Jump to content

Talk:Bill Goldberg

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Hawk18727 (talk | contribs) at 08:28, 7 May 2011. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

His winning of titles

There is no reason it should say, "He was booked to win several titles." None of the other articles about wrestlers talk about winning titles in this way. So, I'm going to change the article to just mention which titles he won. Thanks. Yesitsnot (talk) 06:51, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reguarding his comment to TNA

goldberg is a superhero i'm big fan of him even i'm muslim and he is jew but i like only his way and style of wrestling just it no more if any one call goldberg a cheater and loser than i will destroy him he is a true wrestler even best than undertaker understand everyone goldberg is world 1st true and most powerful and minded wrestler he's not like the big cheater triple h and batista

What does this have to do with anything? --Justakija (talk) 13:46, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it shows that the poster isn't very bright. WilliamSommerwerck (talk) 15:09, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vitalstatistics

http://www.onlineworldofwrestling.com/pictures/f/football/goldberg.jpg Here's a bio pic from his football days.(Halbared 10:00, 10 June 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Height.

I noticed that some editor has changed Goldberg's height. Like 6ft 3inch(191cm) into 6ft 4inch(191cm). Actually Editor that has changed his height inrto 6 ft 4 inch from 6ft 3inch was right because 6ft is about 183cm as I calculated Centimeter and inch(feet). I think second version is correct (6ft 4inch<191cm>). *~Daniel~* ☎ 02:23, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Goldberg is at least 6'5". I'm 6'2" and he's at least two inches taller than me. <Steve>

Signature moves

Shouldn't that neckbreaker Goldberg did be in his signature moves? I've seen him use it a lot. I don't know what it's called though. 65.27.218.205 17:04, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

jackhammer Sailor cuteness 17:14, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How can he have more than 35 "signature" moves? It seems like this section is just a farm, and should be removed. The references given are to single instances of uses of a move, not the establishment of a given move as something that Goldberg made uniquely his own. -- Mikeblas (talk) 02:14, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
agree, signature moves should be the moves they use very often and became their "signature" Romangelo (talk) 02:05, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Animal Rights v. Animal Welfare

Look up animal rights and look up animal welfare. There is a huge distinction between the two on this encyclopedia and in relality. The article cited misdefined him, and that should not transfer to wikipedia. He may well be an animal rights advocate, but I have seen no evidence to that fact. As per WP:Cite the assertion cannot be made. Angrynight 18:57, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Return to WWE?

Someone keeps adding that he signed with WWE which is just a flatout lie. If it's true provide a source. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.184.169.37 (talk) 08:02, 18 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

I'm sorry, but where were you 2003-04?--Yewyew 08:23, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, he has not signed with WWE, but WrestleView.com has a statement from Goldberg's own Twitter page confirming that he is discussing a return to WWE because he wants his son to see him wrestle. But that's as far as it's gotten so far. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobbyknightmare (talk • contribs) 09:41, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Plese Lock This Article

For the love of god someoe lock this article, Goldberg has not signed with WWE. I'm not even a registered user and I urge for this article to be locked. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.184.169.37 (talk) 15:54, 19 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

There's no need to lock the article. If you feel that article should be locked, you could propose it for locking. I don't remmeber how to do it exactly, but unless the edit war has enormous dimensions, the administrators rarely and hesitantly lock articles.--RockyMM 23:07, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Now there is. I have put a request in for a s-lock due to IP vandalism. One of the vandals has been blocked and we shall see if anything else happens. Valley2city 05:58, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Birth date

In the beginning of the article it states his birthdate is December 27, 1966. Under the "Personal Life" section of the article it states his birthdate as December 22, 1966. Which one is it?

I don't think five days matters very much, but that's my opinion. I know Wikipedia should have it right, but where is it going to make a difference? Hmm now they both say 27, i guess that's right.

Wrestlefanfest

Just seen this Wrestlefanfest thing is with him on www.wrestlefanfest.com apprently making an appearence. Should this be added?

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot (talk) 18:08, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of who all has beaten him?

