Talk:Attitude Era

	Attitude Era is within the scope of WikiProject Professional wrestling, an attempt to improve and standardize articles related to professional wrestling. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, visit the project to-do page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to discussions.Professional wrestlingWikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestlingTemplate:WikiProject Professional wrestlingProfessional wrestling articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

This topic is in need of attention from an expert on the subject.

The section or sections that need attention may be noted in a message below.

Start of Attitude Era

I don't think many believe at all that the attitude era began as early at King of the Ring 1996 and this should be deleted. In the source article (Austin's HOF link) it states that the Austin 3:16 speech gave way to Austin's "destiny" which ushered in the attitude era. This implies that only eventually, after Austin reached his destiny and new heights down the road, that the attitude era began. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.38.208.77 (talk) 00:31, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notable moments

Famous and Infamous Moments must go! It's not good at all. Can it be merged with the initiation section into a history section? Thanks,Genius101 Wizard (talk) 20:36, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. This article doesn't need a list. I believe it can be integrated into the article under different sections.^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 21:50, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Defiantly. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 22:18, 7 July 2008 (UTC).[reply]

I agree with Nikki311 on this section. This is an indiscriminate list of information. There's no concrete criteria as to what makes a "notable" moment. If a moment is "notable", then it should be cited and mentioned as prose as part of the article's history section. --Jtalledo (talk) 17:26, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Last Day of the Attitude Era

"April 1, 2001 – The Undertaker beats Triple H, making him the ninth opponent Taker had beaten at WrestleMania. Stone Cold Steve Austin and Triple H shocked fans by becoming allies, along with Vince McMahon, and teaming against The Rock. This event is considered to be the last day of the Attitude Era."

It should be noted that if the coalition of McMahon, Austin and HHH was the final day of the Attitude Era, then the correct date and show would RAW is WAR on April 2nd the day after Wrestlemania where HHH came to interfere in the steel cage WWF title rematch between Stone Cold and The Rock, as when HHH was coming down the ramp to do this it was not known which side he would fall with until his actions due to his rivalries with both Austin and The Rock. Just throwing that out there. Wrestlemania could be considered the last day of the Attitude Era for Austin shocking fans by siding with The Rock, but not for the Two Man Power Trip/McMahon alliance. <|A Tried And Tested Method|> (talk) 13:35, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently this hasn't had much discussion since 2008, but I've checked this article regularly for a while now to see if there's a consensus for the dates of the Attitude Era, and the start/end dates are changed constantly. There is currently a direct WWE website source for the currently listed November 9, 1997 start date, but no source for the currently listed June 25, 2001 end date.

This June 25, 2001 end date also flatly contradicts the end date given elsewhere in the article of May 6, 2002, nearly a full year later. An end date source must be provided for this article to be taken seriously, for a question as elementary as the basic timeframe of the "era" in question.

65.102.187.215 (talk) 05:40, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Most notable" paragraph in lead

The lead currently contains a block of text that begins "the most notable wrestlers associated with the Attitude Era were" and proceeds to list seemingly every person who worked for the company during this time. I can understanding listing Austin, The Rock, and DX, but I doubt anybody immediately associates the Attitude Era with Sho Funaki or Shawn Stasiak. Think we can whittle this down? Jeff Silvers (talk) 05:52, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, was just thinking that when I looked at it. I would say Austin, Rock, Michaels, Undertaker, HHH and Foley would be a suitable list - the first 5 are the 5 from that era who've drawn the most money, according to the Wrestling Observer, while Foley is recognisable due to his books. Anyone else have any suggestions? 86.142.71.127 (talk) 23:15, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Detail

I think this page needs some more detail on notable events as their were some major ones missing such as the Rock winning the WWF championship and aligning himself with Vince Mcmahon and Shane Mcmahon. --Whitmore 8621 (talk) 09:12, 9 March 2010 (UTC)Whitmore 8621[reply]

September. 11. 2001.

The September 11 atacks ended the remanants of the Attitude Era such as Raw is War being renamed as just Raw. comment added by --Whitmore 8621 (talk) 01:46, 13 February 2010 (UTC) Whitmore 8621• contribs) 15:12, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is no reliable source to support that. Thus, it is nothing more than Original Research. Per Wikipedia policy, it has been removed.^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 22:02, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's no reliable source that says the era began in 1995, either, but there it is none the less. I think practically anyone watching at the time would disagree. Earliest start of the era would be considered 1996. I'm changing it.

