Jump to content

Talk:Triple H/Archive 1

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

Great matches

Someone added this month's elimination chamber as one of H's best matches. I'm not too sure about this. I didn't delete it yet because I don't want to rock the boat, but what do others think about this? Also, I'll have to check into this, but didn't he have some good matches with Kurt Angle before the brand extension that should be in here? --Chrysaor 23:34, 2005 Jan 25 (UTC)

  • Yeah, he's had many more than that as well. -- CMC 07:02, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Add Batista vs. Triple H at Vengeance to the list.

POV?

"The fact that Triple H lost three times in a row in a WrestleMania main event (WrestleMania XX, WrestleMania 21, and WrestleMania 22) does not support his statement, however. As wrestling outcomes are pre-determined, and as heels such as Triple H often lose main events at Wrestlemania, the outcome of such events is negligible; what truly matters is the placing of a wrestler ona card, and the promotion behind him. Triple H, despite lesser popularity than many wrestlers, is always given top billing and always has his matches/rivalries heavily promoted" isnt that kind of POV? is it the result of the biggest main event of the year or just the fact that he is in the main event that matters? that section is very anti HHH in my opinion Lord revan 13:04, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Triple h is a great champion having had won it either ten or eleven times. Though I do wonder if he got the title matches in the first place because he is married to the boss's daughter Vince, Stephanie Mcmahon. I know that to WWE storylines it's said to be that they got divorced in mid 2002 but actually got married for real in 2003, October 23rd at Sleepy Hollow, if you want more proof, she has taken his name, well half to Stephanie Mcmahon-Levesque and in June of 06 thge WWE announced that they'd be having a baby, sex unknown (turned out to be a girl, Aourora Rose Levesque). But during the WWE storyline with Stephanie Mcmahon, wasn't he still in a relationship with chyna, that might explain why chyna suddenly left and disapperred from the faces of pro wrestling. 

K-man-1 10:22, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Number of title wins

"Levesque is described as either a ten-time or eleven-time world champion. He held the WWE Undisputed Championship when it had been consolidated by Chris Jericho but was still represented by two belts. After the two belts had been merged, he won it four more times, and had five reigns as WWF/WWE Champion. Strictly in terms of titles, the total is ten; his World Championship belts, counting both of the two for his first Undisputed Championship, total eleven."

This is stated on the page, so as the WWE see him as only ten so the top part of the artical should still remain as 10 time, and should not be changed. Paulley 15:26, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I made a change to the HHH page on 8/20 by adding in a FACT. It was changed by someone who doesn't know what they are talking about. Who keeps changing "WWE Championship to WWF World Heavyweight Championship?

Teetotaler

Is there a reference to his inclusion to Category:Teetotalers? --Jtalledo (talk) 03:30, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was move. —Nightstallion (?) 10:33, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

Paul Levesque → Triple H – Levesque has wrestled and made television appearances under the stage and ring name "Triple H" consistently since 1996-7. "Paul Levesque" returns 78,500 Google results, while "Triple H" returns 1,060,000. As usual, moving a wrestler article to their ring name will allow far, far more direct linking. McPhail 23:34, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Voting

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your vote with ~~~~

Discussion

Add any additional comments
  • Comment This moves follows the precedent set by many previous moves of "Real Name" to "Stage Name" on wrestling articles. Since this is therefore a non-controversial move that requires admin assistance, I am removing the voting section (as with all non-controversial moves). If you object, please discuss first! --Lox (t,c) 08:46, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Claiming that 'most' of Triple H's Notable Performances were gimmick matches is needlessly critical and inacurrate.

Nicknames

He has been calling himself the "King of Kings" of late but that doesn't mean it's an official "nickname" - I seriously doubt other announcers or other wrestlers will be calling him that either (note, unlike "The Game" or "Cerebral Assassin"). Same goes for "the Greatest Wrestler Alive Today",though he is with a little help from his sledgehammer. calls him "Trips", and thus I've

He's referred to as "The King of Kings" on WWE.com [1]. That's enough to qualify it as an "official" nickname. McPhail 09:09, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
It's also what he called himself to John Cena in a pre-RTWM-tourny final promo, thus setting up the match, which is why I have twice changed that half of 'Return of the Game' to a separate section called 'The King of Kings' but it keeps getting changed back - WHY?! It is a whole new chapter of the HHH saga since he defeated Ric Flair in that feud. That's why I broke up the sections, they were getting too long. Also, Trips is a shortened name, not a nickname, but a lot of people do call him Trips, it doesn't say it has to be a kayfabe nickname, just a nickname and a lot of fans, IWCers and wrestling personalities call him this. Andyroo316
I don't know why anyone ever removed The King Of Kings anyway. It was pretty obvious it was going to be a nickname ever since the Royal Rumble (2006). People just like feeling important by removing things and telling people what is and isn't allowed on Wiki. 217.42.229.18 15:29, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Don't know why it keeps getting deleted, but many of the top Internet sites of 1997 referred to HHH as "Tripple H" when he stopped spelling it out as Hunter Hearst Helmsley. It's in the trivia section, so no reason it shouldn't stay there. It's simply an interesting factoid.

Controversy

  • Please stop re-adding it. It is completely neutral to suggest that he is a controversial figure but cite the sources. The article does not say that HHH DOES hold people down, it simply reports that he has been accused of that by MANY people. HHH himself has acknowledged that people say that about him. It is irrelevant to point out that he's a great performer to supposedly "neutralize" the accusations. That said, I have cleaned the language up to be more "neutral". Bssc81 20:25, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I have changed this section of the article as

it DID say that HHH used backstage politics.. I have made it more neutral. Matt

  • this section is turning into an accusations section and therefore I am removing the mentions of destruction of signs as it irrelevant and unheard of.
  • My comments about David Meltzer should be left in the "Controversy" section. After all, Meltzer is a very respect and legitimate writer in the world of professional wrestling and his outright confirmation of one of Triple H's most henious deeds (sabatoging the career of Chris Jericho) deserves to be included since it is the most damning piece of evidence regarding the wrestler's use of his power to damage the careers of his fellow wrestlers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BakerBaker (talk • contribs)
  • Where is this outright confirmation? Even if it does exsist, the majority of the information that many dirtsheet reporters write there reports based off of backstage "sources" and the majority of pepole backstage allegedly dont like HHH to begin with. So it stands to reason that any "confirmation" ,or any other info that comes from a source may be biased.
As far as Chris Jericho goes...I'm sure every wrestler would love to have their career "sabatoged" to the point where they were sucessful enough to be able to stop wrestling and still support themselves. That was really mean of Triple H to do that to him. (rolls eyes) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.244.215.51 (talk • contribs)
  • Oh great, eye roll comments! And "dirt sheet" comments! Are you sure you aren't Paul Levesque? 'Cause sir, if you are the one behind the comments, need I remind you that Meltzer is a reputable and highly respected writer in terms of covering professional wrestling? It isn't like I'm talking about a Scott Keith or Rick Scaia or any number of "fan" writers out there who write on their own website and make up stories about how they have backstage sources in order to look big in the eyes of their readers. Meltzer's credibility is untouchable in terms of his confirming his sources and not reporting baseless rumors as facts.
As for Jericho, yeah he made his money but at the same time you think he quit the WWE because he was tired of wrestling? I'm sure the fact that Triple H going out of his way to ensure that Jericho would be nothing more than a glorified jobber to the stars or the humiliation angles Triple H's wife came up with that Jericho had to endure every time his career started to gain momentum had something to do with him saying "Screw This!! I'm going to retire and play in my band/Do pop culture commentary for VH1" to the WWE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BakerBaker (talk • contribs)

