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)

Not at all on the first point. That is a legitimate point made by many websites as evidenced by the many links and different authors I provided. A lot of heels, though ruthless, can take over a match fairly. Look at Summerslam -- Booker T needed constant help from Shane. Not just one run-in, but constant help, and he was supposed to be Rock's equal. The Invasion is a perfect example due to the fact that the Alliance members couldn't ever take the match legitimately like many heels of yore could. Every single time they took control, it was because they had to play dirty -- they got their asses handed to them for the majority of the match. That's not WCW vs. WWF -- that's WWF cleaning house, and Vince's ego was completely in control, as stated by many websites. And look at Survivor Series: the WWF team has the iconic Rock and three 7 feet tall powerhouses, and the Alliance had what? Shane McMahon, two WWF wrestlers that did most of the work, and a pair of ECW and WCW wrestlers that, at that point, weren't really the main actors in control of the Alliance?

None of what you just mentioned "stunk of POV" or anything of that sort; it is all well-cited articles and quotes that all lead to that conclusion. And talk about paranoia -- nothing was intentionally left out.

I could find a thousand quotes like the last one where people didn't feel that there were any Dream matches (I can add in a Slam! Wrestling quote as well, if you'd like); you gave no reasons why it was bad. Personally, I feel the same way as the quote, as do a zillion other people, but I can't put in my opinion in the article, so I cited said quote to help reinforce the point of the section as it is a good point in a well-cited section. -- Frightwolf (talk) 01:13, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

And you are entitled to have the opinion that the Invasion sucked, just that you can't go around basically giving the impression that its how everybody felt about it. The point about Booker constantly needing Shane's help... like I said, its called being a heel. Bloody hell if you watch the shows/PPVs from the Invasion angle one thing that is said over and over by JR etc is that 'this Alliance is the greatest threat the WWF has ever faced', bla bla bla. As somebody rightly pointed out, guys like RVD, the Dudleys etc were being put over and its a shame that people like yourself forget that alongside the awful DDP v. Taker type moments, the WWF was coming out with a lot of great TV that people were tuning in/showing up for. You're telling me that people were buying events like Summerslam/Survivor Series 2001 months in advance? Hardly. The Invasion angle had interesting defections throughout it, great backstage segments with Austin/Angle/Booker/RVD, solid PPVs, brought things like Raven v Dreamer to the normally pointless Heat/Velocity shows, exposed Booker T/RVD finally to the larger crowds they deserved and so on and so on.

You have to face the fact that many fans enjoyed the Invasion angle, even if it wasn't perfect. Well cited articles, yes, well cited, but the fact is that at the end of the day the criticism is coming in many instances from glorified smart marks, the encyclopedic relevance of which I would greatly, greatly question. Back when I was a smark myself I wrote a pro-Invasion article myself - woah, does that make me an encyclopedic source too?!?! Gosh darnit! Splendid! What a crock of crap. The whole criticism section should be retitled 'reception', and balanced with other views. As it stands, its awful. --Simonski (talk) 14:51, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. The very reason as to why the criticism section has been removed is to provide a neutral POV article. However, many of the things Frightwolf added to the article have really compromised the article's integrity and have made it an incredibly one-sided article. Until this matter is resolved, the neutrality of this article is disputed. -- bulletproof ^3:16 19:55, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I made some changes to the section to reduce the one-sided tone. However the article still needs to be rewritten. -- bulletproof ^3:16 20:36, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Face the fact what? What can you do to back up your "fact" that you've pointed out? You have to face the fact that it has been criticized by many venues, and simply stating "Lots of people liked it" is a very horrible way of disputing sources like Slam! Wrestling, Online World of Wrestling, and Smash Wrestling. "Crock of crap" all you want; that's not going to convince me that the complaints aren't legitimate from legitimate sources. "Solid PPVs" is your OPINION; that's OR and does not belong in the article. You act as if I put my opinion in the article -- I merely put the opinions of many articles in this. Do you actually think saying, "Well, I think many fans liked it, so we need to remove these well-cited sources," is actually a counter to anything? Give me a break.

Finally, your accusation is false -- I'm not making it seem like that's how "everybody" felt. The only person propagating that notion is you with your opinion with your "Many fans felt this" spin. Sorry, that's not going to cut it. If you want balance, you add your own stuff in as nikki and I have already stated. You just don't like the opinion of the article; that just is not going to cut it, and the dishonesty coming from the opposition is stunning.