Love, 67.1.54.94 (talk) 07:11, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

April 1st, 2001/ WrestleMania X-Seven

There is information of Wrestlemania 17 it was cited as the Conclusion of the Attitude Era.--Whitmore 8621 (talk) 10:54, 5 May 2010 (UTC)Whitmore 8621[reply]

WCW crippled itself

WCW crippled itself with bad storylines and an unraveling backstage situation. WWF was not responsible for WCW's collapse as this article makes it out to be. It was responsible for that company being absorbed and the brand being discontinued.

--Vehgah (talk) 09:36, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List

I've parried down the list to Firsts, debuts and departures. "Era highlights" is a catch-all phrase that makes the section a dumping ground for any old list item. Ideally, this section should still be prose. --Jtalledo (talk) 13:49, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a

Merge Proposal and Redirect. Please do not modify it.
The result of the move request for the Proposal to Merge WWE Attitude Era footage removal into this talk page's article was:

Not Done—No Clear Consensus to Merge.

Proposal to merge WWE Attitude Era footage removal into The Attitude Era discussion space:

[Transclusion]: I propose that WWE Attitude Era footage removal be merged into The Attitude Era. The only links to this article seem to be in "See also" sections at the bottom of a few WWE-related articles. This article has a lot to do with the more controversial aspects of the Attitude Era, so I think it could be made to fit in there pretty well. I feel like it would also be much easier to merge this into the Attitude Era article than to put it into other places that could fit, like Linda McMahon, WWE, or United_States_Senate_election_in_Connecticut,_2010 and United_States_Senate_election_in_Connecticut,_2012. AKKIfokkusu^TaLk 08:56, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you've read this article and thank you for reading. To me, the article should stay as it is. Links can be added at any time. We can't put this in Linda McMahon's articles because she has said repeatedly that she had nothing to do with this - that would be slander. I don't think you said what you liked about the page, but for me, I like this page because I just don't see a lot of articles on wikipedia about copyrights/Internet censorship, especially on YouTube. Now, I know you didn't mean any injustice to the page, but this is a significant copyrights and intellectual property issue. It's also very complex. Did Linda and Vince cooperate to remove videos hurting her campaign? Who ordered the removal? How are the decisions for removal made? this page only touches the surface of what may be a major rebranding effort, or maybe just a temporary thing. So again, thank you for reading, talk to you soon!- --Wweattitude4life (talk) 21:23, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think part of the reason I feel like maybe this should be a separate article is probably sorta the same reason why there may not be many other censorship/copyright articles like this on Wikipedia. I think it reads as more of a piece of investigative journalism, almost essay-like, than an encyclopedia article. I know this may not come off sounding right, but it just doesn't FEEL like most articles on Wikipedia. I realize that that's very hard to quantify, and maybe it really could be rewritten in some way to help change that, but I just don't know. It mostly just seems like this isn't really all that important in the grand scheme of things. If you were to take away the campaign angle, this wouldn't really be any more interesting than all the other copyright takedowns that happen every day. Especially because there doesn't seem to actually be any realistic opposition to the WWE takedowns. What I mean by that is, no one seems to be claiming that WWE doesn't have every right to take down the videos. Which makes sense as it's their material that they own and can and do release for profit. So it doesn't even really sound like a copyright issue. Which is why I feel like this could be most easily merged into the Attitude Era article, with the parts about the campaigns also being put into the campaign articles and Linda's article. I totally disagree that parts of this can't be put into Linda's article, and especially the campaign articles. Even if you take out the parts that are pure speculation (sourced, but still speculation), there's still a lot, like the FEC investigation, that is fact. AKKIfokkusu^TaLk 09:05, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, it wasn't easy to put this article together, and I can't remove it based on the notion that it isn't interesting enough. Most articles on wikipedia are not interesting to me and you. Just as you say your opinion is that this is not interesting aside from the political campaign, to me, I find it interesting that over 5,000 videos are cited each month, and still there are hundreds of thousands of videos on YouTube - all of them in clear violation of copyright law. And who's to say what makes anything interesting or not interesting? I certainly found this information online interesting enough to put here, and why should my opinion not be valued as part of this encyclopedia? Are you proposing we take apart articles that are not interesting enough so we can put them in ones that are?--Wweattitude4life (talk) 00:17, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, it seems like you took the word "interesting" personally, and I apologize. Maybe "notable" would have been better. I was just trying to use something I considered a synonym, and I'm sorry if it came off wrong. I still stand by what I said about the article not feeling right for Wikipedia. It feels like this article is your baby, so I don't really know if a discussion between just the two of us would get this any closer to consensus. I'm going to try to get some more users to provide some more perspectives. AKKIfokkusu^TaLk 01:14, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Don't get me wrong, I'm offering you an open ear here. Talk to me about what you think is inappropriate or needs to be changed. As you already know, saying it is not interesting enough is not well-accepted on my side, but if you have specific feedback, talk to me, because I do appreciate opportunities to make this better. One thing I would love to have is a photo from the incident between Vince McMahon and Trish Stratus, for instance. It surprises me that the Montreal Screwjob has a photo with no issue, but any photo of WWE seems to be heavily protected by copyright. If I could get a photo to this page, I would absolutely love to do so, because I want to improve the article.--Wweattitude4life (talk) 05:48, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's a rather odd topic to have a whole page on when it isn't nearly as notable as something like Owen Hart's death, yet that has no page. For me, I'm delete for now because this doesn't seem like a major issue at all. Srsrox (talk) 18:32, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Doesnt seem to have much to do with the Attitude Era, as it does with Linda McMahons political career. Portillo (talk) 07:06, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