BakerBaker I agree with you, the other guy is HHH himself. He chats bull crap and Y2J is the man, so stop sucking HHH penis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.10.93.147 (talk • contribs)

  • Did I say anything about Meltzer not being higly reputable? Thank you for putting words into my mouth. Besides, I was not questioning Meltzer's only the information he recieves from his "sources". You can be the most honorable person in the world but that doesnt change the fact that you would be getting all ready twisted information from the same individuals that arent where HHH is. So it would be very easy for them to simply say that he is holding them all down instead of him being just plain better than most.
Oh btw, Im sure that's why Jerico quit WWE. Im sure it wasnt wrestling 15 yrs with out an extended break or having done all that you ever wanted to do in your career and being mentally burned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.244.215.51 (talk • contribs)
  • Oh my god BG James and Kip James piss me off so much. They sound like a bunch of cry babys in there interviews, "triple h this" "triple h that". May I remind you BG is a former drug addict. Yea.
To add to another thing, triple h hasent had a title scnice arpil 2005 and recent storylines show hes not geting another shot anytime soon. And how the hell did he sabatoge the career of jericho? The guy busts his ass every day for a year training his quad when he tore it and it went to show how much he loves this buisness. He won the title when he came back from jericho and what held it for a month? Thats what vince saw in him and he respects that and I think thats the reason hes one of the wwes top guys. And Vince might leave the buisness to him, his wife Stephanie (Vince's daughter) and son Shane. I believe Shane shouldn't get anything all he does is act like a minime of vince and prances round in the ring like a TEENAGER HIGH ON CRACK!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.47.81.10 (talk • contribs)

I respect Triple H's ability and his dedication. He has worked long and hard to accomplish what he's accomplished. Professional wrestling is his life, but no one is going to convince me that he hasn't used politics, at least to some degree, backstage to further his own career. After he started sleeping with the boss' daughter, his career started to shoot into orbit. Prior to his involvement with Stephanie, his career was respectable and successful, but nothing compared to what's happened since then. Up until a little over a year ago, basically Wrestlemania, you couldn't pry the world title out of Triple H's hands with the jaws of life and that'd pretty much been exactly how it had been since he'd been presented with the title by Eric Bischoff. He'd loose the title for a few weeks, maybe a month, then he'd regain it. Up until last year, after he was defeated by Batista at WM, Triple H carried the title for the VAST majority of the time. Since Triple H has been without the world title, Raw's weekly ratings have increased. wrestling fans do enjoy seeing someone else other than Triple H in the spotlight and carrying the strap or maybe it's because DX hane reunited, now all we need is Chyna back, then she's in love triple h but triple h's is love with stephanie mcmahon, as she is his wife for real, and then steph is all like he's mine and they have a match with triple h the special guest referee then test shows up and him and chyna are all wanting revenge for having been cheated on. And there they challenge steph and the game to a hell in a cell mixed tag team match. Which triple h and his wife obviously win. (according to wwe storylines, he was about to marry stephanie until triple h showed a tape where he drugged steph and married her. He ordered vince to give him a title shot, yep that's vince as in the boss, the most powerful man in the business or he wouldn't sign annulment - bravo triple h pure brilliance)


Odin's Beard 02:12, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd say alot of the controversy is baseless and probably invented by people. While people used to be critical of Triple H because he was champion and many fans would love to see WWE run out of business, so it seems likely they at least invented some of the stuff. If you've ever read some of those news websites where what qualifies for an objective column is glorifying Total Nonstop Action and criticizing WWE at any opportunity despite the fact that TNA does the things they criticize WWE for to an even greater extent than WWE ever has, you'd agree that not just anywhere can be trusted. Some of the controversy is important to a discussion of Triple H but there isn't too much evidence that he's holding people down when he's spent 3 years in a row losing at Wrestlemania in the main event to make his opponents into stars and he's currently involved in a feud with a bunch of rookies and along with Shawn Michaels has really jumpstarted the careers of the Spirit Squad. Triple H came into Wrestlemania this year going for the belt, with the fans mostly on his side because they hated John Cena at the moment despite Cena being pushed as the face and HHH being pushed as the heel and he still lost the match at Wrestlemania to Cena and lost again the next month at Backlash. A few more losses to Cena and he's never getting another title shot according to the storyline. It seems far more likely that he was made the champion for a few years while the WWE tried to create as many top stars as they could. During 2003, when fans were most critical of Triple H, the opponents he faced included Scott Steiner, a wrestler who wore himself out 5 minutes into the first match of the feud and botched move after move, Booker T, who actually did a decent job against Triple H who made him look good at Wrestlemania while keeping the belt because Booker T was a midcarder at that point, Kevin Nash, a wrestler who can barely move around the ring, and Goldberg, a wrestler who hasn't drawn any heat since 1998. Goldberg actually got a run with the title, which was awful, and ended with Triple H mercifully regaining the belt. I think there are some people who would say that Steiner, Nash, and Goldberg are great wrestlers but that is clearly inaccurate. The most memorable thing I've seen Nash do in the 4 years I've watched wrestling was when he entered the X-Division with a "Size Matters" catchphrase in TNA for about 2 weeks before they cut the angle when they realized how much it exposed the X-Division. The most memorable thing Steiner has done that I've seen was a debate over the Iraq War where Steiner compared France to Hell in 2003 and then when the Harvard Graduate Chris Nowinski corrected him, Steiner jumped him; during this feud, Nowinski would end up with a career ending concussion and has never returned to WWE TV. As for Goldberg, he finished out his WWE run by going into Wrestlemania XX and wrestling the worst match anybody who saw it could remember when he stared at his opponent Brock Lesnar for almost the entire match. Both guys were leaving WWE and referee Stone Cold Steve Austin gave them both stunners after the match ended. After that, Lesnar's previous accomplishments were forgotten by fans and Goldberg's title run is fairly forgotten now. 76.1.44.60 14:46, 16 July 2006 (UTC) 

Anyway he's GREAT.

Well, you sir are the most delusional wrestling fan I've ever seen. It isn't even worth replying to anything you've said because you clearly have no understanding of what is going on at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.151.44.235 (talk • contribs)

A lot of the discussion in this section is unrelated to the article. The talk page is meant to discuss changes to the article, not arguing about Chris Jericho being better than Triple H. HorseApples 00:25, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Trivia

I deleted "*Levesque faced Mick Foley in Foley's two "retirement matches" in 2000 at the Royal Rumble and No Way Out.", because it was not factually correct. Only their match at No Way Out was considered a "Retirement" match.

Please be civil. With regards to the information you added that was deleted by someone, I agree that your information is indeed relevant to the article therefore I re-inserted it. Please remember that if a consensus has decided the information is relevant, than no ONE editor should take it upon himself to delete it out of hand. Please discuss all thoughts here. Thanks! TruthCrusader 14:14, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, man. But it seems our friend, Chadbryant enjoys to continuosly delete this information from Triple H's article. For the time being I guess it will stay omitted. Jman5 01:24, 5 April 2006 (UTC) Who keeps changing The WWE championship to "WWF World heavyweight championship" Jeez thats what it once was called but not anymore.

