Talk:WrestleMania 23

A final thought on the Meltzer attendance figure

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

I'm really sorry to start this again, I would specifically ask that the anon does not chime in as we already know that he considers this something of surpassing importance. Looking at the long debate, the inclusion of the figure in the (failed) attempt to placate the IP who is so determined to promote this figure, I have serious qualms about why we have included this - it appears to be simply trying to shut up a vexatious complainant. So, the specific issues of policy regarding to the sentence I removed:

[[Dave Meltzer]] of the Wrestling Observer Newsletter reported an attendance figure of 74,687.<ref>Meltzer, Dave, the Wrestling Observer, December 2009; June 2007</ref>

I have the following concerns:

• WP:OR: This is taken direct from the primary sources, where are the independent sources which have reviewed Meltzer's claim on which we can judge its significance or accuracy?;
• WP:UNDUE: so one commentator disputes the figure? so what? where's the independent commentary that shows this to be a controversial or significant dispute?;
• WP:V/WP:RS: there seems to be some discrepancy between his figure, the figures from the venue, and the figure he uses in his own magazine, which is self-published for our purposes, versus his figure on Yahoo.

The debate has been long, as I say - over two years - and people have been commendably patient with the IP this time around, but comparing this with other similar cases in my memory we would typically not include one person's dispute over a figure which is authoritatively sourced, when the claim comes, however passionately a few people seem to believe it, from from no obvious authoritative root source and is contradicted by the venue and the organiser - unless, of course, it was provably a significant or notable dispute beyond its few passionate believers. We judge that in the usual Wikipedia way: from reliable independent sources. There is some evidence of some kind of conspiracy theory in the forums about this, but I didn't find any reliable sources to cover it in the 15 unique hits Google turned up. Either it's a major controversy that can be sourced reliably, or it's something whose significance we are not allowed, by policy, to judge form the primary source(s). I certainly don't see anything in the evidence provided by the IP to counter the consensus reached over two years ago when this was first debated, and in the subsequent debates. As we all know, some folks will just keep demanding until they get what they want, and this looks disturbingly like one of those cases, especially reviewing the anon's further activism since the sentence was added - he seems ot want to constantly redraw a new compromise between what we have and what we want, an insidious ratchet effect.

Let's go back to basics. What do the reliable independent sources say about this dispute? If it is covered in those sources, then we can discuss the dispute. Those reliable independent sources will no doubt tell us on what basis Meltzer made his claim, and why the venue and the organiser have claimed the figure they have (when they, after all, have the receipts in their hands). Reliable, independent secondary sources is the way to go here. That's how we decide if, and how, to frame the issue. Guy (Help!) 23:46, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

WP:V, not Truth? Two or more independent sources refer to a figure published by one or more references, over one source disputing same? Put it this way, if the two sides of this discussion were to meet in the ring who would be pulverised? Try consensus, then. Most editors here think one figure is adequately verified, and one editor refers to one opinion (because it has no other authority) - result; only the official figure complies with WP policy. End of. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:03, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Guy, thanks for your rescue. Gary Coleman Fan reversed it again for the record, but I pulled it back on your behalf. I hope you don't mind. If the discussion must continue it should be here and not WP:PW. This is after all where the dispute is located even though it is to all intents and purposes over. Podgy Stuffn (talk) 00:28, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

• This just may well end up as a Wikipedia Pointless edit war. I think an unbiased footnote should be added, and close the case. There is no point in proving which side is right or wrong, we aren't here for that.--Truc</fontaa>o ₅₀₃ 01:18, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

So do we have a consensus of close this with a footnote?--C23 C23's talk 02:09, 16 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Podgy Stuffn (talk • contribs)

"What do the reliable independent sources say about this dispute? If it is covered in those sources, then we can discuss the dispute. Those reliable independent sources will no doubt tell us on what basis Meltzer made his claim, and why the venue and the organiser have claimed the figure they have (when they, after all, have the receipts in their hands). Reliable, independent secondary sources is the way to go here. That's how we decide if, and how, to frame the issue." The problem quite frankly is that there simply aren't any independent sources to have ever covered a so-called dispute on the event's attendance issue. This thing is that trivial and non-notable... Meltzer is the only source that has produced a number different than an official number. He's done this for previous WrestleMania's as well but for some reason, this particular one and WrestleMania III tend to get the most attention. This is probably due to both events having the highest recorded attendance...^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 07:56, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

So, what do the independent sources say? We can't all just agree to ignore policy and include stuff sourced form a primary source because we think it's Really Important, that is specifically forbidden as a novel synthesis form published facts (WP:OR). How can you add an unbiased footnote if the content of the footnote is biased? We have no idea where Maltzer got the figure or why he promotes it because we don't yet have any secondary, analytical source for it. WP:NPOV is non-negotiable, it requires us to be neutral, not to elevate the claims of one person simply because we think that person might be right. Where does the figure come from? What is the context? How important is it? Only reliable indepdnent sources can tell us. Guy (Help!) 10:37, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

That's why IMO the footnote isn't important...^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 18:17, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Metzler claims that the WWE corporate records for the event given a figure for the amount spent on merchandise, he then takes that figure (X) and divides it by the average spend of most fans at most live events (L), he takes X and divides it by L and comes up with 74,687. This falls under "statistics which look accurate because they end with a prime", if I told you the attendance was exactly 80,000 you may not believe it (because it ends with a 0), but if I said it was 80,003 then you see the 3 as giving the number weight. Metzler could have reached 74,686 or 74,688, either way he is relying on two things 1) everything in wrestling is worked (height/weight/title wins/names/age) and 2) a 5 figure number finishing in a prime is easily believed with a pretend methodology behind it. He tells you how he arrived at the figure, you see the five numbers and go "well, it must be true because he explained how he got there". He could have come up with the figure then worked backwards, but no one really knows. Either way the figure is only backed by him, all other sources agree with the official figure. Darrenhusted (talk) 11:43, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Ah, yes, what Colbert calls "truthiness". That's clearly part of the problem - any reliable independent secondary source covering this would say that Meltzer estimates this figure and how, but all we have is the primary source where he says the attendance was 74,687, whihc is wrong on two counts in that (a) he doesn't appear to have stated that it was a guesstimate and (b) he uses meaningless precision. A bit like saying that the distance to the moon is "about 1,700 km (1056 miles 582 yards 1ft 8³/₁₆ inches)". You know, if he makes a habit of this and some of the press talk about it, that would make a great case for including his idosyncratic estimates in the biography of Meltzer, but we're still waiting for any evidence that a figure stated that precisely can be stated against the official figures. One more pointer to the need for reliable independent sources, I guess. I think I might have mentioned that before. Guy (Help!) 21:14, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Meltzer's attendance figure

Consensus was to include it. I don't actually care about an extra footnote to explain the math, but every editor involved except JzG agreed that, at the very least, mentioning it was appropriate. It cannot simplpy be removed because of one editor's lack of understanding of policy, long-term contributor or not. GaryColemanFan (talk) 17:23, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok sorry nevermind I even myself agreed I think I was misreading the discussion. BTW i'm archiving this--C23 C23's talk 17:28, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm un-archiving it, since it is relevant to the current state of the article. Everyone said they could live with a brief mention in the prose with no additional footnote. Therefore, there was no footnote. You removed the mention from the prose, however, which goes against consensus. Please revert your edit to the article page. GaryColemanFan (talk) 17:33, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I did.--C23 C23's talk 17:49, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

• I just fixed your minor error of archiving the active discussion along with the IP's silliness. Now, all we have to do is show the reliable independent sources for this figure being significant and having some valid source. Emphasis on independent, please. Remember: WP:NOR, WP:V, [{WP:RS]], WP:NPOV. All very important. So we don't reada columnists and then decide ourselves that what they say is important enough to be shown alongside official figures. Come on, peoiple, this is absolutely standard Wikipedia practice - just cite the reliable indpeendent secondary sources and we're done.