I am reverting everything that bulletproof has done as not ONE THING has reached a consensus, and the article already HAS been rewritten and has been UPGRADED to B-quality, no thanks to the likes of bulletproof's rapid deletion crap that has downgraded the quality of the article. Bullet, unlike you, I saw that things needed to be improved, and I actually added to the article to upgrade its quality, as shown by nikki; you just delete things you don't like because you don't agree with the opinion of the article. Guess what -- these aren't my opinions; these are opinions of well-cited sources, and you have no reason to remove them. You continue to act like I have compromised the integrity of the section, but my changes to this article has actually improved it. I added information, I added details to the storyline, I expanded on the criticisms section. Not you. Nikki rewrote this and thought it improved a lot, and something tells me that this user knows quite a bit more and is more helpful than you are. You just delete things and that's that; you degrade the quality of articles, and it's not going to happen anymore. I'm not going to stop editing the article, and I am not going to stop putting you in check. I will continue to revert your edits until you actually reach consensus instead of going on your one-man ego trip. If you continue to rapid-fire delete without reaching consensus and giving solid reasons as to why you're deleting things, you will be reported. People like you scare off users like davetron, and you're mad that you can't bully me and get on him like you can me. I've dealt with your trolling enough, and my patience has been worn thin.

Oh, and just so you know, the changes I made? More people made changes than just me. Many edits have been made where the criticisms were left ALONE. Don't single me out like I'm on a one-person trip; nikki already pointed out the false claim that the criticisms remark by Walrus was even a policy. You'll have to do more than dishonest remarks to get an honest consensus and an actual discussion going. As it stands, this is the same thing I went through with you last time, and my edits and hard work won in the end, not you. This article does not need a rewrite; it already received one, and not for the reasons you've stated. -Frightwolf (talk) 02:58, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid the problem is you are citing these dirtsheets/magazines as credible sources, whilst it could very easily be argued that even though Frank Smarkowski gave Booker T v Rock *1/2 and slated Summerslam 2001 etc, Average Joe the wrestling fan appeared to like it. Like I said, you can cite those sources if you want, but they have to be balanced against strong PPV buyrates and TV ratings (particularly compared to many points in the period of wrestling that has followed since). This article IS one sided in the sources that you have opted to use. Surely that makes sense. I don't have the time personally to go and download the ratings/buyrates/merchandise sales for the invasion period, but I know from past experience that they were solid which is why I'm entitled to criticise a non-NPOV article without needing to provide them myself. The bias is so blatant on this page that it is unnecessary to do so, but hopefully somebody else will.

Oh and for the record, SLAM wrestling, Smash wrestling etc = not gospel. How many times do you have to hear pro wrestling stars themselves tell you that. The fact is in the wrestling business there is the balance between the views of those working in it and the views of those who write such publications and frankly the way the article is at the moment fails to reach this balance. --Simonski (talk) 10:55, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

A lot of things aren't gospel; that doesn't negate their usefulness. Yes, they are credible sources, especially since the point of the article is that the Invasion was met with heavy criticism, and the article cites many sources that heavily criticized it. Not that hard to understand. This is a wrestling article; citing credible wrestling sites makes perfect sense in a wrestling article. I don't care what your opinion of the actual angle is; it's completely and utterly irrelevant and has nothing to do with anything. The fact is that the article features a thorough and well-cited criticism section as the Invasion was met with heavy criticism, and it needs to be cited. Gospel what? The Invasion has been criticized by so many venues, and trying to argue against the points they made is pointless -- the point is not what the arguments are against the Invasion, but rather that the arguments have been made for seven years now. Hence the section to cite said criticisms.

Second, buy rates have nothing to do with how well anything was liked. By your logic, Memento and The Departed are inferior to Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End and X-Men 3. I would beg to differ. I even made a distinct point while writing the article to separate FINANCIAL SUCCESS from CRITICAL SUCCESS. And to add to that, the first two movies didn't encounter the same vast amount of "flop" and "ego-driven storyline" arguments that the Invasion has received. There's a reason the Invasion did, and it's not because the majority view is positive toward it.

Furthermore, the buy rates pitch you're talking about is already in the article, right at the start of the criticism section. Once again, you are more than welcome to FIND SOURCES to back up the points you're making. You can't just say, "The average joe liked it," because you cannot prove a lick of that. You have to give sources in a reception section, not just, "I feel most people really did like it," because guess what? It will promptly be deleted.

Find sources to balance the POV, as has been said 1000 times. Hell, when I get around to it, I'd even help you put it in the article since the article itself is structured very well. But until then, it's futile to complain about the fact that points about how many people liked it (which, frankly, is the minority view) when you can find the sources yourself, as long as they are legitimate appraisals. Do that, and maybe you can give me a ring, and I'll help put them in. Until then, I'd rather not rename this "Reception" or anything of the sort without your help in getting sources that propagate your POV to balance things out. As it stands, the criticism section is well-written, thorough, and well-cited, so stripping it down is simply sabotaging an article that has recently risen in quality by the Pro Wrestling Wiki Project crew BECAUSE of the additions and work I put in. -- Frightwolf (talk) 17:21, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Yawn yawn, face it, its smark-ilicious. I lost interest in the whole scene a long time ago and can't be bothered. You say you dont care what my view of the angle was - surely the whole point of this discussion is that it is you who have been branding about your view of the invasion angle. I don't see why your opinion, backed up by all the 'knowledgable' internet writers (yeh right), should be more valid than one like mine, backed up by PPV successes etc. As for successes - its open to interpretation how you deem something successful, which this article certainly does not emphasise enough. Instead it is clear which side editors like yourself have come down on, failing to provide a balanced view. Hopefully now that the non-NPOV status of the article has been noted, somebody else will come along here and provide the necessary balance which you have failed to reach yourself. In the meantime this article is a disgrace and would be suited more to one of those wrestling websites rather than an encyclopedia. --Simonski (talk) 23:54, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y_OxqliUIMc&feature=related - bonus present for you. --Simonski (talk) 23:57, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