Backlash Poster

Can anyone tell me, why the backlash 2006 poster was deleted. I did not upload this image, however I suppose it was kinda cool to look at. I guess I can see how someone could see this as a threat to contiuing to not show spoilers (in even this kind of way), but whatever.Jman5 04:22, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Yo, in reference to the picture, that was me who added it. and I do agree, since the picture is displayed on the Backlash page and no-one's changed it there. Adamaniac 10:14, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Once again, I posted the cpyright for it and it's all good. There's just a bunch of fussy people out there (see the below topic) who have to get everything exactly right or else we'll all die. Adamaniac 04:41, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Article Size

This article is a frequent target for unregistered or new editors to add a week-by-week synopsis of the subject's in-ring career. This is irrelevant to an encyclopedic article. More experienced good-faith editors should watch for irrelevant additions to this article that will only serve to make it larger and harder to edit for style, clarity, and grammar. - Chadbryant 19:56, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

And who is the person who determines if something is 'relevant'? YOU? I don't think so. The information must be reached by consensus. And if you make edits claiming grammar or style reverts than you better well post EXACTLY what you mean by it. TruthCrusader 15:25, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

First of all, Assume good faith. The whole point is that anyone can edit the article and help determine what exactly is relevant. Chad is making a good faith effort to make this article comprehensive. Just chill out. :) --Jtalledo (talk) 23:15, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I kinda agree, this makes the article less consistent as far as showing plenty of new information, but less of the past. Jman5 23:01, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Chadbryant is absolutely right. The fact that Triple H had a match on RAW this week is not a reason for somebody to race to Wikipedia and add another paragraph. Though this is hardly the only wrestling article to suffer from this phenomenon. Bcarlson33 01:23, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I believe that while we have the brief histories of past rivalries, until the wrestler in question moves to another 'chapter' in their career that the information should be from every week until, as aforementioned, they move onto another rivalry. Adamaniac 4:39, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Triple H is currently 37k in size. There are United States Presidents with articles that aren't that big. Suffice to say, an encyclopedia entry regarding a a professional wrestler (even one as prolific and influential as Hunter) probably doesn't need a week-by-week synposis of the subject's career in pretending to beat people up - or one that subsequently balloons in size every time he pretends to beat up someone different. Bcarlson33 is right in that this isn't the only article that suffers from what some here have called "fandalism", which is why I've made several comments similar to my original size comment here on other talk pages, including the one at WP:PW. - Chadbryant 23:29, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
As far as size goes, doesn't really seem to be much of a factor. 37k is not extremely large for a professional wrestler. For example Shawn Michaels' article is 41k in size, as is Chris Benoit's, and several others. Jman5 02:47, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I think it is important however to mention Triple H's recent possible "tweener" turn at it has been stated on Rajah.com that Triple H has spoke out about being willing to play a face for the rest of his career. Therefore I think it is worth a mention i will post the link regarding the interview also.

I think that matches should only be added if they are important matches K-man-1 10:26, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I recently noticed the Triple H article changed a lot. Some one changed it to "Triple H can't wrestle. He just uses the same sledgehammer of doom" Does anyone know who did this? Is this vandalism

I have no idea who did this, but I edited it so that the beginning is back up. It would be helpful if you guys help me get back our hard work up! - Obscure888

Triple H vs Undertaker

I know they had this feud at WM 17 that HHH has beaten everybody but Taker. But has HHH ever beaten Taker since? Perry 01:04, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

HHH beat Undertaker at the UK pay-per-view Insurrextion 2002. --Oakster 14:08, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
He also beat him in a no DQ match on SmackDown in July 2000, but I'm not sure if it counts because Kurt Angle hit Taker with a sledgehammer. tv316 21:28, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

World Heavyweight Title

Is it just me, or should the World Heavyweight Title and the WWF World Heavyweight title tables be merged. There one in the same, arn't they?? --Killswitch Engage 19:13, 30 March 2006 (UTC)Killswitch Engage

The WWE Championship is the main title defended on the WWE Raw Brand & the World Heavyweight Championship is the main title defended on the WWE Smackdown Brand. They are two separate belts/titles.- A. Love Hey can someone from TNA go for the World Heavyweight Title? Just asking since its a world title

No becouse its just a name made up by the WWE, Just like the World Series does not have teams from around the world. DXRAW 11:12, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Putting Guys Over =

I added a small section under "controversy" regarding Triple H doing the "right thing" for business. I'm at work, and can't get to the site I got it from due to restrictions, but if anyone wants to, it's World Wrestling Insanity, and the WrestleMania recap show (April 3rd) with Tom Pritchard.

now the tittle triple has been a 10 time tittle holder not the intercontenential championships people only care about world heavyweights and wwe championships

Brother?

Is there a source that says Triple H has a brother? I haven't seen that he has any other siblings besides his sister Lynn. Can someone please verify this? Thanks User:MgTurtle Apr.14,2006.

I just did a Google search for the phrase "Triple H's brother" and got a bunch of forums with posts saying that his brother is 1) in the "DX band" or 2) "in Motorhead." Looked on Motorhead's site and I couldn't really find a band member list /shrug. They are probably both just rumors. --Naha|(talk) 16:05, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
in triple h's book,the making the game one,he says that he has a sister but i forgot if he said he has a brother...
I had a magazine that was dedicated to Triple H, and it never mentioned a brother; just his sister. OsFan 22:58, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Is there any source that says that Paul Levesque has a real girlfriend? I thought all the Stephanie McMahan plotline stuff faded so abruptly b/c Levesque started dating that girl he met when he did that audience question/answer thing in 2002? Didn't I hear somewhere that "triple H" was trying to make a better effort to separate the WWE storyline from his actual life?

Well, since it is unclear when whis is added, but presumably after 26th of April, I'll note that no, Triple H doesn't have a girlfriend, he has a wife. Stephanie McMahon-Levesque, daughter of Vincent K. McMahon, and mother of Triple H's daughter Aurora Rose.

Moved

On 2004 May 11 User:Dale Arnett changed

Paul Levesque

presumably with good cause to

Jean Paul Michael Levesque

but on 2004 Aug 6 User:24.193.72.148 [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Paul_Levesque&diff=5083620&oldid=5030553 removed] "Jean".

Each edit made no other changes and lacked a summary.

IMO inexperienced editors are more likely to conclude without justification, from inability to find evidence to the contrary, that a name is inapplicable, than to mistakenly accept false evidence that it is the fact that they love trouser trout.

Further reasons for accepting Dale's judgement for now are

  • registered and experienced editor without an obvious problem history.
  • frequent contributor to this article.
  • stood about 3 months w/o challenge.
  • "Jean", a female-looking foreign-language name, is likely to confuse some youthful WWF fans and thus likely to have been intentionally left out of most potential sources.
  • the other half of Dale's edit is uncontested.
  • although the pattern is different, the article has previously been subject to persistent IP vandalism.

I've restored "Jean"; documentation for it would make at least me more confident in that decision.
--Jerzy(t) 16:20, 2004 Aug 16 (UTC)

IMO Dale's experience as an editor does not necessarily represent his knowledge of professional wrestling. while i wont change it due to the fact i am new here and people probably wont accept it, his name is in fact only Paul Levesque. there are many outdated sources on the INTERNET, especially form the "attitude" era of popularity who report his name as jean-paul. this is INCORRECT, and i believe it comes from the fact he wrestled under the name Jean-Paul Levesque prior to his WWE career.

Actually no i will change it, please discuss with me if you feel differently. -Cody Razor, 6th November 2004

from The_Terry. His real name is Paul Michael Levesque. Jean Paul was given to him in WCW for his French gimmick that he had there. He has mentioned more then once that his true name is Paul Michael Levesque. On TV (Wayne Brady and Carson Daily), in print interviews(flex magazine for one example) and in his book. (In his book he talks about WCW modifying his real name for that Character.)