I might also just remind you that the comment was made in 2007 but was absent form the article until the end of 2009. This was not considered a problem except by a very few people. So, sources, sources, sources. Guy (Help!) 18:05, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

We have a clear consensus of a footnote no matter what you say so i'm adding the footnote.--C23 C23's talk 18:34, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

How could there be a consensus agreeing on adding the footnote when only you, Garydude, and possibly Wrestlinglover agree while TJ, Justapunk, Guy, and I don't? Hmm..... You sneaky sneaky fella...^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 18:37, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Ultimately, almost everyone, if not everyone, on the WT:PW page agreed that a brief mention was in keeping with verifiability, reliable sources, appropriate weight, and neutrality. At any rate, User:Future Perfect at Sunrise waited until someone removed the sourced text and then leapt on the article with a protection template. GaryColemanFan (talk) 18:39, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

As I also stated on my talk page right now, the timing of the protection was honest-to-god coincidence. Of course it's the wrong version. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:43, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

"Ultimately"??? Sure just as soon as you show me the diff that suggests "ultimately" The page was blocked because you and Curtis continued to revert instead of continuing on with this discussion. You're both acting like that very IP. Sit down (or stand up... where ever the hell you're at) and at least be willing to discuss the matter like a normal established contributor to the project... Jeez...^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 18:44, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Glad to help. Here we go:

• "This note establishes two things. 1) Dave Meltzer reports a different number than other sources. 2) His number was reported After the other sources reported their number. Isn't that what you've been fighting about this entire time? We'll do this... I'll split it into two sentences." - User:3bulletproof316 [1]
• "I still don't see what's wrong with saying: "Though the attendance was reported to be 80,103, a Ford Field record, Dave Meltzer of the Wrestling Observer Newsletter contested the claim, reporting an attendance figure of 74,687." It's simple, it's effective, and it's accurate." - User:Hazardous Matt [2]
• "Above we had a clear discussion of the issue and compromises suggested and a gradual view was established, indicating that a consensus has been reached." - User:sephiroth storm [3]
• "This isn't about being accurate. We have a reliable source which states something. We aren't the ones who determine what is correct and what isn't. We publish what reliable sources say, that is all." - User:Wrestlinglover [4]
• "All policy references point to the footnote being the best balanced result (WP:RSN, WP:V, WP:RS and any others that I might have missed). That's where the consensus is." - User:Justa Punk [5]
• "I'd support a footnote, too. In fact, I suggested that seven days ago." - User:Nikki311 [6]
• "As I stated above, I can live with that (I don't like including the claim at all, but as long as it is made clear that it is just Meltzer's claim and not factual I can accept it). " - User:TJ Spyke [7]

Ultimately, only two people disagreed (Darrenhusted, and JzG), so the current version is supported by only 2 of the 11 involved editors. GaryColemanFan (talk) 19:14, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

What actually Justa said he agreed to a small unbiased footnote he just didn't like the phrasing a first. I think you should take Guy's comments with a grain of salt as he just doesn't like me or GFC. Which gives me a pretty good consensus. Oh and by the way i'm not at all like the IP.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Curtis23 (talk • contribs)

I neither like you nor dislike you. Actually I wouldn't know you from a hole in the ground. Neither would I know Dave Meltzer from one. What I do know, having been here for quite some time and seen many many disputes, is that the swiftest and surest way to resolve a dispute is by references to what reliable independent mainstream sources say, and the surest way to prolong a dispute is to continue arguing your own personal interpretation of the significance of a primary source and fail to produce reliable independent secondary sources to show their interpretation of the source. That is, I think, one of the more repeatable facets of content disputes around here. Guy (Help!) 21:02, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

To be frank... The only thing everyone agreed to was just shutting the IP up... ^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 18:55, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

...and please don't start with that "Oh the resident admin has something against us" crap because I can tell you first hand that it isn't true. The only reason both of you feel that way is because the admin just so happens to disagree with you two. FYI he isn't violating anything as he hasn't used any of his sysop abilities while involved in this argument. Again just sit down (or whatever) and discuss this like a member of the project. ^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 19:01, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

We has certainly violated WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA by calling me an "idiot", a "fool", and a "fuckwit". GaryColemanFan (talk) 19:15, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

The first rule of WP:CIVIL is that when you point the finger, there are three more pointing right back at you. You called me a vandal, I advised you not to, you called me a vandal again, I advised you not to, you template wanred me, I advised you not to, you template warned me again so I gave you back a dose of the same but with an overcoat of humour (entirely lacking in everythign you've done here, b y the way) as a way of lightening the mood. You're behaving like a Class A m:DICK. All you have to do is: provide a reliable independent source for this controversy and its significance, so it is not WP:OR and we can verify that it's not WP:UNDUE. This has been requested rather a lot of times now, it's the single most common request on Wikipedia - we even have templates to pick up such problems - and it is a fundamental and basic tenet of the project. So do be a good chap and instead of arguing the toss, find reliabel independent secondary sources about the dispute. Otherwise we go back to the position up until the POV-pushing started in December, which is not to include disputed text of unknown veracity and unknown significance, just as we exclude millions of other similarly trivial facts. Guy (Help!) 21:02, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

He does look at this (it's on Gary's page but it's also inferred against me.) [8] and he has a report at ANI.--C23 C23's talk 19:15, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

You know as GFC said me, him, Justa, Matt, Will, TJ, Nikki, Bullet, and Storm be all agree it's just you JzG and Darrenhausted who don't want the footnote if that's not a consensus what is?--C23 C23's talk 23:18, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

It's not about that anymore. It's about figuring the importance of the footnote. Can you legitimately justify the inclusion of such a trivial note when it was deemed non-notable due to the fact that no reliable independent source...or any source for that matter...to cover Meltzer's attendance dispute actually exists? I mean the whole thing is that trivial... And as for whatever was "agreed" you can take my name along with TJ's and Justa's out. Storm and HazardousMatt didn't agree either btw.^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 23:27, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Just so no one argues, I agree with bullet. I never wanted the note to be the article in the first place. The only thing I "agreed" to was the wording of the note IF there was gonna be a note included. My original choice is to not include the note at all though. TJ Spyke 23:44, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

And if you're going to use my name, at least spell it correctly Curtis. If you want to keep count then that would be 208, GCF, you, Will, Nikki for, me, TJ, JustaPunk, Bulletproof, HazardousMatt, Storm and Guy against. Not that it really matters as the figure is taken from a primary source. Several times over Guy has asked for secondary sources and each time the conversation has shifted to another subject. Darrenhusted (talk) 00:28, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm almost persuaded to switch sides. I think i'm going back to against a footnote as now after re-reading the whole discussion to footnote would be better. I'm off the agree list.--C23 C23's talk 01:20, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Meltzer's claim is a verifiable statement that is in keeping with Wikipedia's guideline on reliable sources. Having appeared in a reliable source is sufficient to establish notability for the claim. As was stated by an administrator when this was first brought to ANI: "Obviously you should use sources representing both figures." [9] For an encyclopedia to bill itself as "the sum of all human knowledge" and then dismiss facts that are in keeping with the encyclopedia's guidelines would be stupid and hypocritical. There is absolutely no policy or guideline to support your view. I can prove that it meets RS and V; you can prove nothing. Therefore, the information must be added back. It doesn't matter to me in what form, as long as it is added. As a compromise solution, I am willing to go back to the footnote that was agreed upon. Since there seems to be a lot of confusion regarding the word footnote, this means that it would not be in the prose itself, but a small [note 1] would be added after the mention of the 80,000+ attendance; in small text in a section below the article, a short summary like "Dave Meltzer of the Wrestling Observer Newsletter states that the correct total is [whatever number Meltzer says]." That complies with all relevant policies and guidelines, and even gives the moving goalpost crowd a little extra room on the weighting issue. Then the problem's solved and people can move on with their lives. GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:09, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

1. You keep repeating the same argument... We're still waiting on a reliable independent source discussing the "dispute"
2. It is clear now the consensus is against the use of a footnote...