— — — — —
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move.

Please do not modify it.
Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

GenQuest ^{"Talk to Me"} 00:17, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A copy of this template can be found here.

Start of the Attitude Era

Didnt the Attitude Era begin when McMahon appeared on screen and said that the audience is tired of having their intelligence insulted and that the show will no longer be about "good guys vs bad guys"? Portillo (talk) 07:50, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty much. If you wanted to you could go back just a little earlier and consider the Montreal Screwjob (which "outed" McMahon as the owner and not just an announcer officially on WWF TV).69.212.228.109 (talk) 00:23, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Start of family friendly programming

"WWE goes PG Page 1 of 1 July 22, 2008 WWE's family programming has been deemed a PG television rating by their network distributors. World Wrestling Entertainment has been engaging families across all generations with their family programming for more than two decades, and will continue to do so for years to come with all the action on Raw, SmackDown and ECW. "

That's what I see on the link. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.106.141.235 (talk) 20:26, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Announcement is brief yes, but it says that from ~~this~~ that day, WWE has been more family friendly. Nickag989^talk 20:35, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

where does it say "from this day" and from which day? The only date I see on the link is July 22 2008 - is that when WWE became family friendly, because that doesn't fit in with it being family friendly since the end of the attitude era. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.106.141.235 (talk) 20:39, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

1. Yes, this was the day when they became PG for an indefinite period of time.
2. Yes it does, if the first paragraph says that the WWF shifted to more adult-oriented programming content, and the final one, while changing the name to WWE, it still continued to be kinda violent until they reverted back to PG. Nickag989^talk 20:50, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

then why does it say "World Wrestling Entertainment has been engaging families across all generations with their family programming for more than two decades" ? that doesn't imply or state a change, does it? It states that for more than two decades it has been providing family programming, not that it has changed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.106.141.235 (talk) 21:02, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Problems with this article

The impression I get from the Attitude Era article is that it's goal seems to be "the Monday Night Wars article, but shittier and less informative". I've already stated about a thousand times why this article needs to be rewriten and actually explain tuff to the reader, right now it looks like everything just happens spontaneously without outside influence.★Trekker (talk) 01:18, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So lead the way. How do you want this article to be re-written? How do you want this article to be more informative, and informative about what? For example, Heyman's worked shoot during the Invasion storyline actually called out the WWF Attitude branding as a ripoff of his ideas for ECW. Should we put it in the beginning, or perhaps in the legacy section?