On the WWE corporate page he is refereed to Paul Levesque, and If one goes to the United States Patent and Trademark site, and looked up Triple H. They will see this "The name(s), portrait(s), and/or signature(s) shown in the mark identifies Paul Levesque, whose consent(s) to register is submitted."

For anything that is relating to Triple H or HHH.


Another thing is his height. He is 6'4. A good article/interview: http://www.triplehunleashed.com/info/archives/flex.html

Im sorry if this pisses you off but please see this thread http://www.celebheights.com/s/Triple-H-2222.html on www.celebheights.com he is 6'2.5"

4 title Combo

Hopefully i didn't screw up the facts when i rewrote the description of his titles; someone who knows what they're doing should check.

The article is about Levesque, not the combination of 4 titles, so i cut back

He is only the second of five wrestlers to have held all four of those titles, the first being Shawn Michaels.

to

He is only the second of five wrestlers to have held all four of those titles.

Write an article about that combo, at least listing the five holders (and their tag-team partners), and explaining why the 4 make an interesting combo, how the significance of the combo has evolved over time, & so on. Both Levesque's and Michaels's articles should link to it. (I'd start it but putting all 4 titles names into the article title won't fly: someone who knows a shorthand term for the combo should start it.) That's why we have links between articles: there's no point in mentioning "Michaels did it first" in each article, if you can learn the whole story by linking to an article on that topic.

Worst case, if there's really no name for the 4-title combo, put it in an omnibus article called Combinations of fake-wrestling titles.
--Jerzy(t) 07:19, 2004 Dec 21 (UTC)

I think that it is actually called the Grandslam championship.87.112.81.177 10:20, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

It is called The Grandslam, but that term is now meaningless as there is no more European Title. It was absorbed into the Intercontinental Championship in 2002 by Rob Van Dam beating Jeff Hardy in a title for title match.

Face Turn

After leaving officiating the Cena Kenny Match and that akward staredown then the Shrug micheals did, was this Triple H's Face turn? Is he now a face? he has been getting fan support like a Face, now that he somewhat helped Cena retain by leaving the ring and not counting the match, could he now be called a face?

We will have to wait and see until next RAW i guess. Lord revan 19:35, 3 May 2006 (UTC) PS: please sign your comments.

HHH was already face when he was in DX with Shawn Michaels.76.110.82.251 17:37, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I am going to remove the Levesque-Online link for now as the site was hacked by an idiot Cena fan so now the site only reads HAHAHAHACENASTILLDACHAMP, i don't think people will be in the mood to see this when they want to see a Triple H fansite so i will remove it untill the problem has been fixed.

DX Return?

Added some DX pics. Not sure if tagged right. Edit if necessary.

Religious Reference

Whoever keeps putting that"title reserved for Jesus Christ" line in here, stop it. It adds nothing to this artice about Triple H, so cut it out.

Yeah,Ireckon we need some DX pics.DX rocks!

Major POV stuff in 'Controversy' section

Jericho is such a wrestler, who after lots of hard work finally got his deserved title run, only to have it stolen by a returning Triple H who hadn't step foot in a ring for eight months. When he returned he did everything in his power to bury Chris Jericho, who could have had a wonderful career.

Um, that's got to go, right?

It has been reported that there were some people backstage upset at Triple H because he was pushing for Edge to lose the title to Cena at Royal Rumble to line himself up for a title match with Cena at WrestleMania (his 3rd Wrestlemania main event in a row). Many people thought that Edge was doing very well as champion and had managed to get himself over with the fans. But his deserved reign was cut short due to Triple H's ego, who can't pass on the spotlight to someone more deserving.

Not only is it unsourced (and probably unsourceable, if that's even a word :P ) it is vehemently anti-Triple H. I realize the section is called 'Controversy' but that doesn't mean it has to become home for out-and-out attacks. Tromboneguy0186 18:22, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

But these facts are true and were repoted by dirtsheets. Also you would have to be highly unfair not to notice HHH politics. Look at the WWE right now, only pathetic wrestlers are pushed so HHH stays the top guy. If anyone shows potential, then he squashes him, cough cough Randy Orton. So stop deleting actual concerns. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.10.93.147 (talk • contribs)

Physique Changes

Is it just me, or is Triple H a lot less cut than he used to be, say 2 years or 3 years ago? I mean he's still in great shape and all, he looks to be about the same size as he always was but he doesn't look as if he has the same level of muscular definition that he used to have.

Perhaps. I guess some of that could be contributed to the fact that he will be 37 in July. That and with him being so involved with the booking process he just might not have as much time to devote to the gym. Basbalfrk 22:13, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I think the reason he doesn't have six-pack abs is because he had a groin tear in 2003 and can't do situps. Never took time off for surgery either. Maestro25 02:28, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

If you look at HHH's old D-X photos, and look at his recent photos, you will find tow different things, 1)He is not pale like he used to be. 2)He has actually put on more muscle on his shoulders and chest area. have you noticed it looks bigger than it used to?

Triple H is not allowed to use steroids as much as he used to. This will be the primary reason for his loss in size since he was at his peak at his return in 2002.(Halbared 19:25, 16 June 2006 (UTC))

Here we go again with steroids. Why is it that whenever some one gets smaller or bigger, its always steroids? The guy is almost 37. Like I said, maybe his body is just breaking down because of age. Basbalfrk 04:50, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Because in the WWE it usually is steroids, that's why. HHH was a huge steroid abuser (I doubt he is on them as much now). He was older in 2002 than he was in 98 obviously, and when he came back it showed that he hitting them hard. Now with the tests he doesn't use them as much. His physique came from steroids. About 90% of the WWE roster was on them a few years ago.(Halbared 20:26, 19 June 2006 (UTC))

About the issue on steroids, if you look in his book "Making the Game", you will notice that he has never done any drugs or drank in his life because he doesn't want to mess up his body. The steroids deal is totally fictional.--68.107.198.227 21:19, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

And wrestlers are always 100% truthful and honest aboot their personal lives in autobios? Yeah, right.(Halbared 09:22, 20 June 2006 (UTC))
Why would he need a reason to lie about something like that? Read his book and you will see from early on when he was very young, he worked for what he got. He didn't try to cheat his way to a better body. Besides, what credibility do you have to accuse Triple H of steroids? Got some documented proof?--68.107.198.227 03:24, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

There's no proof that I know of that he has used them and no proof that he hasn't, only his word. Only problem is that athletes aren't exactly forthcoming when it comes to admitting steroid use, especially with the stygma hanging over baseball most of the past 10 years, so you honestly can't blame people for being suspicious. Fairest thing to say is that I don't know if he's ever used them or not. Odin's Beard 02:33, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Every single WWE superstar I know that was on steroids has admitted it at some point or another. And I have another thing to say. When a wrestler goes on hiatus and they're physique enhances, Halbared, do you think "Oh look they've been working out." or "STEROID ABUSER!" because from what I've read you think the second one about Triple H, you dont care whether they have actually been to the Gym, you just think the worst about them. This may not be true but from the impression you have given me, it either is true or you just want to verbally attack Triple H. K-man-1 10:38, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Whoa, hold up here. First off, don't tell me what I think and what I don't. If I completely thought that he was juicing up, I'd come right out and say it. The fair thing for me to say is just that, I don't know whether he uses or not. As for the issue about me not blaming people for thinking that he might use or has used them in the past, just look at the history of pro wrestlers and steroid usage. Superstar Billy Graham Hulk Hogan, The Ultimte Warrior, Lex Luger, The Road Warriors, Scott Steiner, and I can go on and on. He says he's never used them and maybe hasn't, and maybe he has. I don't know whether I believe him or not. Odin's Beard 01:42, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone (apart from the Great Khali) have a bigger chest than HHH? I dont think so.