You should probably just let this go and move on with your life...^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 05:17, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

My argument is the only valid argument being presented on either side, so it's all that needs to be said. There is no policy or guideline requiring a second source for the statement. Consensus can change, and, even if it doesn't, in can't trump policy. GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:24, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh my young padawan... Consensus can override policy, per WP:CONLIMITED. FOR CRYING OUT LOUD MAN WP:SELFPUBLISH is the very reason your argument FAILS!^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 05:42, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Consensus can override policy, yes. However, that would require the consensus among the limited group to then be adopted by the larger Wikipedia community. In other words, you may belong to a group of several editors who believe that any source given a statistic ending in 7 should be deemed unreliable. Your consensus on that point would not trump the guideline on Reliable Sources. If you brought your arugment forward for discussion by the Wikipedia community as a whole and were able to establish a wide-reaching consensus that the guideline should be changed to reflect your view, then consensus could be said to have overridden a guideline. Until you get to that point, you haven't a leg to stand on. As for SPS, I can only assume that I'm one of the very few who actually reads policies before using them in arguments. Go back and try again. GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:51, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

You've failed per your talk page.

"Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." (Lets see some links of reliable third-party sources to have published Meltzer's work) " However, caution should be exercised when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so." (nope.... No one else but Meltzer)

"Similarly, some self-published sources may be acceptable if substantial independent evidence for their reliability is found. For instance, widespread citations without comment by other reputable sources" (nope can't see any of that anywhere in his reports) "...are a good indicator of reliability, while widespread doubts about accuracy weigh against the self-published source. If outside citation is the main indicator of reliability, particular care should be taken to adhere to other guidelines and policies, and to not represent unduly contentious claims. The goal is to reflect established views of sources as far as we can determine them."

Now did you read that too or did you just stop at the part you thought agreed with you?^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 06:01, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

It's this simple... Your arguments have failed. Whether you accept this or not is up to you. The fact remains, however, that the current consensus opposes the inclusion of the trivial footnote. That is all.^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 06:07, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

(1) Some reliable third-party sources who have published Meltzer's work: [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], and [15]. (2) "Citations without comment by other reputable sources" is one of the most poorly worded phrases I have seen in Wikipedia guidelines. I interpret that to mean that, if other reliable sources use the SPS as a reference, that is counted in favor of the SPS. To that, I would reply: "Dave Meltzer has built a publication with a readership of thousands. He is one of the most-quoted people in the wrestling business" - page 122 of Theater in a squared circle: the mystique of professional wrestling by Jeff Archer, Rick Boucke, and Linda Carlson. "The Wrestling Observer was blunt, opinionated, and accurate." - page 200 of Wrestling at the Chase: The Inside Story of Sam Muchnick and the Legends of Professional Wrestling by Larry Matysik. Vince Russo refers to Meltzer as "the wrestling authority" on page 90 of his autobiography, Forgiven: One Man's Journey from Self-Glorification to Sanctification. In WrestleCrap and Figure Four Weekly Present the Death of WCW, R.D. Reynolds and Bryan Alvarez write: "a huge thank you to Dave Meltzer, without whom there would be no book. Well, there would be a book, just one filled with countless errors." Need I go on? (3) Yes, someone else is likely to do so in some cases. That doesn't discount the rest of the cases, particularly in a situation like this. Press sources had stopped writing about WrestleMania 23 by the time Meltzer published his analysis. There would be no reason to go back and publish a story about a disputed attendance figure. That sort of information is simply not important to, say, The New York Times. That information is, of course, important to an article on WrestleMania 23 published by the "sum of all human knowledge", however. GaryColemanFan (talk) 06:26, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I looked at those links, as far as I can tell not one of them mentions the attendance figure at WrestleMania 23. I'm sure you're not trying to throw dust in people's eyes so please cite the page numbers on which these sources discuss his claims over the attendance figure at WM23 and the basis on which it's made, then propose a version which is based on those sources and not the primary source. This is not about whether Metzler is considered an authority on wrestling, it's about Metzler's dispute of record attendance at this event, the basis on which it is made, and the significance attached to it by independent observers. This has been explained before. Guy (Help!) 08:55, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Guy, GCF does have a history of not listening. I've had trouble with him before, and he caused someone else to leave Wikipedia for what appeared to be exactly what he did with you with the warning on your talk page. I certainly said at the start that the dispute shouldn't even be mentioned. although I shifted just to be flexible. But I'm happy to go back to my original thought for the very reasons you stated. There are no independent reliable sources that back up Meltzer's claims, and until they are found everyone wanting the footnote now is fighting a losing battle. To use it is to give credence to Meltzer's opinion - which is against a basic WP tenet (what Wikipedia is not) - which can only be done with back up to prove it is notable (the only way an opinion could get past said basic tenet).

This whole thing has gone way past it's use by date TBH. !! Justa Punk !! 09:54, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Here are the facts; 1) the IP208 inserted the text in December in addition to a note about WM25, TJ removed that. 2) after the IP refused to listen and stop reverting, and hopped an address, Justapunk started a discussion on WT:PW, with the aim of alerting other editors to the IP's actions. 3) the IP kept adding to the debate at WT:PW, causing some member of the project to agree to a footnote to try and put a stop to the IP's never ending comments. 4) the footnote was added, and removed on the 1st January and the debate shifted from if the footnote should be added to how much of the project was behind the addition. 5) Once the discussion had been shopped to a few admin boards JzG removed the footnote, citing lack of secondary sources. 6) The IP was topic banned from this page.

Did I miss any stages out? The truth is that the footnote was only proposed to try and end the discussion, once proposed (reluctantly it should be added by most) then the IP would not agree the wording, which forced some editors away from having the footnote. The debate then shifted to the consensus for a footnote, which again forced some editors away from the idea. The debate then jumped to Guy's posting on GCF's talk page, after Guy asked for more sources.

So allow me to try and wrap this up; I would be fine with the footnote if a source other that Wrestling Observer backed up Dave Metzler's number. Given that the source for the quote is "Meltzer, Dave, the Wrestling Observer, December 2009; June 2007" and thus provides no link (because of a pay wall) then the primary source is out. I didn't actually post anything at WT:PW until I thought I was seeing a primary source being given undue weight and a "consensus" forming around that idea, until that point I thought the project would robustly stop a breach of policy.

So in conclusion; would everyone agree that policy dictates leaving this out until there is a credible secondary source? Because if the answer is yes (from all but the IP, who I assume would disagree given the acres of discussion at WT:PW) then maybe the article can be moved down to semi-pp and the next time this happens the project will back up TJ and Punk rather than side with an obsessed IP. All in favour say "aye" Darrenhusted (talk) 10:33, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, exactly that. It's the point I've been making all along, as a complete outsider to the area of professional wrestling (my only other involvement with wrestling that I can recall was when we banned user JB196 some time back). We have no context for the figure, so we can't include it. If we have context and the context gives us some reliable indication of significance then we can. Absolutely standard Wikipedia practice: disputed content gets referred back to reliable independent secondary sources. And, as an aside, people who continue to argue from the primary sources without providing secondary sources very often get topic banned. Guy (Help!) 11:38, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

There is not a single policy or guideline to support the exlcusion of material. Until one is presented, I will not change my position. It is reliably sourced , verifiable material and must be added. GaryColemanFan (talk) 17:17, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Once again you have it the wrong way round. The onus is on you to justify inclusion of the disputed content by reference to policy and guidelines. Given that the content is of at least some significance, disputing what is claimed to be a record attendance, that means you must provide reliable independent sources discussing the dispute and the basis on which Meltzer makes his claim because despite your protestations Meltzer is not a reliable source for attendance figures at events as he does not have access to the necessary raw data (gate receipts and turnstile clicks). In all the argumentation from you I don't think I've seen a single reference to a reliable independent source discussing this issue. Now is the time to get round to doing that. Guy (Help!) 19:54, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, as Justa Punk stated above, a similar discussion has taken place at ANI in the past. I would remind Justa Punk, however, that the user left Wikipedia because he disagreed with the policies, not because of me. The discussion (see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive549#User:GaryColemanFan), in which all administrators agreed with me, established several things:

• Removing sourced content from an article is de facto vandalism.
• Issuing templated vandalism warnings, even to a long term user, is acceptable.
• WP:N applies to articles, not sources.
• Information with a single reliable source is appropriate for inclusion in Wikipedia.

