity proves nothing. Sport means competition. Wrestling is performance art. Wrestlers aren't athletes, they're stuntmen. Kurzon (talk) 21:54, 9 December 2022 (UTC)


 * In theater or any kind of art, we don't have any injuries, while professional wrestlers get injured more than any other athlete. Even WWE games and other Pro Wrestling games are offered with sports genre.Don't edit my posts,it is an insult to us Pro Wrestling and WWE fans. WWE Lover Fan Forever (talk) 16:27, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

WP:LEAD
This is a sport that started in the 19th century, why am I reading about Youtube in the first paragraph? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:25, 12 December 2022 (UTC)


 * A disruptive user (who has since been blocked from the page) added that. I've reverted them. — Czello 17:32, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
 * That looks better. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:37, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

I'd also like to add (again) that professional wrestling is NOT a sport because it is not authentic competition. In fact, in America is legally classified as not-a-sport (Vince McMahon admitted this to the government to get out of paying taxes lol). Yes, it does involve lots of physical activity that often results in injury, but so does movie stuntwork. I think of wrestlers as more like stuntmen than athletes. Kurzon (talk) 21:07, 12 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Personally I don't like the lead-wording "are not to be considered" (first paragraph), it sounds like instruction to the reader. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:33, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Foreign objects
In the terminology section, there are two links that lead to the "Glossary of professional wrestling terms" page. The one that says "Foreign objects (e.g. folding chair)" is unneeded. 143.44.196.159 (talk) 16:28, 22 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Another redundant link is under the Promos section that reads "Main article: Glossary of professional wrestling terms § Promo". 143.44.196.159 (talk) 17:43, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

WikiFan1012
I absolutely do want to be neutral about wrestling. Pro wrestling is not to my taste, but I am not here to trash it.

Professor Scott Beekman, who wrote one of the books I referenced, is quite unequivocal that Americans found pro wrestling more entertaining when the matches were fixed. I talked with him at length over the topic by email.

The book Wrestling for Dummies by Henry Cejudo (an Olympic wrestler and MMA athlete) treats "amateur wrestling" and "real wrestling" as synonymous because no professional league for authentic wrestling exists in the United States. I then thought I should look at other countries where real wrestling is a popular sport, like Iran.

Kurzon (talk) 05:44, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Oh, and "mock combat" doesn't mean "mockery of combat", it means "fake but without intent to deceive". As in "mock exams". Kurzon (talk) 05:46, 4 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Strongly suspect that WikiFan1012 is a sockpuppet RedWater14. His account was created 1 day after RedWater was blocked from this article, and their editing pattern is similar (both editing this article and combat sports, but also editing Call of Duty: Black Ops, as well as some other similarities). Could be worth taking to WP:SPI. — Czello (music) 07:35, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Done. . GaryColemanFan (talk) 23:55, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Hindi
It's kinda hard to get a citation for things concerning foreign vocabulary. Is it really necessary? I browsed the web with Google Translate asked around on Reddit. On Reddit they tell me that Indians don't have a special term for the WWE sort of wrestling. Indians customarily just use foreign words in that situation, and I've found plenty of sites that use the term propheshenal resailing (प्रोफेशनल रेसलिंग). Put प्रोफेशनल रेसलिंग into Google Images and you'll see pictures of WWE-style wrestlers. Put पेशेवर कुश्ती into Google Images and you'll get pics of freestyle wrestlers. It's not too hard to verify language matters. Kurzon (talk) 10:40, 11 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Redditors wouldn't be a reliable source. Ultimately from what I can see प्रोफेशनल रेसलिंग just translates to "professional wrestling" - which doesn't seem all that notable. I'm not sure why we'd include translations for the term (probably better included at Professional wrestling in India, but again it'd need better sourcing). I'm inclined to remove the statement altogether. — Czello (music) 10:44, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Additionally, please stop deleting citation needed tags unless you're replacing it with a source. It's entering the realms of edit warring at this point. — Czello (<i style="color:#8000FF">music</i>) 10:51, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

It's to emphasize the point that in some other countries, "professional wrestling" means actual wrestling played professionally. Kurzon (talk) 11:45, 11 July 2023 (UTC)