I thinks so... Batista SKRIBUL 21:24, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
There have been lots of wrestlers, both past and present, that have or at least just as large. Superstar Billy Graham, Andre The Giant, The Great Khali, Scott Steiner, Ken Patera, Mark Henry, Vader, Batista, Ron Simmons, Lex Luger, etc. I mean, c'mon people, Triple H is a big guy but he's not some gargantuan freak of nature. Odin's Beard 00:55, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I myself doubt that Triple H is on steroids. He probably just hasn't been hitting the gym as much as he used to. Just because he becomes bigger or smaller is no reason to assume that he's on steroids. He's getting older anyway. Son of Kong

Due to HHH's stance on drugs I doubt he has ever used steriods. Big Boss 0 03:07, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

put in DX Return? break

there was no break inbetween the kiss my ass and the talk of dx so i added in the chapter thing

I think HHH's chest is still pretty huge...but not as huge as that Smakedown fella...whats his name,you know...The Great Ghali or something...

Week-by-Week Additions

Somebody needs to go and clean this up, it's like a weekly update with anything happening to him beeing added. I don't thing it needs a week by week update. TJ Spyke 02:15, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Weekly updates are good for msg boards, not for encyclopaedias.(Halbared 14:59, 13 June 2006 (UTC))
If done correctly, a week-by-week addition can be useful, although so many updates on wrestling — and other mainstream current events pages, for that matter — are so poorly written I'm not sure. Eventually, I think that as feuds progress, you'll see editing and mass consolidation of feuds. IMO, I think editors need to be selective in what they contribute. [[Briguy52748 14:54, 13 June 2006 (UTC)]] (P.S. — Then again, the current "DX Reunion" section/feud with the McMahons/Spirit Squad could use some trimming).

I completely agree there. K-man-1 10:39, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Week-by-week additions can be useful if the correct info is given and the addition is well written. They are still not encyclopedic though. Constant updates on a current event is one thing - it's easier to go in after the event is over and summarize things. Someone's life tends to last longer than most current events though. A biography should be fairly static and should concentrate on a real-life view of the subject. --Jtalledo (talk) 11:11, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Like I said for The HBK page, you should just make a new article on his matches and link it to this one. Emi211

D-Generation X pic

I added a picture of D-Generation X reunited because it was a big part of 2006 for Triple H. -Mike kelly09

D-X week by week

I realize that the return of D-X and the Vengeance match are both significant, but can we please stop adding paragraphs about their weekly antics? This could get excessive VERY soon.

Dead Zone

Changed the dead zone part in TV Films and such to make it when you click the dead zone it brings you to the TV show not the book. Overlordneo 02:36, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Height

Triple H is really about 6'3 1/2-6'4, he's not 6'2. Son of Kong

Look at when he was face to face with a 6'6 JBL at Wrestlemania 21, he is definitely about 6'3 1/2 or 6'4. If he were only 6'2 he would've looked like a midget compared to JBL like Ric Flair but he was almost eye to eye with Triple H.

Most wrestlers wear boots with one to two inch heels, or insert lifts into their boots to appear taller. - Chadbryant 00:59, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Triple H's height is stated as 6 ft 4 in on WWE.com and 6 ft 2 in on IMBD. On celebheights he is 6 ft 3 in. I think this middle road is the best one to take asince it doesn't inflate his height by too much. On the pic I posted with the eye to eye stare down with the 6 ft 3 inch Goldberg he appears the same height. In a conflicting situation here with different sources I would favour taking the mean road myself and go for the height in between, 6 ft 3 in.(Halbared 11:46, 7 September 2006 (UTC))

WWE have been shown to have incorrect stats, ie, Hogan, Andre and Kurt Angle to name a few. That is why they are not reliable, and I put forward the proposal to use the mean of 6 ft 3 in,.(Halbared 12:16, 7 September 2006 (UTC))

And your source for that is? DXRAW 04:38, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Since most of the wrestling profiles are using billed heights and weights is it neccesary to have Triple H's real and billed heights posted? (JamX3K 11:18, 30 September 2006 (UTC))

Tripper is a tall bloke, but he wasn't taller than Goldberg. As evidenced in this eyeballing. http://www.onlineworldofwrestling.com/pictures/08/hhhgoldberg.jpg (Halbared 16:02, 12 June 2006 (UTC))

Re: Actually, he looks about a freckle taller than Goldberg in that picture (if not the same height). It might be his hair though, as Goldberg is bald...

Yeah I agree, his hair prolly gives him 1cm on Goldberg. I would say they are pretty even eithout it. HHH's eyeline is lower than G's, but he could have a bigger forehead:oD(Halbared 09:37, 27 June 2006 (UTC))

Triple H is probably 6'3 while Goldberg is 6'3 1/2 or 6'4. Triple H is no where near being shorter than 6'3. Son of Kong

hhh is 6'2, he wears 2 inch boots to appear 6'3(most shoes give a 1 an a half inch in height) he does look 6'3 in most pics aswell. an him an JBL, JBL is 6'7, an he looked huge compared to hhh

RFC (Request For Comments)

For the height of Triple H. Please do not revert.(Halbared 12:18, 7 September 2006 (UTC))

I propose that we have the height put at 6 ft 3 in, which is the mean between the two sourced heights, and the height that the profile has been at for some time.Halbared 13:23, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

His WWE profile lists him as 6'4". Even though this is a kayfabed stat, it should probably be used instead of a mean or an estimate. - Chadbryant 19:16, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
We should use only Reliable sources and wwe.com would have that. One other unreliable source that has been used is just people guessing heights. DXRAW 22:18, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

put it as 6 ft. 4 per chadbyrant.i am snape.i killed innocent bugs. 23:48, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

A similar discussion is taking place here [2]. It would be beneficial if some overall consensus could be reached, as it has implications beyond this article. Sasaki 02:09, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Halbared, you already did this with Dave Batista's height. We came to the conclusion that WWE.com is the REALIABLE SOURCE, not this Third Party Celebheights site.

WWE.com is kayfabe, but it proves more reliable than Celebheights--or any other site, for that matter.

WwE.com should be used, like it has been before Celebheights had an "epiphany" to bug Wikipedians.

Just STOP with the stupid height junk, Halbared, please?? It is taking up time and is TOTALLY+COMPLETELY unnecessary. Thank you! (Note: my point is that Halbared does this frequently with Wrestler's heights. So this should not really be taken seriously, in my opinion...) --Cookie 21:34, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Triple H

In re categories deleted by User:Mikedk9109:

User:Mikedk9109: Please explain why you insist on referring to Triple H as an entertainer and not a sportsperson. Isn't wrestling a sport??

Also why did you delete French Americans as a category; isn't Levesque clearly a French surname??

O'Donoghue 18:39, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Even the WWE refer to their roster as 'Sports Entertainers' (or Extremists), not as sportspersons. While I think it would be difficult to deny that they're athletes, they're certainly there to entertain us, not to put on a sports exhibition.