Is there anyway I can get a list of everyone who has defeated Goldberg? I know Nash, bret hart and HHH have, but who else. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.222.211.61 (talk) 05:11, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that would be some list at all, since during his WCW days, he was unbeatable, so in WCW there's Kevin Nash, Bret Hart, and Totally Buff (Lugar and Bagwell), and in his WWE days, Triple H and Kurt Angle (Royal Rumble), my point is the list is so small, it's not encylopedia worthy... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.53.208.218 (talk) 05:44, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Does Triple H even count because he needed Evolution and Kane to beat Goldberg and in WCW the only reason he was beaten was because of getting electrocuted and gettig ganged up on by the nWo-74.103.123.57 (talk) 01:45, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well no triple H didnt really beat him it was all a trick to strip him of the title goldberg jobbed to triple h after all wrestling is kayfabe but goldberg was unfairly nerfed in the wwe the evidence cant get any clearer than this right here: http://www.armpitwrestling.com/bill-goldberg-wwe-contract.html TraviaNightmare (talk) 21:35, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Worth mentioning

It should be worth mentioning on the article in his WCW chapter that he was able to lift the 500 pound Giant (now known as Paul "The Big Show" Wight) in a vertical suplex position with one hand and Jackhammer him, cuz I've noticed that many people don't believe he could do it... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.53.208.218 (talk) 05:25, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That would need a source. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 12:13, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no mention in this article about his brief NFL career with the Falcons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lobejks (talk • contribs) 23:49, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is the Youtube video of the great moment: http://youtube.com/watch?v=HIf_4x9tTq0 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.53.208.218 (talk) 14:35, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I added the information myself, since I have a source... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.53.211.67 (talk) 14:44, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I found a written sources - http://www.accelerator3359.com/Wrestling/bios/goldberg.html and http://www.100megsfree4.com/wiawrestling/pages/wcw/nit1998.htm... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.53.211.67 (talk) 02:34, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Why is there no mention of his days in the NFL? I know he has the dubious honor as being the first player cut by the Carolina Panthers in 1995 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.241.124.150 (talk) 21:04, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Under "Other Media," it should be mentioned that he also hosted a series on Speed Channel called "AutoManiacs," where he discussed the history and folklore of famous cars. It was a really good show, actually. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobbyknightmare (talk • contribs) 09:44, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mentioning his football career....

Why is his pro wrestling career only mention, what about his early football days? ~

The image File:Starrcade-1998-Goldberg.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

The following images also have this problem:

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --12:19, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Single? Married?

What is Mr. Goldberg's relationship status? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.159.111.98 (talk) 10:39, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He is married to Mrs.Wanda Goldberg(Ferraton) i dont think we need to really state anything about his relationship status TraviaNightmare (talk) 21:35, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

173 consecutive victories - NOT KAYFABE

I have included a link that supports the record Goldberg holds—173 consecutive victories. No one is claiming these are competitive wrestling matches or that this is some Olympic record. They are his record of victories in WCW. There is no kayfabe involved. He won 173 matches, and yes, professional wrestling, or sports entertainment, if you please, is not a legitimate sport, but his record in the wrestling world still holds true.--[Check it out here http://www.accessnorthga.com/detail.php?n=227997] --Screwball23 talk 02:07, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your dead link is no match to a real book. --175.144.248.124 (talk) 11:34, 19 August 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.144.73.197 (talk) [reply]
Yes it is not kayfabe i wonder why people keep changing it? i think we should semi protect this article and create a goldberg task force for all those nasty rumors :D TraviaNightmare (talk) 21:21, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your opinion is no match to a real book. Do not call it "extreme vandalism" when it is not. Do not remove comments from the talk page. --175.144.73.197 (talk) 06:28, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It doesnt have to be in a "book" its on a web page take it with a grain of salt TraviaNightmare (talk) 00:21, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion of quote about promoting Goldberg

User 175.144.73.197 has attempted to add the following to the article: "In their efforts to push Goldberg to the moon, however, WCW made some critical mistakes. Ever since the announcers had mentioned that he was 60-0, fans with way too much spare time begun to keep track of his winning streak. These fans were so hardcore that they even kept track of his untelevised house show wins. ... One week, announcer Schiavone's number didn't jive with the number the hardcores had. Then, the next week, it was even further off. As it turned out, in a lame effort to make his streak appear more meaningful, the company had started to add imaginary numbers to the total."

This appears to be a direct quotation from the book. First, does anybody claim that the quotation is not in the book? Second, if it is in the book, on what grounds are you objecting to its inclusion?