Since, as Justa Punk points out, the discussion has already taken place, I suggest that we restore unlock this article, restore the correct version (with Meltzer's information), and move on. Alternatively, I would be fine with a small-text footnote of no more than eight words. GaryColemanFan (talk) 17:39, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

It's not going to happen because it's not the "correct version". It's pretty plain that the only consensus was that everyone had had enough of the vexatious IP. See below for another data point, several editors above have clarified that they were mainly looking to shut the IP up, and you have yet to address the crucial question of how we are supposed to frame Meltzer's estimate correctly since we have only a primary source, in which he states the claim as fact, but we know from elsewhere that it's an estimate and we have no idea how accurate - that's why you need independent sources. The sort of thing an independent source will do is check his method of calculation, pour scorn on his use of five significant figures when it probably can't be justified beyond one, look at the uncertainties and tell us if the official figure is within the range of accuracy of his estimate and so on. As an outsider, this looks to me like a forum meme that refuses to die but nobody outside the forums takes in the least bit seriously. We know exactly how to cover that kind of content on Wikipedia: it goes in /dev/null. Guy (Help!) 20:02, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

My old position is now my new position as I said before NO FOOTNOTE. This is because of no secondary sources, un-notable claim, opinion, also Deja Vu GFC I can't back up a position that is supported by repeated arguments, no good explainations, and someone who just won't listen.--C23 C23's talk 19:26, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

LOL @ Mr. "Give Zack Rider a Page" not being able to back up a position that is supported by repeated arguments, no good explanations, and someone who just won't listen! That's just funny! Wwehurricane1 (talk) 22:44, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

There is no Wikipedia guideline requiring secondary sources, the claim is notable because it is found in a reliable source, and there is no opinion involved. Of course I am not changing my arguments; to do so would be to argue that policies and guidelines are unimportant. Let's keep in mind that the big reason given by JzG was his complete lack of understanding of what the term "original research" means. To expand further, should the Reception section be taken out of all pay-per-view articles. How many secondary sources back up a statement such as "Greg Oliver of SLAM! Wrestling gave the event four stars out of a possible five."? Obviously none, but we include it anyway because it is part of the reception to the event, much like Meltzer's analysis of the attendance total. To spend this much time arguing about half a sentence of reliably sourced information is absurd and a huge waste of time, considering the actual violations of original research and verifiability out there. Get your priorities straight and get the reliably sourced, notable material back in the article. GaryColemanFan (talk) 19:57, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

You are this: wrong. WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV and WP:RS required reliable independent secondary sources. WP:SELFPUB allows use of primary sources as a shortcut for uncontentious information. this is not uncontentious information. Nor is this "reliably sourced" as Meltzer has no evident authority as a source of attendance figures. Guy (Help!) 20:03, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I've read 'em all, and they just don't support your claim. Perhaps you need to spend more time reading the policies and guidelines and less time posturing because you think that length of time on Wikipedia means anything. This is most certainly uncontentious information. Do any of you, even for a second, doubt that Meltzer made the statement? That's all that is being source—Meltzer gave a different number. The very first policy you linked, WP:V, states exactly that. Wikipedia is about verifiability (reliable sources), not truth. Your pursuit of truth is a violation of NPOV. As for Meltzer's status as a cited authority on attendance figures, I suggest you do some research into the attendance for WrestleMania III, since his research there is heavily cited by reliable sources. GaryColemanFan (talk) 20:32, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

You've got it the wrong way round yet again. You are the one making the claim, the onus is on you to demonstrate that your preferred text meets policy. What you're doing is combing policy looking for loopholes that will support your own interpretation (that this is a valid and significant estimate) but what you need to do is show that it's been covered in reliable independent secondary sources that will give us the context. You know, whether it's a serious claim or just an off-the-cuff comment, the margin of error, that sort of thing. Come back when you have the independent sources, but thanks for the belly laugh where you describe this as uncontentious. More than two years of battling over it rather says otherwise, don't you think? Guy (Help!) 20:45, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I have no idea how you (GCF) can take the statement "you need secondary sources" and turn it into "everyone else must trust Dave Metzler", you seem to be asking us to prove a negative; which is impossible. Forget the footnote, can you back up Metzler's figure, with a source other than WO? Metzler (much like most wrestling websites) is reliable for certain details, such as weights/heights/results of house shows/length of matches/winners and losers. When he takes information and does a sum to come up with a new figure may make him a math professor but it doesn't give his number any weight, and footnoting him will go against a whole slew of policies (not least of which would be UNDUE). Darrenhusted (talk) 22:29, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm starting to think you people can't possibly be serious and that a video camera is planted somewhere in my living room. There is almost no chance that this many people can type complete sentences but not understand the very first sentence in one of Wikipedia's core policies: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true." (emphasis in original). What that means is that, if I believe that a statement should be included, it must be published by a reliable source. According to WP:RS, a self-published source is acceptable as a reliable source if the author has previously had work published by other (reliable) publishers and is an expert in the given field. Meltzer meets both of these criteria, and is therefore a reliable source. As such, it follows that he meets the verifiability criteria and the threshold for inclusion. It's all there in the policies and guidelines, and you are free to double-check that if you don't believe me (in fact, I encourage it, since it would apparently be the first time reading them for some of you). To clarify further, I am not saying that everyone should believe Meltzer. I don't care if anyone believes him at all. That doesn't matter, however, since that would be the pursuit of truth, not verifiability. The only thing I am saying should be included is that Meltzer made the statement. I can't imagine that anyone would view that as contentious—including it in the article definitely doesn't mean that it's true. For example, WrestleMania III has multiple verfiable attendance figures; that obviously doesn't mean that they are all true, but truth has absolutely nothing to do with the issue. If people wish to state in the WrestleMania 23 article that it is an estimate, that's fine with me. Since it meets the verifiability criteria and, therefore, the threshold for inclusion, it must be included in some form, however, and nobody has yet quoted a policy or guideline that says otherwise. GaryColemanFan (talk) 23:18, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't know how many times we can say get a second source and it not sink in. Get a second source, I know Metzler is an RS for some things, not for this so get a second source. Stop trying to twist guidelines to your own views and get a second source. Don't talk about WMIII, talk about WM23 and get a second source, stop trying to tell me that I have to prove a negative and get a second source, do you think you could get a second source, I have some chips here with only one sauce on them can you find me a second source? I hear that the main source for Evian is running low can you please for the love of all that is holy (including my socks-holey, get it) get a second source? Do you think that you could? 'Cause then I really wouldn't be that bothered, but do you know what does bother me? Having no second source. Darrenhusted (talk) 23:52, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

No need. It's already got a reliable source, which is sufficient to meet the threshold for inclusion per WP:V. You can't create a new threshold just because you don't like the source. GaryColemanFan (talk) 00:55, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Just to go back to this for a moment - I would remind Justa Punk, however, that the user left Wikipedia because he disagreed with the policies, not because of me. (Gary from further up). This was the last comment from the user concerned;

• Right. That being the case, I hereby cease my activity completely as an editor of Wikipedia. This is due to the failure to properly protect users from arbitrary action.