By Obscure888: An unknown user vandalized Triple H's page, stating "Triple can't wrestle. He just uses that sledgehammer of doom.", erasing everything. I am trying to get back part of it up. So far, I have only gotten the beginning up, though.

Pictures

There's too many fair use pictures (about 9) and the usage of some of them probably isn't covered under Wikipedia:Fair use. Some of them should be removed. --Jtalledo (talk) 01:26, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Two of our younger editors are insisting on including multiple fair-use images. WP:FUC specifies that:
The material must contribute significantly to the article (e.g. identify the subject of an article, or specifically illustrate relevant points or sections within the text) and must not serve a purely decorative purpose.
As of my last edit, the article includes one free image and one fair-use image. It is held that fair-use images should be used *very* sparingly, and certainly not in excess. - Chadbryant 00:49, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I support this. There's WAY too many fair-use images. Whatever person keeps adding them needs to STOP. Maybe we ought to put up a warning, so then after that the user can be warned. This should NOT be acceptable. --Cookie 04:16, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Having reviewed the current reverts, and WP:FUC, I think the pedigree image is a useful one - it illustrates what the move is and adds content to the article. If anything, the other image could be removed. I think that two fair use is reasonable on an article of this length, but I would support any aims to stop the number from multiplying.
Furthermore, I would urge ALL users on this page to make use of this talk - there's been a lot of reverting going on, which is not a healthy way to act on Wikipedia. --Robdurbar 08:02, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Good idea, but never be afraid to be bold. --Jtalledo (talk) 17:53, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
NO; be bold refers only to first making a change. If it is reverted, or if you want to revert a change more than 1nce, then it really is the 'Wikipedia-way' to use the talk page.
It is a shame though that neither Mike nor Chad are using this talk to discuss the issue anymore. As I say, I think that two pictures is a reasonable compromise. This really all hangs on the definition of the word 'sparing'. As someone who knows little to nothing about professional wrestling, however, a picture of the Pedigree is very useful - it actually shows what the move is and it shows Triple H in action. Robdurbar 23:15, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

World Championships

Listing the WWE Undisputed Championship reign seperately would show that the title itself is different and it's not. In the title history on WWE.com, the title is recognized as the same as the WWE Championship. This is further backed up on the DVD The History Of The WWE Championship. Odin's Beard 00:52, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

WWE.com invariably refers to HHH winning and holding the Undisputed Championship, not the WWE Championship. Retroactively referring to HHH's fifth title reign as a WWE Championship reign ignores the fact that the title represented the merger of the WCW Championship and the WWE Championship. Watch the event; after winning, he doesn't hold up one belt, he holds up two. The Undisputed Championship and WWE Championship have overlapping lineages but are not the same title. McPhail 00:58, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

The history of the WWE Championship on WWE.com do not list them as seperate championships. http://www.wwe.com/inside/titlehistory/wwechampionship/