As a side note, even if we keep out the quotation, the current version will have to change--as written now, the statement is both un-encyclopedic ("undefeated undefeatable"), unverifiable (unless this is a quote, in which case it needs to be marked, but otherwise you can't verify that no other sport of any type has a person with a better record) and NPOV.

Let's discuss this here rather than edit warring, okay? Qwyrxian (talk) 21:48, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

no books are useless anybody can write a book and if you my friend have even half a brain you would realize that the text is completely outta this world and even if its not its biased

i highly doubt the book has that i know that book and i really dont think it involves a MAN ON THE MOON

unless a LINK is provided like the link disproving the malaysians comment its safe to assume its either a lie or half truth which means its not wiki worthy

its completely encyclopedic it wasnt written by me u know undefeated streak yes undefeatable yes theres no such streak in sports entertainment history its no lie no exxageration

yes theres no other type of streak that comes even near goldbergs streak it really is the undefeated undefeatable winning streak in sports entertainment history that book reference must be removed unless there is a solid link i have searched everywhere about a MAN ON THE MOON and other bad comments about DA MAN

by god if this is an edit war and all three of you gang upon me i will go HITLER on all of you sure ill make this article a living electronic text based hell but im commiting to making this article a featured article worthy article and aint nuthin gunna stop me i will semi protect this article and i will do it by not getting blocked i will make this article better and i will add more watchers you will all be amazed if you go up against me in a handicap match :D TraviaNightmare (talk) 00:21, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have addressed your incivility on your talk page, but you need to stop it now. Drop the battlefield mentality. No one is "going up against you." We are all trying to improve the article. Improving the article does not mean turning it into some sort of homage filled with non-neutral statements. It means making it an encyclopedic representation of reliable sources.
Regarding the above--you are wrong on saying that a link is necessary, and that books are inferior to internet links. You say that "anyone can write a book," well, anyone can write a website, too. The question is, is the book a reliable source. You seem to think so, since you're leaving the reference there, just using it to support a different claim. You can't simultaneously claim it's a bad source and use it.
I have to ask 175... a favor--is there any chance at all that you could scan the page that the quote is from and post it somewhere that we can see it? If the quotation is in the book, and the book is reliable, then the quote should stay.
Whether or not the quote is reliable, the claim currently in the article must go. Don't forget--this isn't a "sporting" streak--it's an entertainment streak. Goldberg won (at least some) of his matches because that was what the script called for. This is interesting, and it's certainly not wrong of us to say that he was "undefeated in X matches." But that doesn't mean you can compare it to an unscripted sport. You could say, assuming you have a source, "Goldberg is undefeated in X matches, which is a better record than any other professional wrestler." I'm going to edit the article now--not to add the quote, but to remove the NPOV language. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:09, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As a side note, I checked, and EcW press appears to meet the guidelines for a reliable publisher. It's not a self-publisher, so it's not true that "anyone could publish a book" through them. Books published by reliable, independent publishers, especially ones that have won awards, are generally considered reliable sources. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:17, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And bingo! Google books has the book uploaded. You can see the quote being discussed lame effort to make his streak appear more meaningful%2C&f=false here. Thus, the quote is correct. However, I'm not sure that it appears in the lead; maybe instead we can just summarize the idea. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:25, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, all I added was a single phrase that says that "the exact total is disputed." This matches the book quite closely. I don't think we need the quotation there, as it gives the authors' opinion too much weight. But the fact that the number is disputed should remain.Qwyrxian (talk) 01:30, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