"You say you dont care what my view of the angle was"

You're correct; I don't care at all what your opinion of the angle is. It's completely irrelevant to whether or not the content should be there.

Your whole reply is a waste of time. You repeated the PPV buyrate point, which I addressed is already in the article and already addressed how that's a moot point. You've already been asked to find sources yourself to provide the balance you obnoxiously pout about, and you failed to do so. You mention "open to interpretation," which has nothing to do with anything -- the angle came under heavy criticism, and these are the arguments used against it. I already noted the difference between critical success and financial success; you clearly have absolutely no idea what either means and what my statements about them were, considering how ignorant your comments were. The article does not imply it had no critical success, rather it simply made the argument that it was met with heavy criticism. Why in God's name you're actually making an argument about success being subjective is beyond me.

Whether or not you agree with the criticism is irrelevant. You simply read what you wanted to read, as evidenced by the fact that you're repeating arguments already addressed. I really do love how your opinion boils down to PPV buyrates, btw -- you put an etc. right after that. Guess you had no other argument besides, "I feel that a lot of people enjoyed it, so there." You do realize that such an argument is not encyclopedic and not sourced, right?

Your last statement shows why I shouldn't have bothered to reach an understanding with you to begin with -- criticism sections are allowed by wikipedia and are in many articles. Criticism of the angle comes from where? Wrestling websites. Citing wrestling websites somehow belongs on wrestling websites, by your logic, and if that statement confuses you, don't be surprised -- it was an ignorant statement. And the whole point of the discussion... you clearly haven't a clue what the point of the discussion has been about. The neutrality argument is a farce considering the article is neutral. The criticisms seems POV just because it cites criticism; the regular text gives no POV whatsoever and makes a distinction between fact and alleged reasons. I'm close to removing that heading.

Don't know what link that youtube thing is, and I don't care. Just out of spite, I won't watch it, as you haven't given the slightest bit of consideration into reading anything I've said. You rant like an obnoxious child and read what you want to read. You're wasting my time. Actually discuss something, or save your fingers some work. -- Frightwolf (talk) 01:06, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Don't make me laugh - you can't sit there while there are sections titled "Vince McMahons Ego" (even if there was criticism the idea that it was Vince McMahon's ego driving it is something that can not be proven and its a farce that its in the article) and claim that the page is neutral or balanced in any way. And criticism sections, as you should know, are generally advised against on Wikipedia. I couldn't care less what you do with that link (though I would have a suggestion)... and as for the obnoxious child remark, well thankfully others reading this dispute will be able to see for themselves that if anybody's acting like that, its you (particularly given since I haven't engaged in any edit war here or edited your precious work as I'm perfectly entitled to do). Good to know you're open to discussion though. Ever heard of WP:OWN? Might be worth your while reading it. Away back to your little wrestling internet sites in the meantime. What is there to debate about the fact that the Invasion created serious revenue and fan interest? Surely that is more important rather than whether you and the internet smark brigade enjoyed an angle? The criticism section at the very least has to be shortened. --Simonski (talk) 11:27, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Also... I noticed, for the Vince McMahon's ego section, you've used Tony Cottam as the source. Now come on, what the hell. As much as Tony/Inno was a friend of mine a long time ago, you can not seriously use him as an encyclopedic source. How can you sit there and claim that I'm the idiot here when this is the standard of source that you're using?!?! Tony Cottam is a great guy, hilarious writer at times but what authority does he have to make the comments that he made. Its not only secondary info when he's reporting, but tertiary! Don't you see - on the whole that forms a large part of my point. --Simonski (talk) 11:35, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

As it stands right now, this article reads like it were a recap from an angry smarky columnist. I really hope someone out there decides to just scrap this article and start from scratch, because the content of the article is currently almost as bad of a joke as the sources are. If I could connect to any sources at my workplace besides Wikipedia I'd try to fix it myself, but to be honest I'm not sure what's salvagable here. Someone needs to go through the sources, find all the silly ones, and erase them and the content they added to the article. That's a good start. TheJudge310 (talk) 17:30, 11 January 2008 (UTC)