As I have stated on several occasions, that is because the lineage of the titles overlaps. Read any accounts of the WM 18 main event on WWE.com and the belt in question is clearly identified as the Undisputed Championship. McPhail 01:03, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
As I have stated on several occassions, the WWE has rewritten the history of the Undisputed Championship. After they decided to have a World title on each of the Raw and Smackdown Brands, the WWE Undisputed Championship lineage was incorporated into the lineage of the WWE Championship. If they were a seperate title, then the titles would be divided on WWE.com. They're not, so they're the same title. Odin's Beard 01:06, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia does not rewrite history. Moreover, WWE.com clearly states that HHH won the Undisputed Championship at WM 18. This is reinforced by a viewing of the event. McPhail 01:12, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
WrestleMania 18 happened over 4 years ago. Wikipedia reports history, even if it's been rewritten by the source which, in this case, the WWE can do. The title belongs to the WWE so they can do with it what they please. They can rewrite the history of a championship anyway that they desire. If it's current WWE canon that the title is part of the traditional WWE Championship lineage, then it's the same title. Odin's Beard 01:15, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia reports facts, not WWE's version of facts. Triple H won the WWF/E Undisputed Championship at WM 18, not the WWF/E Championship. This is not open to debate. 11:36, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
WWE has the facts thou DXRAW 11:57, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
May I direct people's attention here? [3] McPhail states It does, however, state that "The rights to the AWA are purchased by Dale Gagne; the promotion reopens as the AWA Superstars of Wrestling." If you consult the first link I provided, you will see that AWA Superstars of Wrestling has chosen to recognise Hogan as champion, which is their prerogative. Given that you are fully supporting revisionist history as encyclopedic there, I find it somewhat contradictory that you are not supporting it here. Sasaki 22:35, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
The AWA is retroactively recognising Hogan's victories over Bockwinkel. Nothing has been revised. Odin's Beard appears to feel that WWE has the authority to rewrite history, and that Wikipedia should mindlessly parrot WWE.com regardless of any evidence to the contrary. Claiming that HHH won the WWE Championship, not the Undisputed Championship, at WM 18 is a patent falsitude. It simply isn't true. Whether or not the Undisputed Championship shares a lineage with the WWE Championship or was renamed the WWE Championship is irrelevant - HHH won the Undisputed Championship - identified by WWE.com not as the WWE Championship, but as a union of the WWE and WCW Championships - at WM 18, and there is ample evidence to support this. Were this revisionism centred on a political issue rather than a wrestling one, Odin's Beard's dogmatic adherence to current scholarship would be serious cause for concern. McPhail 00:01, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
As DXRAW just stated, the WWE has the facts. It's the WWE's Championship. The articles concerning a championship that they own has to reflect the facts as the WWE sees them. I can't seem to state this enough. It's their championship, they can do whatever they please with it. Like for instance, when Andre The Giant "awarded" the title to Ted DiBiase back in 1988 after defeating Hulk Hogan during a match on Saturday Night's Main Event, DiBiase has never been recognized as a WWE Champion. He isn't part of the lineage despite actually carrying the championship belt for a week. The WWE Championship is a "fictional" championship to begin with. The WWE literally owns the title, they can do whatever they wish with it. Also, on WWE.com, there's a section devoted to the entire lineage history of every champion of every Championship in the WWE. The only title absent is the WWE Undisputed Championship because it's the same title as the WWE Championship. If it wasn't, then it would have it's own history just like the Intercontinental Championship, World Heavyweight Championship, and so on. After Brock Lesnar went to Smackdown exclusively, this left Raw without the capacity to have a World Championship. Hence, the title was disputed, it was not longer undisputed. Eric Bishoff presented the World Heavyweight Championship to Triple H and all references of Brock Lesnars title as the Undisputed WWE Championship was dropped. It reverted back to being called the WWE Championship. Odin's Beard 23:34, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
WWE.com also refers to every instance of "WWF" as "WWE"; again, Wikipedia does not participate in revisionism. Once again, Triple H won the WWF/E Undisputed Championship at WM 18, not the WWF/E Championship. This is not open to debate. WWE.com is not an absolute authority where title reigns are concerned because they have revised the history of both the Light Heavyweight and Cruiserweight Championships. McPhail 23:55, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry but it is open to debate. You want to put inaccurate information into an article. You're going to have to back up your view with more than a reference to a pay per view. I don't know how I can make it any more simple. The WWE recognizes that Undisputed Championship and WWE Championship shares the same lineage, that they're the same championship. After Brock Lesnar went to Smackdown, the Undisputed Championship was dissolved in name. The World Heavyweight Championship was created and the Undisputed WWE Championship reverted back to the WWE Championship. The WWE just put out a new DVD chronicling the history of the WWE Championship. Even the DVD recognizes the Undisputed and WWE Championships as one in the same. If an article is to have accurate information in it, then the facts have to be presented even if you don't happen to agree with them. In the end, the WWE is truly the only authority that matters concerning their history and championships, not wrestling magazines and publications, not other wrestling websites. All the past championships are referred to as WWE championshps now because of a lawsuit between then and the World Wildlife Federation over the use of the initials "WWF". The company was renamed the WWE, World Wrestling Entertainment just as Vince McMahon changed the name to the WWF, World Wrestling Federation, from WWWF, the Worldwide Wrestling Federation, when he purchased the company from his father. Odin's Beard 00:05, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
"The WWE is truly the only authority that matters concerning their history" - this is a ridiculous statement. The WWE have lied with regards to their history on numerous occasions - Survivor Series 1997, the circumstances surrounding the creation of the IC Championship, the lineage of the Cruiserweight and Light Heavyweight Championships, etc. WWE does not possess the right to rewrite their own history. Take this up at Wikipedia:Request for Comment if you sincerely do belive that WWE is entitled to rewrite history.
Even if WWE.com is recognised as the ultimate authority, the website states, "Chris Jericho became the first-ever Undisputed Champion when he defeated Stone Cold and The Rock in the same night to unify the WWE and World Championship.". Read that? The "first-ever" Undisputed Champion. The first title holder of a newly created championship. The Undisputed Championship cannot be identical to the WWE Championship if it's lineage begins in December 2001, and if it was formed by the merger of two separate titles. McPhail 18:12, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia does not participate in revisionism. Did you see the link above where you endorsed AWA's revisionist history? You're contradicting yourself Sasaki 00:15, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
The AWA haven't revised anything. They have chosen to recognise Hogan's aborted reigns, which is fair enough. If they had claimed that Hogan was not stripped of the title, thereby attempting to rewrite history, then I would have objected. It isn't the same thing at all. McPhail 18:12, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
It does indeed look contradictory. McPhair is endorsing the reivsionist history of the AWA Championship. Maybe McPhair simply just disagrees with the WWE decision, which is completely irrelevant. Odin's Beard 00:19, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
How can you say the AWA hasn't revised anything? When Hulk Hogan won the AWA World Title, it was stripped from him both times and only both title wins were recently endorsed by AWA as being part of their championship lineage, then it's called a revision. The AWA chose to recognize Hulk Hogan's winning of their World Championship after nearly three decades. That means that they control it's history and can do with it what they wish. It's the same with the WWE. It's not a ridiculous statement to say that their authority is the ultimate authroity, at least not when it comes to their history and the way they view the lineages of all of their championships. Odin's Beard 23:36, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
I reiterate, take this up at Wikipedia:Requests for Comment if you sincerely believe that "the WWE is truly the only authority that matters concerning their history". You have also yet to respond to the statement issued by WWE that http://www.wwe.com/subscriptions/247online/chrisjericho/ "Chris Jericho became the first-ever Undisputed Champion when he defeated Stone Cold and The Rock in the same night to unify the WWE and World Championship."]. If you continue to revert to outdated versions of the page - without edit summaries - I will have no choice but to report you for vandalism. McPhail 15:41, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
The WWE has never stated that the WWE Championship ever stopped existing. They combined the WWE and WCW World Championships into one title, but the WWE Championship never stopped existing. Chris Jericho won both the WCW and WWE World titles at the pay per view, and the titles were combined to form one undisputed world title. After Brock Lesnar was signed exclusively to Smackdown, both of the titles were seperated once more. The WWE Undisputed Championship was once again referred to as the WWE Championship while the World Heavyweight Championship was created. The WCW World Championship no longer exists. It's the WWE's position that the Undisputed Championship is part of the WWE Championship's lineage. The articles on wrestlers, wrestling promotions, and wrestling championships have to report information that's canon. I can't seem to get this through to you, the title itself belongs to the WWE. If they say that the Undisputed Championship is part of the WWE Championship lineage, then that's what WWE canon is. I'm fairly certain that Wikipedia policy is that the information reported in wrestling articles has to be canon. The WWE's position about their championship lineage has to come before that of anyone else's because it's their championship. I'm not the one committing vandalism. The article is supposed to contain information that's canon, only you don't want it to go in because you personally disagree with it. You also haven't addressed your support of the AWA to change their championship history to acknowledge Hulk Hogan winning their World Championship twice. The AWA rewrote the history of their championship lineage when they acknowledged Hulk Hogan as a 2 time champion, that's the only way I can see it. You're saying that the AWA can do what they want with their history but the WWE can't? If anyone is committing vandalism, it's you. Even the Wikipedia article on the WWE Undisputed Championship itself states that the championship is part of the official WWE Championship lineage. Odin's Beard 23:54, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
I have addressed the AWA issue twice on this page alone. Kindly read my rebuttals. WWE.com states, "Chris Jericho became the first-ever Undisputed Champion when he defeated Stone Cold and The Rock in the same night to unify the WWE and World Championship." Triple H's profile states, "Triple H came back on a special edition of RAW at MSG, and he followed that up by winning the 2002 Royal Rumble Match, earning an opportunity at the undisputed WWE Championship". A recap of Backlash 2002 states, "Triple H’s return from a career-threatening quadriceps injury came full circle at WrestleMania X8 when he defeated Chris Jericho to become the Undisputed WWE Champion." and refers to Hogan defeating Triple H for the "Undisputed WWE Champion". As I have acknowledged on numerous occasions, the WWE Championship and Undisputed Championship have overlapping lineages. However, Triple H is clearly identified as winning the Undisputed Championship, not the WWE Championship. The Undisputed Championship was created by the unification of two championships in 2001 and WWE have chosen to recognise the lineage of the WWE Championship rather than the World Championship, which is their right. However, they do not have the right to rewrite history, and the facts are that Triple H won the Undisputed Championship at WM 18, and was subsequently identified as the Undisputed Champion. I am perfectly happy to acknowledge within the article that WWE considers his title reign to be a fifth WWE Championship reign, but it is patently incorrect to claim that the Undisputed Championship is identical to the WWE Championship. McPhail 19:39, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid we just have two completely different views. The WWE claims that their Undisputed Championship is part of the traditional lineage of the WWE Championship. To me, that means that they're the same championship. I've never heard nor read any claim from the WWE stating that the titles have an overlapping lineage. They maintain that the titles are part of the same history, that they're the same title. I don't care what personal opinion someone has on the subject in and of itself, the article has to go with the official position of the company that owns the title. I'm not as experienced an editor as you, but I do know that much. Odin's Beard 01:51, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

WWE.com describes Jericho as the first Undisputed Champion. If the Undisputed Championship and the WWE Championship are the same title, how can Jericho be the first Undisputed Champion? You claim that "the article has to go with the official position of the company that owns the title", but fail to cite any policy to back this up - as Ihave already noted, WWE.com does not accurately list the history of the WWF Light Heavyweight Championship. Adding the Undisputed Championship reign in C&A and noting that WWE considers this reign to be a WWE Championship reign is a fair compromise. McPhail 00:14, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

