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)

I didn't name it Vince McMahon's Ego, but that has a lot to do with it given the criticisms, especially when one of the criticisms was that it was "ego-driven." You have yet to cite the fan interest, which is the whole point of the argument -- unless you can prove otherwise, you really have no argument against the criticism section. It's not what you think of the criticism section -- it's that there were criticisms that's the point. A point you keep missing. Vince's ego cannot be proven? The fact is that it is a complaint listed by MANY sources. Get over yourself and your hyperbole farce arguments.

You were never open to discussion -- you were huffing and puffing from the beginning. You wanted everyone to bow down to your opinion. I caught that from the beginning and made sure you'd know that you can't bully me around at all. Anyway, I'm off to make sure the article doesn't get further sabotaged. Unlike you, I contributed to the article and made it more than a stub; you should try it someday. -- Frightwolf (talk) 19:13, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I would have said the exact same thing about you. There's a guy like you on the EU page, thinks the whole page is their work and is reluctant to give any credit to any new editor that comes along with a fair criticism of the article. And no - The whole 'Vince's ego' can't be proven - its all speculation, much like all the third-hand wrestling news that goes around. --Simonski (talk) 20:37, 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)

Silly ones? Why don't you talk about what's silly to you? It's clear that the only reason people are pissed is because they hate that their beloved angle has been criticized profusely. I'm sorry, but I'm just going to undo whatever you remove as "silly" unless you actually explain what's silly, rather than just expect me and others who have edited to stand idle while the article is further degraded by rabid Invasion fans. Different POVs are balanced by prominence of the viewpoint; loving the angle is not as prominent, as displayed by the internet community at the very least (AKA things you can actually cite). Therefore, it does not need equal time with the criticism. Once again, your use of hyperboles will not convince me that this article, which has been upgraded in quality due to my hard work, not yours, and nikki's rewrite, is a quality article. Not salvageable? Get over yourself. -- Frightwolf (talk) 19:13, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

"Get over yourself", says the man who is fiercely defensive of an article to the extent that its blatantly a case of WP:OWN. I don't understand why you're being so aggressive just because somebody else doesn't agree with your views. You have to get used to the fact that with how Wikipedia works, consensus isn't static, and as the old saying goes "if you don't want to see your work edited mercilessly, don't contribute". Anyway, see below on certain points. Like I said, you can be awkward about this if you want or you can help fix it so there's a consensus. Nobody above has said "I loved the Invasion angle". Rather they have pointed out that the latter half of the article reads like an internet wrestling column, riddled with one-sided personal views. I think it was quite clear the reference to "silly ones" included those such as Tony Cottam (again I'd like to emphasise that its not a knock on Tony as he's a great guy). --Simonski (talk) 19:27, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

"I don't understand why you're being so aggressive just because somebody else doesn't agree with your views." The irony in this statement is stunning. You were huffing and puffing from the very beginning. If you want a discussion, then get a discussion going (I've already invited a administrator in to help solve the problem since your actions have been completely immature and out-of-line and no discussion occurred until you were called out on it 50 times). But don't victimize yourself -- I noted every point your made, and you dismissed it with "yawn yawn," rather than actually discussing anything.

Tony Cottam's points are backed up by the numerous other sites that were given. Once again, I've already worked on the text that sounds biased (aka the non quoted material). That was the only thing that was really a problem with the criticism. The rest were people complaining about the points made, which has nothing to do with Wikipedia. That's like going into a movie for Wikipedia and deleting something cited because you don't agree with their criticism of the movie. Hence why I don't care what your opinion of the criticism is -- it's not a knock; it's just that it's irrelevant whether or not you agree with the point being made or if you feel the actual criticism lodged is legitimate. The fact is that criticisms were made profusely and were rightly cited in the article.