Now who was responsible for the arbitrary action? The user started the section, and was clearly complaining about you, Gary. Now whether or not policy backed you up, you seemed to be the problem. It became a policy issue as well only because admins backed you up on that occasion. But was it just on policy? Probably. Did they review your conduct? I would suggest they didn't.

On topic, the reality is that Meltzer's figure should not be added because it is simply not notable. Reliability doesn't even come into it - that's why secondary sources are critical (along with what has been said by others). Just because Meltzer is seen as a reliable source doesn't automatically mean it should be added when so many reliable sources disagree and give Meltzer no coverage. There's no controversy because it hasn't been covered by reliable sources independent of Meltzer - so it fails the basic notability test. In order for it to be added, there must be evidence of a controversy. !! Justa Punk !! 00:59, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

There is no notability test. WP:N is clear that it applies to articles, not the content of the articles. WrestleMania 23 meets the criteria for notability, so that's as far as that goes. What you seem to be looking for is the threshold for inclusion in an article (which could be called "notability" for lack of an actual understanding of Wikipedia guidelines). The answer is publication in a reliable source (including self-published sources from experts in the subject area whose work has previously been published elsewhere). In other words, Meltzer's claim is sufficient for inclusion. GaryColemanFan (talk) 01:38, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Why is it that Wrestlemania 3's article says the attendance for that event was in dispute, but this one can't. Upon checking the sources cited on Wrestlemania 3, it seems the source of that dispute is Meltzer himself. From the Slam Wrestling article cited:

The Wrestlemania III venture is in the Guinness World Record Book as 93,173, but some like David Meltzer of the Wrestling Observer question this number. Meltzer has written about number stretching in his newsletter and believed the crowd to be under 80,000." So there IS a precedent here. Wwehurricane1 (talk) 03:56, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

To say "WMIII is disputed so this figure can be" ignore the passage of 20 years, and in that time Titan Sports became WWFE which became a publicly traded company which then became WWE. The reason they changed their name is the same reason that this figure is less likely to be worked, which is they can't afford for it to be worked. They could have sued the World Wide Fund for Nature, and twenty years ago Vince would have, because his company was his. Twenty years later and the actions of the company are publicly accountable, so Vince doesn't sue the "WWF" he just changes his company name.

Metzler's figure comes from number released by the WWE! He takes two numbers and comes up with a third. His methodology is flawed, and it all comes from WWE numbers. He takes the merchandise sales figure from previous PPVs then divides it by attendance to come up with an average spend, he then deduces that because WM23's total spend figure is 7% less than what would be expected that the attendance must be 7% less, with no explanation as to where the 5,400 extra people went. I'm guessing that at WMIII there were some fans who told Metzler that they were comped, but twenty years later he has to rely on maths. Darrenhusted (talk) 10:22, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Disruptive IP editor topic-banned

Because of the long-standing pattern of disruptive editing against consensus, the anonymous contributor recently contributing as 208.120.153.110 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is now permanently banned from this article and this talkpage. I hope we can implement this without technical protection for the moment, but I'll be ready to semiprotect either page if necessary. In concrete terms, this means that any contribution from this IP, any known IP range of this contributor, or any suspected new sock, if they resume pressing for inclusion of that attendance figure, on either the article or talk page, can be reverted on sight without regard to 3RR. Fellow administrators are welcome to help implement the ban with short-term protections or blocks regardless of having been "involved". Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:38, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank You finally this has ended.--C23 C23's talk 16:00, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Hallejuah! I'll be watching for any return activity. !! Justa Punk !! 09:46, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

RfC

The result of the request for comments below, about inclusion or non-inclusion of an alternative attendence figure estimate, has conluded with a fairly strong consensus against inclusion. This consensus seems strong enough that it is not likely to change soon, and people at this point are obviously tired of further discussing this point, which is, after all, of very minor importance. The editor(s) who still don't agree with the majority opinion are very strongly advised to respect the consensus and move on, to avoid beating a dead horse. Further aggressive campaigning on this matter would be seen as disruptive editing. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:52, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Since this issue seems to be at a stalemate, the article fully protected and even brought up at AIV; maybe we need some editors not involved in wrestling to take a look and give their opinion. My personal opinion is stated above (I don't think a footnote needs to be included. To sum up the issue (I will try and write it in a NPOV to avoid stating my opinion):

WWE (the promotion holding the event) and Ford Field (the arena hosting the event), among many others, give one number for the attendance of the event. Wrestling reporter/dirt sheet writer Dave Meltzer looked at WWE's financial reports (WWE is a publically traded company and thus have to release this info to the public) and used to numbers to come up with his own attendance number for the event without having any sources to back him up. This is the first issue, whether to even use his number as a footnote since he based the number on how much money WWE made from merchandise sales. The second issue is less contentious and is what the wording should be IF a footnote is include.

TJ Spyke 21:13, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

User:JzG

• As I have said above, for me the issue is that we have no secondary sources which give any context for this. We never have, and people have been trying to include the figure since April 2007 as far as I can tell. Meltzer appears to be disputing a record attendance at an event based on some formula which has not, as far as I can tell, been peer-reviewed or subject to any kind of analysis to indicate its accuracy; it's not at all unlikely that the official figure is within the margin of error. He states the figure to five significant figures, but it's extremely unlikely that this precision is supportable. He states it in his own publication but as far as I can tell no other publication uses it. He states it, apparently, as fact, but it's an estimate. He takes at face value the WWF figures for merchandise sales but chooses to disbelieve the same source where attendance is concerned, why is WWF reliable for one figure and not the other? Without independent secondary sources we can't tell. In short, we know so little about this (other than by our own reading and surmise) that we can't include it accurately (i.e. stating that it is an estimate based on merchandise sales) without violating core policies such as novel synthesis and sourcing, and since there are no apparent sources which provide that vital context it's almost certain that to mention it at all constitutes undue weight. Guy (Help!) 21:28, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

On the sources proffered below:

1. [16] - user-edited, not a reliable source
2. [17] - "This is a hobby site and used for wrestling informational purposes only."
3. [18] - the figure is in a user comment and not the body of the review, which is in any case just a review for a DVD and not coverage of the event.
4. [19] - Who is Steve Gerweck? He does not cite a source and the authority of the site is not evident.
5. [20] - same site as #2, same issues.
6. [21] - user-submitted DVD review
7. [22] - User-submitted content. "source: Wrestling Observer Newsletter" fails independence (quotes Meltzer as fact without analysis). Who is Daniel Pena anyway? All I can find about him is criticisms for making things up on rajah.com, which seems to be basically a blog.
8. [23] - "I'm just a devoted wrestling fan with some free time".