wrestlecrap is never a good source the book is real as ive told you you should know that the wrestling media will write in KAYFABE format i told you its biased take his side if u wanna but this isnt over it will never be over TraviaNightmare (talk) 03:07, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I admit that the source is biased, but that doesn't rule it out. All we're saying is that some sources, biased (the official homepages) say that he has 173 wins, while other sources (also biased) say that he has less than that. Doesn't that seem neutral? As for the "sports entertainment history", note that the page Professional Wrestling notes, right in the lead, that "Most matches are prearranged by the promotion's booking staff and contain choreographed content and scripted outcomes." This means that it doesn't make sense to compare, Goldberg's accomplishments (which are the result of scripting by the WCW and WWE) to the accomplishments of a professional baseball, boxing, or curling athlete. Goldberg's accomplishments are a record in the WCW/WWE, which neither I nor the article dispute. But it would be more accurate to compare Goldberg's number of wins to the number of times Dr. House says "Everybody lies" or the number of times Captain Picard said "Make it so," because they are the result of scripted entertainment, not sporting accomplishment. Again, please do not mistake my statements for disrespect--Goldberg is clearly an accomplished, well-built athlete, and his character was extraordinarily important to the WCW and WWE stories. But that doesn't allow us to compare apples to oranges.
Now, if consensus here determines that the wrestlecrap book is not a reliable source, based on our policy definitions of sources, then we can take it out. My default analysis is that it is reliable, at least for it's own point of view. I am more than happy to hear other opinions though. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:45, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, it's a reliable source. The only reason why this other editor does not recognise it as such is because he's obviously a big fan of Goldberg (as evident by his "philanthrophy" post below: "it will change your opinion of goldberg forever!"). There's a reason why nobody can ever find a list of all the 173 matches that Goldberg won. I now think it is important to mention why the figure is disputed to help prevent other such big fans of Goldberg (we call them "marks" but you'd probably consider that a personal attack) from changing the text. And yes, I'm the same editor as 175.144.73.197. --175.144.75.34 (talk) 14:41, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We don't make edits to "prevent other editors from making changes." We make edits that are correct per policy. That quotation violates WP:UNDUE, because it gives too much weight to one sides opinion. Simply stating that the figure is disputed is more than enough. Plus, your rationale doesn't work anyway, because any "Goldberg fan" wouldn't care about the quote anyway, as we already know (since they consider the source irrelevant). In general, there's no need to quote that much information, especially in a reference note, unless there is a very strong reason (i.e., that it's necessary for a reader, not an editor, to understand). I humbly request that you revert the addition of the quotation, although the other part was fine. Finally, if you think someone may find something to be a personal attack, don't pretend to hide it by saying "we call them..." That's still unacceptable. Trading insults only makes it more and more difficult to edit collaboratively Qwyrxian (talk) 16:13, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how the quotation is being given undue weight when it's only in the references and not in the main article. It just seems to me that if you leave it as "disputed", then people are going to be wondering why is it disputed and who are disputing it. The quotation in the reference section fulfils that query without giving any undue weight. The rest of the article is still written in kayfabe mode - i.e. treating fiction as fact - so if anything has undue weight, it's this idea that the streak is legitimate. --175.144.75.34 (talk) 18:07, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If this continues to be a problem (we'll see how TraviaNightmare approaches the issue upon returning--ideally, through a conversation here), then, if necessary, we can do a Request for Comment, possibly specifically inviting comment from WP:WikiProject Professional wrestling. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:00, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
im alive again i won the round i edited just a minute before i was blocked(lucky shot there) and you kicked me while i was down by replying to my messages even though you knew i cudnt reply gud job gud job. you also got me blocked for no reason the last edit i made before i got blocked was not biased or bad at all why dont you check it?