You distort reality in a way that is astounding. I'm not complaining about edits; I'm complaining about some of the most ridiculous complaints against a wiki article I've ever seen. Don't distort the truth; actually discuss things like I did (which you ignored multiple times as evidenced by the fact that you repeat points I've already responded to). -- Frightwolf (talk) 19:44, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

And I would repeat what I said in my opening sentence again happily. I just assumed that the article had been vandalised by some anti-invasion smark or something (certainly its possible it was actually the case). But I don't remember calling you an obnoxious child or telling you to "get over yourself". I did respond to your comment about the Departed and Pirates of the Carribean, when I stated that whether something is a success is open to interpretation. For some reason you decided to laugh that idea off, even though its true. I'm sure the maker of X-Men 3 would happily debate with you whether Memento was a bigger success for example, even if from your point of view, Memento was a better film. Honestly, people can read this discussion for themselves and come to their own conclusion. You seem to mix fact and opinion up though on a regular basis. Like I said, you got a "yawn yawn" reply because as far as I was concerned, you were rehashing points. And as for the most ridiculous complaints... as far as I'm concerned this article has some of the poorest sources I'm come across on a Wikipedia article! If I am repeating myself in any way here its probably because I've honestly become mixed up as to what your point is. All I understood really was "its my work, my work I tell you. Meltzer said the Invasion angle sucked, and so did all the guys who read Meltzer and then rehash his news, so it did!"

Also, didn't another administrator add the neutrality tag and agree with me? What on earth is your point there. --Simonski (talk) 20:05, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

You completely disregarded everything I had to say. Hence, you were being an "obnoxious child." Nikki is an administrator and already invited you to add more sources; you didn't. You kept complaining instead of trying to talk about the problem. Hence why I've called one in here to mediate and possibly discipline you if your actions really did cross the line. Ignoring other people's arguments, completely making a farce of the talk page, making dishonest claims, and misrepresenting another person's argument... unbelievable. Rehashing points? You bring up PPV buyrates for the 100th time (aka rehashing), I give it a proper and effective rebuttal (financial success vs. critical success), and you have said NOTHING about it. PPV buyrates IS your entire argument as that's all you've brought up. If a rebuttal to it is rehashing points, then you need to be barred from editing this article. You are behaving as stubborn as a mule with your straw man arguments.

Your statement about "What's your point?" continues to show your purposeful ignorance to the talk page and is a prize example as to why I said you're wasting my time. You still have yet to prove why the sources are poor. I don't know what your point is, frankly, and your presence here is counterproductive. Either you respond to points, or you stop trying to victimize yourself, as between the two of us, you were the first to start disregarding the other's points.

Oh, and stop with the straw mans -- if you really read through all that and still think that my point is that I don't want you editing the article because I worked on it, then talking with you is about as effective as talking to a wall. -- Frightwolf (talk) 20:14, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

That would be all very well, if I'd actually done anything wrong. If anybody gets disciplined it'll be you with your borderline personal attacks and failure to be polite to other editors. I would debate whether I did not counter your points, like I said, I'm happy for somebody to read the above discussion and see you're talking absolute nonsense here. Given that a few other people have chipped in and have agreed with me (including the chap you're currently immersed in an edit war with), I'm evidently not alone so it might help you not to try and undermine me as you're currently trying to do, for example by claiming that I've somehow made the talk page a farce. As far as I'm concerned, you appeared to rebut any idea of there being anything wrong with the criticism page (which I, evidently, have proved to be wrong by having you admit to 3 things being wrong with it, rather quickly) - I quote - "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", and it is you who is in the wrong here. We're obviously not going to agree on who exactly was rehashing what (I would still say it was you, not me), so I don't think I have much else to discuss with you other than the quality of the sources that are currently used for the criticism section, and how I would say they aren't all up to scratch. --Simonski (talk) 20:21, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

The first sentence is all I needed to know. No wonder you've been so stubborn -- you have no idea what being a rude "yawn yawn" editor makes you: a troll. You haven't backed up much of your arguments, and like I said, this article has been edited by many people who have voiced no problems with the Criticism section. Unlike them, I'm more vocal, and the only legitimate argument made so far was that the non-quoted text sounded biased. Other than that, you still have yet to back yourself up. Stick up for yourself for once; "other people agree with me" is silly since I could just E-Mail the editors to all those links and ask them to come here and agree with me, too. Stop victimizing yourself -- I was not at all rude from the beginning, but you came out with your "YAWN YAWN WHATEVER" crap from the start. Therefore, you get more aggressive responses until you stop victimizing yourself as if you've had any moral high ground at all.