We've been over this and I'm simply going to keep changing the article because they're recognized as the same championship by the WWE. They consider them to be one and the same, I'm not making this up just to get into some sort of argument. All you have to do is watch WWE programming or go to the WWE website. The information presented on the website is WWE policy. The fact that you disagree with it is irrelevant. You nor anyone else can dictate what WWE policy would be or should be concerning any matter of their company, including the lineage of their championships and represent it in an article as being fact. It would be like me injecting something into an article saying that the Superman character isn't the property of Warner Bros. despite Warner being the owner of DC Comics, which publishes the Superman character. The WWE Championship lineage on WWE.com recognizes them as the same title, The History of the WWE Championship DVD recognizes them as the same title. As far as I'm concerned, that's all there is to it. Chris Jericho became the first WWE Undisputed Champion after winning the WCW World Title and the WWF Championship from The Rock and Steve Austin in the same night. They merged the titles into one. As of that moment, the WCW World Title no longer existed. After Brock Lesnar signed an exclusive deal with Smackdown, the World Heavyweight Championship was created and the WWE Undisputed Championship was simply called the WWE Championship once again. Up until John Cena won the championship, it even retained the same design. The WWE Has never stated that they were seperate championships. Until or unless they ever do, then listing them as seperate titles isn't accurate.Odin's Beard 00:18, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

WWE.com describes Jericho as the first Undisputed Champion. At WrestleMania X8, Triple H was announced as having won the Undisputed Championship. Stating that his fifth world title win was the WWE Championship is a blatant attempt to rewrite history. Moreover, the position of WWE relating to the World Heavyweight Championship has varied. The title was initially stated to possess the lineage of the WCW World Heavyweight Championship and the NWA World Heavyweight Championship.
Furthermore, as I have stated on several occasions, WWE.com has numerous factual errors relating to the history of titles, and their version of history is not necessarily the correct one. The lineages presented on WWE.com are in several instances inaccurate. McPhail 23:53, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
You people whine and moan and complain like old married couples. Just put the WWE Championship then in brackets put 5th reign was as Undisputed Champion), like they have with The Rock & Hulk Hogan, geez! The Legendary One 00:09, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Real Height

Where is the source for this? DXRAW 01:06, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Team with Regal in the WWF?

Was there any truth to the story that Triple H was originally supposed to resume his tag team and blueblood gimmick with Steve Regal after being signed to the WWF? I've heard that was the plan, but the World Wrestling Federation was unable to sign Regal. It's not mentioned in the article. --Jtalledo (talk) 22:20, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Regal makes no mention of that in his book, and states that he encouraged Hunter to go to the WWF. - Chadbryant 23:02, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Controversy section tagged

I tagged the controversy section with {{Unreferenced}} and {{Verify}}. As per WP:BLP, attention should be paid to cite some reliable sources for negative material. Otherwise, the section can be deleted at any time. --Jtalledo (talk) 13:29, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Photo Change

I think that his current photo should be changed. The photo that is currently there kind looks stupid & makes HHH look like he's retarded. User:Son of Kong: Son of Kong

Its free use and is a good image. --Mikedk9109 22:21, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Legally, until a better free use image comes along, we aren't allowed to change it. -- THL 00:52, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Clarification Needed

Near the end of the "Early History" section, where it mentions his teaming with Steven Regal (off topic, but is that meant to be "Steven" or "William"), it states ((This partnership would be brought down by Regal in 2004 after Regal convinced Eugene to cost Triple H an Ironman Match against Chris Benoit. He left in 1995 for the World Wrestling Federation.)) Should the part with Eugene costing HHH the match even be a part of that? It makes no sense whatsoever. Cobra wwe 08:16, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Possible Wikipedia Glitch?

Okay. So I clicked into Wikipedia and typed in Triple H, right? Suddenly it brings me to a page titled "Triple H" except it has William Jason (Jay) Reso instead. It didn't appear to have been moved, it just did it. I clicked off of it and came back a few times to the same effect. Finally when I clicked a link to it through google it brought me to the RIGHT Triple H page. After that it worked right no matter how I accessed it. Just thought I'd tell everyone this if they ever face the same issue. Mushrambo 00:57, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like redirect vandalism to me. It shouldn't happen again to anyone. Cheers, -- THL 04:25, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Authority Figure

Should HHH be listed as an Authority Figure of Wrestling? He does control like 80% of The WWE.AD Double J 07:38, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

He doesn't hold any power officially. He may influence decisions as a voice in his wife's ear, but officially any company decision comes from one of the other McMahon family members. Of course, any influence he may hold isn't acknowledged, so the only thing that we can say, and have said in the controversy section, is that he is married to Stephanie, and is accused of using this to affect storyline decisions in his favor. Cheers, -- The Hybrid 07:55, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Which pretty much proves that he has inside power. --  Mikedk9109  (hit me up)  21:34, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Because there's no actual proof he has the power, that's proof of just how powerful he is. Outstanding reasoning Mikedk9109. BoosterBronze 17:39, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
I think that he was agreeing with me that what we already have in the controversy section is enough. He was saying that we can let the facts speak for themselves rather than try and explain everything. -- The Hybrid 17:44, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
I see. I apologize if I misread that. Perhaps my snark was uncalled for. BoosterBronze 02:34, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Kayfabe?

Isn't it quite possible with the irony of the injury just sustained that it is all kayfabe and just a useful method of ending the DX reunion (already aknowledged to be a temporary reunion anyhow) and allow time for Paul to help raise his new child? It all seems too coincidental that he would get six months for "recovery" (his first actual quad tear took him 8 months to rehab)? After all, six months has been the standard time for a performer's extended break time with a kayfabe excuse. I'm just not sure that the quad injury should be taken completely seriously just yet although it is also realistic that the injury could be real. It is just that when it comes to sports entertainment, it is really difficult to tell what is real and what isn't and how to appropriately articulate it given the circumstances. RabidPanda V 03:46, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

The first one was a full quad tear while this one is only one of four tendons. DXRAW 04:07, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
If a reliable source says that it is a kayfabe injury, then we will say so in the article. Until then it amounts to rumor and speculation, which is inherently unencyclopedic. -- The Hybrid 11:12, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough... that's all I was really looking for. Thanks! RabidPanda V 14:44, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
I highly doubt it would be kayfabe, I mean Superstars tend to have a history of repeatidly injury certain area's of their body, especially after a few years when they become complacent of possible injury. Plus do you have a source on the D-X reunion only being temporary, because from all accounts I've heard and seen Triple H, wanted to turn face and remain that way for the rest of his active wrestling career. The Legendary One 23:45, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
That is a little forumish. -- The Hybrid 23:48, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
"Forumish?" That's sort of the purpose of the discussion page... discussion and forum are rather similar concepts, wouldn't you agree? RabidPanda V 05:23, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
See WP:TALK. "Talk pages are for discussing ways to improve the article, not general discussion of the article's subject." What the Legendary One said was borderline, so I was just interjecting in case a debate about the injuries was going to start. -- The Hybrid 10:19, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Understood... I wasn't sure where you were going with that. Don't worry, I wasn't planning on going there. I've seen too many times these discussion pages turning into forums for heated debates. I had no intention of going near that line. RabidPanda V 00:34, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Wonderful. That is really one of my pet peeves; mostly because they never solve anything when they take place. -- The Hybrid

Yeah it was my bad I was like really tired when I did it so my apologies The Legendary One 02:50, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Don't be. As I said it was borderline, and I know what it is like to edit when you are tired. I pissed off a good number of people, mostly admins, when I was editing while I had pneumonia. Don't worry about it, as it is really no big deal. Really. Cheers, -- The Hybrid 04:50, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

They showed HHH actually receiving surgery on the 1/15/07 edition of Raw.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Triple_H/Archive_1&oldid=1136227047"