Once again, where are the reliable independent sources which cover this controversy in a way that allows us to state the figure for what it evidently is, one man's estimate based on his own arcane formula? As I think I have said several times now, if there is significant coverage of the controversy, no problem. If it's just the blogosphere choosing WP:IBELIEVEIT and truthiness over the canonical source of data, the promoters and venues, then we ignore it, as usual in such cases. We can tell it's a meme, we can tell that some people (possibly including Meltzer) believe they are on the trail of some vast conspiracy to inflate figures, we can't tell if there is any basis to it whatsoever unless and until someone comes up with a decent analytical source. It's also clear that Meltzer makes a habit of this, which may well be a valid reason for inclusion of something in his article, but to include one man's guess with no analysis is WP:UNDUE especially considering the construction that's being put on it.. Guy (Help!) 08:45, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

@GaryColemanFan: the fact that you don't accept the applicability of policies does not mean they have not been cited. The consensus is clearly against you at this point, so the answer is, obviously, "no". Guy (Help!) 12:22, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

@GCF again: you say there are no policy based objections. That is, quite simply, a lie. WP:UNDUE is policy, objections based on that are policy based, whether you agree with them or not. Yes, it is verifiable that Meltzer gives a certain figure, but everything else we know about it - crucial being facts that (a) it is stated to a higher degree of precision than can be supported; (b) it is an estimate; (c) it is based on trusting one figure from WWE in order to assert that another is bogus; (d) that this is being used to assert systematic fraud ("gate stretching" is the term of art is it not?) and falsification of a claimed record figure for the venue - we know only from original research and that mainly from unreliable or unknown sources. That means we cannot cover the figure neutrally (per WP:NPOV, which requires us to cover everything, especially controversy, in a verifiably neutral way) without violating WP:NOR, so that is another policy based objection. The WP:ONUS is on you to justify inclusion, you have two very substantial objections to overcome. This can be achieved only by reference to commentary in reliable independent secondary sources. You make a good case for including commentary a bout Meltzer's habitual disputes over attendance figures in the article on him, but you are doing more to reinforce the case against inclusion here than for inclusion. Incidentally, I wonder if it has occurred to Meltzer that the discrepancy is easily explained by interpreting the figures as average spend per transaction and total spend - meaning that a number of those attending simply did not buy merchandise. But your statement on this appears to be OR anyway, to say nothing of ascribing to conspiracy that which could be explained by a cock-up. Guy (Help!) 17:50, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

@GCF yet again: There are two kinds of people who get involved in disputes on Wikipedia. The first kind learns that statements of opinion should be framed as such (e.g. "I dispute your interpretation of..."), the second kind states opinion as fact and quite often ends up banned. Guy (Help!) 18:50, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

User:GaryColemanFan

• "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true." - WP:V. In other words, it doesn't matter if it's accurate or not. If it has been published by a reliable source (and I have already shown numerous times how Meltzer meets the criteria for a reliable self-published source), it should be included. It has, so it should. That takes nothing away from WWE as a reliable source. In this case, there are simply two reliable sources giving two different numbers, both of which are verifiable and worth of inclusion. GaryColemanFan (talk) 23:22, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

• WP:N states that "The notability guidelines determine whether a topic is notable enough to be a separate article in Wikipedia. They do not give guidance on the content of articles, except for lists of people." Therefore, your notability argument is groundless. The threshold for inclusion is verifiability, which the claim clearly meets. Your apparently intentional misunderstanding of the math is irrelevant. How he arrived at the number is irrelevant. It is stated in a reliable source, so whether it is accurate or not, Wikipedia policy (the very first line of WP:V) states that it should be included. It's as simple as that, regardless of how convoluted you try to make it seem. GaryColemanFan (talk) 01:44, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

• Another day has passed, and still nobody has quoted a policy or guideline requiring a second source. Since the statement clearly meets the threshold for inclusion per WP:V, shall we add the statement to the article and close this RfC? GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:15, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

• @JzG - Nobody has yet provided a quotation from any policy or guideline requiring a second source. I have cited numerous policies and guidelines by providing quotations that support my point. People can form whatever "consensus" they choose; at the end of the day, policies and guidelines prevail. It wouldn't matter if it's just me against 100; as you yourself stated, consensus can't override policy. Therefore, since the statement meets the threshold for inclusion per WP:V, it goes in the article.
• @Justa Punk - Once again, you can provide all the bluelinks you want. They're simply not relevant. NOTOPINION has absolutely nothing to do with this, and you have certainly not provided a quotation to prove otherwise. SELFPUB weighs in my favor, since I have already demonstrated how, with multiple publications, an established reputation as an expert on professional wrestling, and numerous citations in reliable sources to his estimates of the WrestleMania III attendance, Meltzer meets the criteria of a self-published source that may be deemed reliable.
• @Darrenhusted - You are still caught up on the issue of verifiability. It simply doesn't matter if Meltzer is within a margin of error or not, nor does the fact that the math is nowhere near as complicated as you portray it—incidentally, it has nothing to do with everyone buying something or how much is spent at other events; it is simply a case of WWE saying "Here are the divisor and the quotient" and someone coming along to determine the dividend, most likely within 4 seconds by using a calculator. The statement in the article is simply that Meltzer stated (or estimated) a different number. What the number is has absolutely nothing to do with this. The article is not claiming that Meltzer's figure is correct. To phrase it in a way that will hopefully make it more clear: The article currently states that "Dale Plummer and Nick Tylwalk rated the entire event 8 out of 10 stars". This is cited directly to Plummer and Tylwalk's article. No second source is needed, despite the fact that the rating comes from what would be a primary source in this case. The Wikipedia article simply informs the reader of the opinion of two wrestling journalists. Obviously, no other publications are going to report on the event by saying that Dale Plummer gave it an 8 out of 10. The statement, however, is notable enough to be included. It is part of a journalist's reaction to the event. This does not mean that it is the official position of Wikipedia that the event was worthy of 8 out of 10, nor does it mean that the editors who wrote the Wikipedia article are trying to push a point of view about the event. It is a fact that Plummer and Tylwalk gave it an 8, and it is simply reported as exactly that. The Meltzer situation is no different. His reaction to the event was to question the attendance figure. Hence, Wikipedia should relate the fact that Meltzer questioned the attendance figure. Wikipedia in no way would be stating the Meltzer's figure is correct, just that a some guy said some thing.
• @Enric Naval - Thanks for stopping by and commenting. I believe, however, that you have misinterpreted the disagreement. The fact that Meltzer questioned the attendance figure is in no way surprising. It is not the first time he questioned an attendance number for WrestleMania, nor will it be the last. The fact that he challenged the number is not out of character, nor is it surprising. Knowing that he disagreed with Vince McMahon would not change anyone's perception of Meltzer, McMahon, or WWE as a whole. I would agree with your invokation of REDFLAG if the article were to claim that Meltzer's attendance figure is correct, but, as I mentioned above, it doesn't do that any more than it claims that Dale Plummer was correct in assessing the event as an 8 out of 10. GaryColemanFan (talk) 07:13, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
• @Darrenhusted (2): A couple of things: I'm still not sure if you are deliberately misrepresenting the argument or if you truly don't understand. I'll assume good faith and hope it's the latter. Meltzer's number has absolutely nothing to do with how much people spend anywhere other than WrestleMania 23. It's not an average amount spent at previous show. Previous shows are not factored into the equation at all. WWE released the numbers for WrestleMania, stating that fans at WrestleMania 23 spent an average of x on merchandise. WWE also stated that the total amount spent on merchandise at WrestleMania 23 was y. They gave Meltzer (and the rest of the world) those numbers; Meltzer had to do absolutely no calculations to come up with x and y. This leaves the very simple task of dividing y by x and coming up with z, the number of people in attendance (which includes people who spent nothing, since the x was simply an average). I hope this clears up some confusion for you However, all of that means absolutely nothing for this discussion. Remember that WP:V states that "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth (emphasis in original). Therefore, your statement that "There is no way of knowing if Metzler is correct and so the number should not be included" (emphasis added) is a violation of one of Wikipedia's core policies. However, yet again, the issue isn't even that complicated, since the Wikipedia article is not stating that Meltzer's opinion is fact at all. Meltzer's number, just like Plummer's rating, is simply an opinion and would be presented as such. The fact that Meltzer stated a different number is both verifiable, which fulfills the policy, and truth, which should satisfy even those who don't understand the policy. GaryColemanFan (talk) 14:27, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
• @Darrenhusted (3): Your argument is the very reason that WP:V begins by stating (and bolding) the statement that Wikipedia is about verifiability rather than truth. When it is clear that truth is not the issue, your argument that "he can never prove his number" holds absolutely no weight. However, you are still missing the fact that the information to be added is only a stating that Dave Meltzer gave a different number. Therefore, your argument is both incorrect and irrelevant. GaryColemanFan (talk) 06:11, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
• @JzG (2): Your understanding of WP:OR is completely flawed. Stating a fact (eg. Meltzer gave a different number) contains absolutely no synthesis or interpretation on my part. Where OR does come into it is in your arguments against Meltzer's number. To state that a number is false because it is too precise is the very definition of original research. If you can quote anything from OR, I would love to see it. As you have clearly demonstrated, wikilinking it and understanding it are completely separate issues. However, once again, your arguments are also irrelevant because you are attacking the number rather than the statement. Meltzer made the statement. You have given no indication that you do not believe this fact, so I can only assume that you trust that Meltzer gave a different number. As a result, you are also engaged in the pursuit of truth rather than verifiability, so your argument is completely off-topic. The onus is indeed on the person adding the statement, and I have fulfilled my responsibility by demonstrating repeatedly why the statement is no different from any other aspect of the Reception section (remember, 8 out of 10 is just one opinion that isn't reprinted elsewhere) and why the statement meets the threshold for inclusion based on its appearance in a reliable source. Incidentally, you also seem completely lost on the math issue, so I encourage you to read the "Darrenhusted (2)" reply above, keeping in mind that x includes all of the zeroes as well. Not that the math is at all related to the situation, but it might at least get you to stop arguing against something that isn't relevant anyway. GaryColemanFan (talk) 06:11, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
• @Podgy Stuffn and the bandwagon crowd (for some reason, the Simpsons quotation, "Immigants! (sic) I knew it was them! Even when it was the bears, I knew it was them!" comes to mind) - I regret to inform you that yet another of your arguments is completely invalid. WP:GAME is explicit in the fact that it refers to arguments made in bad faith. The wikilink provided to bad faith clarifies that this refers to something done with malicious intent. Clearly, my aim is to see that the policies and guidelines are upheld, not to hurt the encyclopedia. GaryColemanFan (talk) 04:40, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
• @Justa Punk (2) - You are now citing WP:TROUT incorrectly. I strongly suggest you take some time to read pages before you link them. I also recommend familiarizing yourself with terms before applying them so freely. In particular, I would recommend "bad faith" and "malice", since your accusations are now beyond uncivil. GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:19, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Curtis23