This is the last thing I'm going to even attempt to discuss with your behavior, as actually trying to discuss anything never got me anywhere with someone who acts as stubborn and wrong as you -- I never "agreed" to three of your points; I accepted them as a compromise. Your straw mans are completely ridiculous and tired. If you even have anything to say about your hysterical straw mans, I'd love to hear it. -- Frightwolf (talk) 20:40, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I should add though that the yawn yawn was also a response to the fact that you were clearly (I think in response to bulletproof onwards) getting more aggressive in your responses and acting more dismissive in what I thought was quite an arrogant manner. The whole "others agree with me" is more important from my side as the person advocating change - it shows that I am not alone and that your attempts to undermine my suggestions/points won't work as well as you'd probably hope. I don't get your point that I haven't backed myself up... evidently I have by answering your other points? Do I need an internet site to tell me that someone like Tony Cottam is about as much of a credible source as I am for an encyclopedia? No. And ahhh, so I'm wrong now am I, whatever happened to opinion. Good one. I'm not the one who was claiming from the get go that there was nothing wrong with "my work". Your sacred work! Deny it all you want but you're clearly an example of somebody who's got a bit too attached to their wikipedia work. Like I said, its a clear case of WP:OWN. Try and undermine that with "straw man straw man" as much you want, but its clear for all to see.

Have a read of my posts again, you'll see I'm perfectly polite with you until your attitude seems to change with your response to Bulletproof. Either way I'm happy to continue trying to improve this article as I see fit, if you fancy being cooperative, then that'd be great. You can try and act the Smart Alec if you want but its not going to change the fact that this consensus is moving. --Simonski (talk) 20:53, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Revisiting consensus on the criticism section

Its clear from the fact that a few people raised a couple of points on the criticism section as it stands that there seems to be disagreement as to what the criticism section should contain. I'd like therefore to open a new discussion here in order to reach a new consensus. For me personally, the current version of the page reflects what I'd be happy with as a compromise. 3 or 4 things in particular merit deletion/rethinking in my opinion:

1) The "Vince McMahon's Ego" section needs renamed.

2) It needs emphasised that some of the points made are largely speculative.

3) That Vince McMahon/Austin internet column quote about the post-No Mercy feud should go (the point could just be made in the article instead without the full quote being necessary), or be replaced with a less amateurish one.

4) The last criticism about Jericho and Tajiri staying on the WWF side doesn't make sense, as when it happened it was played into the angle in order to make it more interesting (ie. Jericho wasn't trusted by the WWF guys in the angle as they thought he was going to switch sides, Tajiri did the swerve with Regal and so on).

Just to state again, the fact that the current state of the article has seen it rated B class does not mean that consensus on an issue cannot change. As Vince McMahon said to Austin all those years ago, we can do this the easy way, or the hard way. Rather than aggressively ignoring the concerns of editors voiced above, I would encourage discussion here. --Simonski (talk) 17:33, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

No one is ignoring concerns; it's just that the concerns are getting ridiculous. It has been said before -- if you want balance, then find balance, but don't take it out on a well-cited criticism section. You were invited from the start, with nikki as well, to get your own sources in, and you chose the hard way by starting a fight online, which is always a good move. The only person being ignored is me, as evidenced by every response to me you've made within the past two days. I give you a detailed response to every point you made, and you couldn't even show the same respect. If you're turning over a new leaf, that's fine, but don't act like you, in any way, have been encouraging discussion. You opened up vociferously, and I was kind enough to you then. Don't victimize yourself and the editors that are complaining simply because this angle isn't as popular as they thought it was. That said...

