Talk:The Invasion (professional wrestling)

Article

I started this, since I noticed a few places didn't link to this (non-existent) article about one of the biggest angles in recent wrestling history. At any rate, I don't have time to flesh it out with a full timeline, but eventually I think it would be cool to do, as the purchase of WCW was a huge event in both the real world and the storyline world. Ideally, there would be a proper timeline of events, including post-Invasion details regarding the WCW talent brought in after the fact.

Name change?

Can someone explain why the title of this article was changed from something more specific to something less specific? I supposed it's possible to regard "The Invasion" as being meaningful in the context of pro-wrestling, but this title doesn't make a lot of sense. It should either be my original title, or The Invasion (pro wrestling), unless I'm mistaken about some Wikipedia entry naming policy.

I'd be inclined to agree. Perhaps "The Invasion" should be a disambiguation page, pointing to "The Invasion (Animorphs)", "The Invasion (Doctor Who)" and "The Invasion (pro wrestling)". Anyone object? 80.93.170.99 09:08, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

If there are no objections to making "The Invasion" a disambiguation and moving this article to "The Invasion (pro wrestling)" before Nov 20th, then I'll go ahead and make that change. 80.93.170.99 13:42, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Wrestlecrap

First off, Wrestlecrap is notable (since their entry in Wikipedia exists and isn't scheduled for deletion). That they mention the Invasion is also notable, especially given the large section on criticisms of the invasion. I would love to hear an explanation as to why it's not notable. Please provide one before reverting -- Davetron5000 14:12, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

While Wrestlecrap may not be the top most awesomest website ever, a) it is notable enough to be included in Wikipedia and b) in the realm of wrestling-related websites, it is not some piddling site, but is, in fact, quite popular. The authors have published a book under the brand name "Wrestlecrap", so I think it's notable and worthy of inclusion here, especially given the discussion on the Invasion angle being poorly executed. -- Davetron5000 21:08, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, just because a site is notable enough to be on wikipedia does not mean that mentions to all it's material be included on every page. You look at the alexa rating [1], it is not even in the top 200,000 sites in the world. Is the site notable enough to be in wikipedia, maybe, but just barely at best. But the info that keeps being added on is already on the main wrestlecrap page here on WP. It is only needed there, and it provides a link to this page here. It should not be added back here, it just clutters up the article and solely provides free advertising to that site, which is a cult site at best. Again, Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files, Wikipedia is not a free host, blog, webspace provider or social networking site, and Wikipedia is not a directory. Burgwerworldz 00:48, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

First off, thanks for reverting before discussing. Awesome. Anyway, What is the cut-off for being allowed to be linked on this page? 150,000? 100,000? I think it's somewhat specious to say it isn't notable for this page based on it's rank among all websites ever. That rank is not in any context and is a pretty weak metric of "notability to be included in an entry abouta wrestling angle." I think since it is notable enough to be on Wikipedia, and it's entry links to this page, and the trivia is directly related to the topic at hand, it adds something. Furthermore, what is the harm? It's not like it's some one-off fan-site hosted on tripod or something. The site's owners have published multiple books, which is more than can be said for pwinsider.com, pwtorch.com and wrestlingobserver.com, which all rank in the 20Ks on your site ranking thingy. And how is adding a bit of trivia turning Wikipedia into a social networking site? Or a blog? Or a free host? or a repository or links or media files? That comments makes no sense to me. I guess since you're just going to revert it every time without regard to anyone else's opinion, I'll leave it for the next person. Anyway, thanks for playing by the rules, this has been constructive. -- Davetron5000 14:52, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Criticism section

I realize that this section does have weasel words and is POV, though the information in it is not false or made-up. The general consensus of the wrestling media and contributors (and possibly the viewing audience) was the angle was a failure. Furthermore, the entire reason this angle is notable is because of it's failure, and I think it's encyclopedic to document the reasons why. I think we should make an effort to cite these things rather than just slash them all out without even trying. Also, the section does contain facts that are basic summaries of the storyline itself and the goings-on at the time. For example, the "inter-promotional matches": The WWF wrestlers did win those more often than not. I'm not sure how to cite that, especially since match results are not archived anywhere. At a certain point there has to be trust that the authors and editors of the article report things accurately. I think the section would be helped by some correlation to television ratings and PPV buy rates as proof of "failure", but please do not remove this section; let's make it better. -- Davetron5000 13:52, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Here's hoping the person deleting the criticisms section is reading this. Let's go through that section and I'll show you why it's not POV:

• The first bullet: "Many of WCW's top talent had contracts with AOL Time Warner, WCW's parent company, and were willing to sit at home rather than wrestle for less money...." - This is, in fact, true, and not an opinion or original research. I would love to have a reference for it, and I know it's easier to delete than improve, but this puts the Invasion in some historical context. The remainder of the bullet documents the fallout of this fact
• Next bullet: "Throughout the storylines, many "inter-promotional" matches (i.e. matches between WWF and WCW talent) had the WWF wrestlers winning over the WCW wrestlers." - Again, this is true, and is simple documentation of the "plot" of the WWF shows at the time. Hardly biased and hardly original research.
• Next bullet: "Behind the WWF vs. WCW storyline was a McMahon family feud storyline, which involved Vince McMahon heading the WWF forces " - Yet again, this is simple documentation of the content of the television shows. Don't see how this is biased or original research.
• Next bullet: "To bolster the ranks of WCW (in lieu of big-name WCW stars), talents whose fame came from improving the WWF product such as Stone Cold Steve Austin, "defected" and joined WCW." - Yet more documentation of the shows content. Did you even really read the contents of this section? I would rather you spend your efforts devisin a way to reference show content than deleting useful information
• Next bullet: "The WCW championship belts were retained, while those of the ECW were not (the WWF would not gain the ECW copyrights until months after the Invasion storyline was finished, and therefore did not legally have the right to use ECW material at the time)." - Documentation of show content.

Following these bullets is a paragraph documenting that the big-name stars from WCW were brought in later and how they fared. There are some biased statements in as written, however I think it's obvious the intent of those statements (e.g. the one starting with "Some place the blame on how they were booked") is to document the popular opinion of the wrestling media and fanbase at the time. I would rather us work on finding a way to document that then just delete things we don't like.

The last paragraph documents Ric Flair and Eric Bishoff's entrance into WWE, and seems fairly non-biased to me. Again, this just documents what happened.

Perhaps your beef is that this section is called "Criticisms", yet levels very few? I honestly don't know, since you don't seem interested in actually discussing this issue. I'm asking you to please enter into a rational discussion before just deleting that entire section. -- Davetron5000 15:21, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

What I don't understand is how 3bullet whatever just reverts with no discussion when I've asked multiple times to enter into a discussion of why it's POV. I even itemized every part of the section indicating how those sections are NOT POV, and what is the response? Another revert. So, I'll continue to do YOUR work for you. I've demonstrated above how very little of the section is opinion or bias, and I identified which small part of the section is opinion (and asked that we seek to find the holder's of the opinion so it can be clear it's not fact). It isn't "written from a local perspective", nor is it assuming a local readership. There is no nationalism in there, and no assumptions of the obvious. I can't see how there is an Enlglish point of view, nor are spelling or measurements incorrect. The section doesn't assume all people to be heterosexual (wow, I'm digging deep here to try to support your argument), nor does the section marginlize anyone with disabilities. Finally we come to the last section on weasel words, and, if you read the section carefully, very little of it is of the form "some people thought...." and I think I made it clear above that the encylopedic value of those sections is in documenting that wrestling media and pundits held a certain opinion and we should document who that was. We could remove those statements for now (which would still leave the section intact).

So, I've now demonstrated that each part of the section is unbiased and that it doesn't violate WP:POV. So, I invited you, instead of reverting and not having a discussion, to explain exactly what parts of the Criticism section violate what parts of Wikipedia policy. Please be specific; I've just gone over BOTH with a fine-tooth comb and am at a loss as to why you think the entire section should be gone. --Davetron5000 13:40, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Information on the Invasion

I've actually went ahead and made numerous citations to what has already been written. However, it seems that the details on the Invasion are a bit skimpy as a whole. A lot happened in between Summerslam 2001 and Kurt Angle's defection to WCW. What I suggest is that we fill in those holes and cite them properly using the same kind of links I used to cite every RAW and Smackdown! event in the article. It'll make this far more comprehensive, and maybe the wikiproject will rate this article higher in terms of quality. I'm entering crunch time during my semester, so I can't say for sure that I will or will not have enough time to fill in the storyline gaps, but I'll try, and I hope some of you do as well. =) - Frightwolf 20:02 PM November 16, 2007