The article about Monday Night Wars is a general commentary about North American pro wrestling trends in general during that time period, so of course an article about the Attitude Era should be WWF-centric since WWF Attitude was seen as a brand exercise developed by McMahon and co. to counter WCW's nWo product. I note that you wanted more backstage info, but you keep removing cited important anecdotes provided by industry insiders. You complain about quality and poor "edits", but there's some issues with attention to detail in some of your edits. You called me disruptive and I did make a mistake by accidentally deleting certain paragraphs in a recent edit, but I haven't seen you making an attempt to overhaul sections of the article in pushing for higher standards yet. Haleth (talk) 16:50, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I already said on your talk page that I've lost interest because of the bullshit.★Trekker (talk) 17:01, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And yet, here you are. Haleth (talk) 17:11, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to stop protecting this page form disruptive edits just because I've given up hope on making it a good (or even acceptable) article. Sorry for explaining again if you didn't understand it the first couple of times. Maybe go on with your life and stop trying to edit war with every person on this article? Oh and learn to format your comment and sign them. It's genuinely awful to try to follow a conversation with you. It's not remotely hard to learn. It just takes a minimum of effort.★Trekker (talk) 17:25, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How is tagging it with eight cleanup tags and not cleaning it up protecting it? All you've done is bloat the article with nonsense tags to address a common problem the article has. A few tags sums up the issue well. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 18:12, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Want no "regards", it's nothing but disingenuous in this case. And yeah I have actually cleaned up this article a lot, (you'd see that if you looked at all the awful "sources" that were here before). I'm not responsible for fixing all the shit in this article, please and thank you, especially when I have had nothing but resistence for no reason. If the problem applies there is no reason to not have a tag for it.★Trekker (talk) 18:20, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and also, how about everyone stop bothering me with inane questions and whining about how it's tagged and go on and fix the articles problems instead themselves if it looks so damn ungly and is unhelpful? Then you can actually remove the tags for a good reason.★Trekker (talk) 18:27, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that you've tag bombed it to hell. The ones I removed were basically duplicates or can be fixed by addressing the problems the other cleanup templates state. It doesn't improve the article to address single little issue on a lead template. — Moe Epsilon 18:38, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, you're probably right, I'm just insanely frustrated that I have no idea how to manage to get this article into good shape. There's just too much to try to take into account, including WWE's tendency for revisionit history and wrestlers not being the most trustworthy sources in general due to the nature of the business. Even at the heights of the WWE's popularity coverage in reliable soucres seem to have been shoody at best. And then there's all the controversial stuff. I'm starting to feel like it's just a big stress element for me right now but I don't want to leave it either.★Trekker (talk) 18:44, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's alright, the first thing right off the top of my head if you want to improve the article is probably organizing it into a better arrangement than it currently is. The TOC is usually what helps me structure writing them on Wikipedia. It's kind of all over the place in the TOC right now. It would be better if it was organized to read something like:

Pre-Attitude Era
Timeline of events
- Austin 3:16, McMahon vs Austin, formation of DX, etc.
Central characters
- This is where sub-section about Lita, Sable, Rock, Foley, etc. would go
Legacy
Etc. end article contents

After that, improving the article might be easier. — Moe Epsilon 18:55, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ironically, USA Network head Barry Diller was the physical inspiration for Mr. Burns

If anybody can find a good article suggesting that Diller had influence over the McMahon-Austin rivalry which included the use of the term "Mr McMahon" and showed the boss vs. worker rivalries which have long been seen among the Springfield Nuclear Plant, it would be nice.ThatwasmySimpson (talk) 01:46, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Time frame.

Apparently this hasn't had much discussion since 2008, but I've checked this article regularly for a while now to see if there's a consensus for the dates of the Attitude Era, and the start/end dates are changed constantly. There is currently a direct WWE website source for the currently listed November 9, 1997 start date, but no source for the currently listed June 25, 2001 end date.

This June 25, 2001 end date also flatly contradicts the end date given elsewhere in the article of May 6, 2002, nearly a full year later. An end date source must be provided for this article to be taken seriously, for a question as elementary as the basic time frame of the "era" in question.

65.102.187.215 (talk) 05:55, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lede

Did some work on lede, both content and style, now that era timeframe finally seems to have reached a consensus, with firm dates and citations. 130.45.24.168 (talk) 04:07, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merger Proposal

I see that the merger proposal template has been removed on both this article and Monday Night Wars. Not sure why it was removed just short of a month later with no explanation, but next time some note of the reasoning on the Talk page would be nice. 130.45.24.168 (talk) 03:51, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

More Citations Needed

Added template to top, after finding several sections have zero citations. 130.45.24.168 (talk) 05:31, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Grammar.

"Lain" is the correct form in this sentence: "The WWF Women's Championship, which had lain dormant since December 13, 1995, was reactivated on September 15, 1998." Don't keep reverting. Sources: c ourant.com/2003/01/29/no-lie-laying-out-a-confusing-conundrum/; d ictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/lie-dormant; m erriam-webster.com/dictionary/dormant, etc. 130.45.24.168 (talk) 18:57, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]