anyway you will be happy to know i edited it and the man on the moon quote was added "again" its clear that the malaysian is using a dynamic ip and that his opinions are biased he tries hard not to admit it and you are taking his side on this unless there is concrete evidence there should not be assumptions like this made here

if you teach me how to cite sources or links i would gladly prove his opinions wrong if you are watching wiki i suggest you correct his edits if he cites that irrelevant source again. you should have warned me before you reported me for blocking thanks to you i have a block on my record you may have cheated your way by using the 3RR as a reason but you shall not win the war TraviaNightmare (talk) 07:37, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, you have to change your attitude. Period. This is not a batlle, it's not about winning, and I'm certainly not happy that I asked to have you blocked. Blocks are preventative, not punative; I asked to have you blocked because you violated a policy for which "good intentions" is never an exception. I will explain that further on your talk page. But you must stop treating the article like it's a war. I'm not fighting a war--I'm working to make sure the article is as good as it can be (why, I really don't know, since I really don't like wrestling...but I'm here now, so I'm going to try to do a good job while I am). Wikipedia editors must collaborate.
We are not going to prove anyone wrong. What we have to do is to include or not include information and opinions according to WP:DUE. The information that the IP added (and it's fine if he's on a dynamic IP--WIkipedia allows anyone to edit anonymously if they wish) meets the requirements of a reliable source, as far as I can see. Thus, the information can be included (although it doesn't have to be). You need to stop removing the source unless you can prove that it does not meet Wikipedia's policy on WP:Reliable Sources. Can you do that?
Second, your information is not neutral. First, professional wrestling is not a sport, so you cannot compare it to all other sports. Even if you could, you would need a source to specifically state that it was longer than every other string in every single sport in the entire world. Do you have such a source? What's wrong with the article simply stating the fact that it is the longest in wrestling history, followed by the secondary opinion that the exact number is disputed? That seems like a perfect balance to me--we take out the quotation in the reference, but leave in the claim of a dispute. That way both sides compromise. Would you both be willing to accept that compromise?
While we discuss that compromise, I do have to change the article to remove the part about "longest in sports entertainment," because that's both unverifiable and wrong. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:18, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Sports entertainment" is actually what the WWE calls professional wrestling but I agree the term should not be used here. I still think that we need an explanation for why is there a dispute. There's no way that this article can ever be a good article, let alone a featured article, if questions like that are left unanswered. You can't expect every enquiring mind to go off and purchase the book just to find out why. If you don't want a quotation in the reference, then an explanation in the article itself is required. That's my opinion but I won't push it. Personally, I don't think there's any hope getting a compromise from the other editor but good luck nonetheless... --175.144.248.22 (talk) 16:26, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I had a thought last night--I think it might make more sense to move the dispute, or, at least, its explanation, into the body of the article. I realized the fact that it's disputed without explanation is actually wrong, because (per WP:LEAD) "the lead nonetheless should not "tease" the reader by hinting at—but not explaining—important facts that will appear later in the article". That is, if the opinion that the number is disputed is an important enough theory to appear in the lead, it deserves it's own full explanation in the article. I don't, myself, have any good way to measure how widely believed the theory is. But let's look and see if we can move this info down into the body. The lead should still say that Goldberg has the largest winning streak, but the actual number along with the dispute can be moved into the body; my guess is that this is also better because the dispute isn't really an extremely important part of Goldberg's story/legacy. Later today I'll try to find a way to do that. While TraviaNightmare is currently blocked for a week, we can continue working to improve in the mean time. Qwyrxian (talk) 21:42, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PHILANTHROPY and kindness

heres a little something all of you wanna check before you edit this page it will change your opinion of goldberg forever! http://www.onlineworldofwrestling.com/columns/huber/06.html TraviaNightmare (talk) 00:26, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Picture being removed

Please discuss here whether the picture of Goldberg at Wrestlemania XX (near the Feud with Brock Lesner section), should be in the article. I personally don't care much either way, but I would like the edit warring to stop. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:27, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, it seems like this is a case of a single user causing an edit war. It looks like there is an IP editor, who edited from a school (You'll note the presently standing block), went home, and edited from there to continue pushing for the removal of the image (Possible socking by means of evasion?). If anything, this is nothing short of WP:3RR (which is, by definition, edit warring) as the user has been reverted by a bot, four users (1, 2, 3, 4), and myself. Secondly, it seems that the editor in question does not have a clear-grasp of Wikipedia's image usage policy. It is not possible to just "Get an image". Images are obtained in a very specific manner, having been taken by an individual and provided under free license. While it is possible to use non-free images under a fair usage license for other articles, such is not possible on biographies of living persons. A free image must be used. By calling the image pointless because it does not show the performer holding a championship belt or award of some sort, it calls into question every single image posted to every single performer - and I mean every, including: singers, actors, etc. - related article on this encyclopedia (stated under a drawn conclusion based on the edit summary as quoted: "Pointless picture with no significance. Get a picture with him winning a world title, at least that way, it'll have some significance."). By that logic, if the performer is not featured with an award or championship, it should be removed, never mind if it helps for identification purposes - which is the purpose of all images on Wikipedia if I'm not mistaken. Additionally, the editor called the image quality "low". Most images here are. It's usually preferred that they are when it comes to non-free images. When it comes to free images, as is the case here, sometimes beggars can't be choosers. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② 03:04, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PWI Ranking

Please add this to Goldberg's achievements section, PWI also ranked him #9 of the top 500 singles wrestlers of the PWI 500 in 1999. PWI_500 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Imaxes (talk • contribs) 11:46, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

His Moveset

Please, clean his moveset, remove basic moves, such as shouler block or kick. You make him look too, well, good professional wrestler, whic Goldberg is not.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bill_Goldberg&oldid=427876567"