I can do 4, and I'd be content with 1 (although the reasons for that section are due to Vince's ego). 2 I already worked on. 3 should stay as it gives a better detailed explanation as to why people were fed up with the McMahon angles. It's not just that the feud was restarting; it's that all the same events, from Vince's same scowls to the set-up of Austin's win despite the attempted screw-job, lined up perfectly. The quote gives far better insight. -- Frightwolf (talk) 19:35, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I have to completely disagree. As far as I was concerned, you were simply rehashing arguments, which is perhaps why you were getting what you might claim were repetitive answers. I think you'll find it was you getting very touchy about people questioning "your work" that fanned the flames. I certainly did not 'start a fight'. The concerns that were raised by editors including myself were completely valid, and still are; people were flicking through the article in an interested way, seeing that the criticism section had blatant flaws, including in particular the quality of the sources used, and making a general note of it which they were entirely entitled to do. Its like, imagine you read an article on Butter and somebody has listed that butter tastes like Dr. Pepper, you know its not right, but can you be bothered to find an actual citation that it doesn't, no, you're more likely to just post "What a crock of crap". The idea also that editors were coming here with the idea in their head that the Invasion angle was universally liked is also complete nonsense - we all know it was hated by internet smarks which is why a few editors have raised concerns that this side of the argument has been given too much emphasis in this article.

Either way, on the quote at 3, I really think the point can be made without the quote being necessary. The bit in particular "Fans snore, whatever" is certainly debatable. Surely there's a better quote out there if you'd insist on keeping a quote there. I'll think of an alternative sentence and propose it here later. --Simonski (talk) 19:44, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

No arguments were rehashed. You mentioned PPV buyrates, and I refuted that by noting that the article made a distinction between financial success and critical success as the two are not always going to be related. I also made a point that, by that logic, Pirates of the Caribbean was considered a better movie than The Departed. You completely ignored that and rehashed your own arguments. I don't understand this new fad online where people will take their own flaws and somehow try to relate them to other people, but it's annoying. You were completely out-of-line, your arguments were rehashes, and at some point, you give up on said person. Making a note of something is "perfectly entitled" if it's a legitimate note. But nothing was explained -- it was just, "This sucks; let's delete it." Please. And the arguments were not incredibly valid, minus the arguments against the non-quoted text. A valid argument has substance and reasons; they are not your version of an argument which is a blanket statement with no backing. Actually back up what you say, like me, if you want any semblance of a discussion.

Furthermore, you were invited by an ADMINISTRATOR and myself to add quotes that praised the Invasion. You did none of that. If you ignored even an administrator, then you shouldn't be the one giving the moral lecture. That said...

It's still Slam's opinion, and he's from a site that extensively covers wrestling. That's fine if you want to think of an alternate paragraph that could involve the quotes. The reason I like the quote is that it details everything about the match. From the screw-job to Stone Cold miraculously making a comeback to Vince's stunned face, it's something that had been done many times before, and it was detailed well in the quote. If you think of an alternate paragraph, again, propose it, and we'll see what we can do with it. -- Frightwolf (talk) 19:52, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

See above. As for Slam and Cottam... well, I just don't buy that, I've no idea about others. I'd be interested to hear what qualifies a site to be used as a Wikipedia source, but as far as I'm concerned, the Cottam stuff would purely be his opinion, taken from already secondary sources. The value of it is really debatable. --Simonski (talk) 20:07, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

"purely be his opinion" Criticisms are opinions. What's the argument being used here? -- Frightwolf (talk) 20:15, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Several years ago I wrote articles alongside Tony Cottam at Wrestling101.com; I know the guy and how he is not a fitting encyclopedic source. Thats my point. He is about as knowledgable about wrestling as any other person who writes wrestling columns - which, on the whole, is nowhere near as knowledgable as they like to think. Certainly not enough to pronounce on truths about the wrestling business. You are writing/citing these opinions as if they are fact. That is the problem. --Simonski (talk) 20:22, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

No one is writing this as if they are fact; the criticisms were written because they are OPINIONS and are stated as such. The fact that the section is labeled "criticism" is a clue to how the entire section is opinionated. -- Frightwolf (talk) 20:35, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

After reading through the criticism section, I'm afraid this wasn't clear enough - though the section was titled "Criticism", the information contained in it seemed to be suggesting many things were fact which weren't, such as that it was "noted" that if Bischoff and Heyman were involved then the Invasion would have been better... implying that it was fact that it would have been better, not opinion. --Simonski (talk) 20:40, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Do opinions even belong in an encyclopedia article? If for some reason people think they do, wouldn't it stand to reason both sides of opinions should be added together, or not added at all? TheJudge310 (talk) 21:04, 11 January 2008 (UTC)