Completely one sided article

What a shambles, this whole article is so anti-Invasion angle its unbelievable. There were people out there who enjoyed it, namely the fans who don't use the internet to write about wrestling, and the ones who made events like Invasion such a financial success. There was a lot of crap in the Invasion yes but at the same time there were also so many great bits, so many entertaining Raw/Smackdown shows. This article has smark-tastic written all over it. The criticism bit on the ECW/WCW guys looking bad in the Invasion 5v5 match... what the hell, the Alliance guys were heels for the love of gawd, having to cheat to win is one of the basic parts of being a goddamn heel. Stuff like that surely has to go from the article. --Simonski (talk) 19:40, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Not at all. The article itself is non-biased; the criticism section is reserved for criticism as the title implies, and the fact that there was widespread criticism and many sources to go around means none of it is going to go as all of it is legitimate. Face it -- regardless of your opinion of the Invasion, it was met with such widespread criticism that not putting it in the article is criminal. If your argument is that people who don't go online to write about wrestling enjoyed it, which no one can prove, then having criticism on an online article makes even more sense. Saying there were people out there that enjoyed it has not much to do with the extremely legitimate and numerous complaints that went along with the angle.

Your claims also cannot be proven, so using a claim like, "The people who made the Invasion such a success liked it," is one to be taken by a grain of salt. Not to mention that the Invasion made so much money, but many of the complaints, like the overemphasis of WWF defectors, were made after the Invasion was over, i.e. the PPV was bought well in advance before many of the complaints started to be lodged by the wrestling community. The wheels were already turning, so to cite the audience that was there presently as proof is silly.

If you want to add a separate section, cited properly, of legitimate praise that went with it, be my guest. But don't group the whole article as biased -- it properly cites all the events that occurred, and criticizing Criticism for citing criticism is, well, awkward. --Frightwolf 20:09, 15 December 2007

As an aside, there's an interesting policy regarding having specific "Criticism" sections, here. It might be worth a read. --Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 04:10, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

The way the criticisms are, it is very much better to have a separate section than to integrate the entire thing. As it stands, the Criticism section has been with the article from near the very beginning and was only challenged by bulletproof, who rapid-fired deleted it with no discussions and acted as if he reached consensus when he went solo against many people, as demonstrated right above this with davetron over a year ago and in the Revision History.

Integrated or not, the criticisms will always be there, and while it's discouraged, it's not disallowed, which really nullifies opposition to the fact that legitimate and massive criticisms have been lodged since 2001, and having a section as such is for the better. I have not seen much well-established praise for the angle besides people saying it entertained them, but if there is massive praise that can be found, then put it at the end of the section and make it into a Reception section. As it stands, it was legitimately and indisputably met with much criticism, regardless of your opinion of the angle. - Frightwolf 16 December, 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Frightwolf (talk • contribs) 05:06, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Sometimes having a separate criticism section is necessary. Also, Wikipedia:Criticism is an essay, not a policy or guideline. As for the article being one-sided, if you can find verifiable information from reliable sources that present the other side, it can be added to the article. Nikki311 17:42, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

While I can't say alot of the anti-invasion points aren't correct, I do agree with the OP here. The part where the article states "The invasion is made to look weak" is just silly. Every heel in every match goes through the same process, the same routine. In this critism section, there are obviously things intentionally left out. Some alliance members looked weak, as all heels do, but Rob Van Dam in particular won matches cleanly very often. I don't think the section should be removed, but if it's going to be there, it really should be balanced to not stink so horribly of POV.

Also, this quote is, by far, the worst quote I've ever read in any wikipedia page, and I've read at least a few thosand.

"While it was good TV, it wasn't what everyone thought the WCW vs WWF would have been all about... When the fans of WWF and WCW reminisced about a WCW vs WWF match back in the glory days of Monday Night Wars of around 1997, their match would have probably gone like this: WCW would probably have a team of Hollywood Hulk Hogan, Scott Hall, Kevin Nash, Goldberg, and Ric Flair against... maybe the WWF team of Stone Cold Steve Austin, The Rock, the Undertaker, Shawn Michaels, and Mick Foley. Something like that anyway, obviously, even if Vince had done this thing right and signed some good WCW talent we would have had a match a little different due to... factors such as retirement or injuries or something, but still similar to that."[6]

I nominate that for deletion. TheJudge310 (talk) 00:13, 29 December 2007 (UTC)