• WP:V doesn't say that every single thing said by a reliable source should be included.--C23 C23's talk 23:43, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
• Actually i've never really been for a footnote I just thought it was the consensus. Sorry if I confused anyone.--C23 C23's talk 01:34, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
• Ok my view is now and permanantly no footnote just because there ar no secondary sources to back this up, and we don't know if he just pulled this number out of the water and made up a fake math equasion to back it up. Also Gary please assume or yell it's not going to help you in the long run.--C23 C23's talk 03:53, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

It's Meltzer.--C23 C23's talk 22:12, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Hurricane please tell me why these sources are reliable as most of them are user edited and the ones that aren't are written by unreliable sources.--C23 C23's talk 22:18, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

TJ I knew you were joking I was talking to Enric.--C23 C23's talk 22:28, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Go ahead and do so if you think they're unreliable.--C23 C23's talk Help solve the WrestleMania 23 dispute 22:41, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Gary you should give up the consensus is obviously against you as now only you and WweHurricane1 (that are in the RfC) want the footnote against me, JzG, Justa Punk, Enric Naval, TJ Spyke. Podgy Stuffn and Darrenhusted I think are independent because it looks like Darrenhusted is partly for and partly against and Podgy Stuffn doesn't really give an opinion.--C23 C23's talk Help solve the WrestleMania 23 dispute 21:46, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

@GFC GFC please listen to me Podgy pointed out WP:GAME which I read and your in violation of that as you are using WP:V in bad faith to thwart other people's opinions and don't try to deny it by saying that certain part of it says something that agrees with you.--C23 C23's talk Help solve the WrestleMania 23 dispute 01:15, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

User:WWEHurricane1

• Curtis... considering that you've flip flopped positions on this issue at least 3 times, maybe you should stop. You're arguing against things that you yourself was saying and arguing for earlier, AFTER you had already argued AGAINST those same things even earlier, and now you've flip flopped AGAIN and it's not really helping anyone. That said... I agree with GCF. If the information is available through a reliable source it can be included per policy. It isn't up to us to determine whether it is true or not. On the other hand, you guys are calling for a second source. Is there a policy that states that there must be a second source? If so, where is it? Most items I see in articles only have one source. Meltzer is a trusted name. His track record speaks for itself. The information he used to come to the number is available to everyone to check and verify. I don't see what was wrong with the original wording of the article (The announced attendance for the vent was whatever, however Dave Meltzer reports that the actual attendance was whatever). It was neutral, it didn't say Meltzer was right or wrong, it just presented the figures with their various sources or source. Wwehurricane1 (talk) 01:13, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I would like to add that there is already a precedent for this type of issue. On Wrestlemania 3's article, it states that the attendance is in dispute. Of the three sources listed, only one offers up an origin for the dispute. That origin seems to be Dave Meltzer. SO, if Wrestlemania 3 can have an attendance dispute listed in its article based on LESS information that given for Wrestlemania 23 (ie, where the number came from), there is no reason this article shouldn't mention similar information given the same source. Wwehurricane1 (talk) 04:21, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Further, I can provide 8 different sources that are AT LEAST as reliable as the ones listed on Wrestlemania 3's page that state the attendance at Ford Field to have been 74,687.

[24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31] Wwehurricane1 (talk) 04:25, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

There are 8 sources listed above that are just as reliable as the three listed on Wrestlemania 3's article. Wwehurricane1 (talk) 22:14, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Curtis, I didn't say they were reliable. I said they are AS RELIABLE as the sources listed for Wrestlemania 3. The Slam Wrestling source is a user review of the event that only says there is a dispute on the attendance, but doesn't give a source for the number given. The About.com source is another user review and the so-called dispute is written in an opinion paragraph that claims "someone on the inside said the real number was around 75,000" but doesn't go into any more detail other than his own opinion which is based solely on the fact that Wrestlemania 8's attendance was never disputed. Third one, another from Slam Wrestling, is yet another opinion piece where the author credits the source of his information to Dave Meltzer. If these three sources can be used for Wrestlemania 3, then the 8 sources (9 if you count the original Meltzer piece) which give just as much information by just as credible people should be able to be used for Wrestlemania 23. If the sources provided for Wrestlemania 23 aren't reliable for the reasons some have stated above, then the sources for Wrestlemania 3 should be removed for the same reasons. Wwehurricane1 (talk) 22:33, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Justa Punk

• Curtis, let's not argue with what others are saying in this section. Just put your own view for others to see via the RfC and leave it at that. You too, Hurricane. Let them be the judge, okay? Now my view is that the information should not be included at all. Not only do WWE and Ford Field claim the figure, it has numerous back ups from reliable sources. The Seattle Times, ESPN [32] [33], The New York Times, Sports Illustrated, The Detroit News, international sources like The Sun, PrimeraHora [34], IndianTV, along with LiveDesign, The New York Daily News, MSNBC, FOX News, and even MLB.com. Now, how many reliable sources back up David Meltzer's claim? None. The sourcing of his claim is primary, which comes under WP:SELFPUB. Now if there are no issues or contentions with the information given, particularly as Meltzer has been noted as a reliable source by the Pro Wrestling Project, then no problem. However in this instance there is a problem. Aside from the fact that his information goes against multiple reliable sources, the way he came to the figures he has is in upon itself contentious. I mean - how on earth can you come up with an accurate attendance figure based on merchandise sales? This calculation bases itself on the idea that everyone in attendance is going to buy merchandise. That's ridiculous. So whilst the claim may be verifiable within the primary source, it is not verified by other reliable sources. Along with the fact that Meltzer's view has no independent reliable coverage in general - so ergo, there is no controversy. That's an automatic fail on notability and it's why there should be no mention of it in this article. Meltzer's general reliability becomes irrelevant, and in this case he is clearly unreliable based on his poor mathematics. !! Justa Punk !! 01:17, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
• Gary, no we won't close this RfC just on your say so. Please provide back up for Meltzer's claims. If you can't, then his claim is not notable and falls under WP:NOTOPINION. That's what it is - his opinion. There is also the issue of WP:SELFPUB which is why he has to have back up from independent reliable sources. This has been explained to you already by others, so I would like to know what parts of this do you not understand? !! Justa Punk !! 09:36, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
• Darren has absolutely nailed the crux of this matter, proving beyond a shadow of a doubt why Meltzer's number needs back up. It's inevitable - the number Meltzer gave can't be verified as accurate. The dispute he is trying to create is not notable. Isn't there a description for someone pushing policy just for policy's sake rather than for creating a better encyclopedia? !! Justa Punk !! 10:28, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
• Thanks, Podgy! That's the one! WP:GAME - take note, Gary! !! Justa Punk !! 08:08, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
• Gary, you are acting in bad faith by whacking a dead trout. So WP:GAME is most certainly applicable, as Curtis has also noted. !! Justa Punk !! 04:55, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Podgy Stuffn

Being rude doesn't help your case, Gary. "intentional misunderstanding" "convoluted". Suggest a less attacking approach to state your case. Podgy Stuffn (talk) 02:34, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

• After reading through all of this, it is apparent that Gary Coleman Fan is not listening to other opinions on this matter and is almost behaving in a manner mirroring the 208 IP. Averages are subjective figures that have no real mathematical value. They are simply statistics that are inherently inaccurate as real numbers. So any calculation done using an average can't stand up to scrutiny. If David Meltzer has a history of questioning attendance figures, I would question his independence when it comes to commentary about WWE. That reeks of bias. I support the view that there needs to be a second reliable source to confirm Meltzer's number otherwise it should not be included as biased. Podgy Stuffn (talk) 00:25, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
• @Justa Punk; I think WP:GAME may be the policy you are looking for. I would certainly suggest that Gary Coleman Fan may be in violation of that guideline. Podgy Stuffn (talk) 00:40, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Darrenhusted

• I didn't comment at the WT:PW until I could see the tide flowing towards adding a footnote for a primary sourced quote with no real explanation of the methodology. Then I attempted to close the discussion and move it here, as it had reached a dead end at the project. Now the conversation is here (and the IP208 is frozen out) the essentials can be extracted, which are 1) how did Metzler come up with a figure 5,416 less than the WWE gate number (which is not within the margin of error, and which is exact to the last 7 people) and 2)is there a second source which trusts Metzler's number to use it? The how is easy, he took the average spend at WWE events and divided it by attendance to come up with a mythical "average spend". He then sees that the total spend is around 7% less than would be expected if all 80,103 in attendance spent the average spend, he then extrapolates that to the WWE (a publicly traded company who supply all the other figures in the equation) massaging the figure by 7%. He then come up with his figure. But for 2); There is no second source and all requests for a second source either bring up user edited fan sites which repeat the primary source, and while there are no other journalists who are willing to use Metzler's math (derived from WWE numbers, released because they has to, legally) then we should not give him undue weight and include his math problem in this article. Darrenhusted (talk) 10:37, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
• @GCF, someone rating something 8/10 is opinion and only needs one source, not the same thing. Let me put the equation in different terms. A bar holds gigs, it's maximum capacity is 10,000. Over a week it holds a series of gigs and the manager asks the barman how many beers were sold, when 1,000 came they sold 6,000 beers and when 100 people came they sold 600 beers. On the Friday the bar sells 12,000 beers, how many people were in the venue? At a guess most people would say 2,000 (6 beers per person); however the tickets sales show that there were 3,000. In the scenario above Metzler is being told two things 1) the average sales per person at previous PPVs and subsequent PPVs and 2) the amount spent at WM23, and coming up with 3) how own number of attendance. Despite being told that there were 80,103 by everybody in the world he ignores this and uses 2) divided by 1) to come up with a number he could not know unless he counted the fans individually. There is no way of knowing if Metzler is correct and so the number should not be included unless someone else (who isn't operating a user-edited blog or any other source that fails RS) confirms the number independently. Darrenhusted (talk) 09:36, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
• @GCF2:"A couple of things: I'm still not sure if you are deliberately misrepresenting the argument or if you truly don't understand.", allow me to reply in as few words as possible; Metzler is making the number up, and that is why it should not be mentioned. Unless Metzler has footage of him making a tally as each fan exited the building then he can never prove his number, for me (and 99% of those on Wikipedia) that means the number is not verifiable, and no amount of bolding words will change that. Though I remain open to a second source, but as the number exists in Dave Metzler's head and not in any other reality I doubt a second source will ever present itself. Darrenhusted (talk) 15:24, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
• @GCFoneFinalTime:Metzler made the number up, WWE and the venue say "we had 80,103 people sitting in 80,103 seats for the six hours of the event, who then left 30 minutes after it finished an went to their cars and drove home, a good time was had by 80,103". Metzler says "no, there were 5,400 less people", how do you know that Dave? "I guessed, and WWE pumped the numbers 20 years ago for WMIII and nothing has changed in between Reagan is still in the White House and we're still at war with Russia and WWE are liars". SO what happened to those 5,400 people? Doesn't matter because Metzler said so. What if people spent less because WM attracts more international visitors and tickets are a higher price, so there is less money for other spending? Doesn't matter Metzler did a math problem and like David Copperfield made 5,400 people vanish. Forget the waffle about ratings, all rating have one source, the WWE doesn't publish rating, it (and the venue) do say that 80,103 people were in their seats for WM23; doesn't say they all paid, and it doesn't say if Linda, Shane and Stephanie were the last three counted, it just says that the attendance was 80,103. Metzler could argue that 2,000 of those were road crew, or that 200 were wrestlers, but he doesn't he gives us a math problem and expects everyone to praise his wonderful math skills; doesn't explain how every shot of the arena showed a full house, with no empty sections, with no empty seats, with no areas curtained off. They say it's a sell out and the venue say it's a sell out, and you are wilfully misunderstanding WP:V and a slew of other policies. So to boil it down to one sentence; does anyone else (fitting WP:RS) report the Metzler number? No, and neither should we. Darrenhusted (talk) 11:22, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Enric Naval

This seems to fall under WP:REDFLAG. A surprising argument that is not covered by any mainstream source, and which contradicts multiple, more reliable, sources, and which can't be independently verified. Not a high quality source either. Not written by a recognized authority in measuring audience and showing that official audiences are incorrect. This doesn't need to appear in the article until better coverage of that figure is given. (not even as a footnote) --Enric Naval (talk) 16:30, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Weltzer's attendance figure in Wrestlemania 3 is covered by a secondary source: A history of crowds, by Chris Schramm, in SLAM! Wrestling [35]. That's why it's being reported. Weltzer's figure for this event is no covered in any secondary source, that's why it shouldn't be reported here. --Enric Naval (talk) 20:44, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

User:TJ Spyke

"Weltzer"? Haha. TJ Spyke 20:47, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

No there aren't, and another user above proved that. First, 2 of those "sources" you pointed out are user-submitted DVD reviews. TJ Spyke 22:18, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I know, I was joking. TJ Spyke 22:18, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on WrestleMania 23. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070710095413/http://corporate.wwe.com/documents/1Q2007Presentation_000.pdf to http://corporate.wwe.com/documents/1Q2007Presentation_000.pdf

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:04, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on WrestleMania 23. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070418144247/http://corporate.wwe.com/news/2007/2007_04_21.jsp to http://corporate.wwe.com/news/2007/2007_04_21.jsp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070203045353/http://corporate.wwe.com/news/2002/2002_03_17.jsp to http://corporate.wwe.com/news/2002/2002_03_17.jsp
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://corporate.wwe.com/company/events.jsp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:47, 20 January 2018 (UTC)