Talk:Jack Swagger

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article Jack Swagger has been listed as one of the Sports and recreation good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
July 17, 2010 Good article nominee Listed
August 11, 2010 Good article reassessment Kept
Current status: Good article


he is listed as ECW Champion except the show will air tonight. This is incorrect he should ony be listed as champion once the show has aired everywhere —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:51, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

RAW Dark Match[edit]

RAW Dark Match: —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:31, 19 August 2008 (UTC)


He is now going by the name "The All-American American" Jake Hager. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:07, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Jake Hager's new ring name is "The All American" Jack Swagger...[edit]

and he makes his debut on ECW tonight! —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:00, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


The Hager–Meister (Tilt–a–whirl slam) is now his signature move. His finisher is called the Blue Thunder Bomb. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:58, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


Jack Swagger is listed as the current FCW Florida Heavyweight Champion but is no longer the champion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:57, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Entrance music[edit]

His new entrance music is "Sleep now in the fire" by Rage Against The Machine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:07, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Wow, you're a dumbass. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:05, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Assume good faith.--Truco 04:07, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

My bad, but the dude is an idiot. Everyone assumes that just because a song sounds like a certain artist, it can't possibly be anyone else. The song is called "On Your Knees", and it will be featured on "Voices: WWE The Music Volume 9." You'd know that, though, if you bothered to do any research instead of stating opinions as facts. § —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:30, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

The article still lists the song as being by RATM, despite there being no evidence for this. The "Rage Against the Machine Myspace page" reference links to an RATM tribute band's page that happens to have the song on it, with no indication as to who it's by. (talk) 21:39, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

birth date[edit]

Best friends with him growing up....his birthday is March 24th, 1982, not December 3rd. Don't know how to change it one here, just thought I'd give a heads up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:18, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

early career[edit]

He started his wrestling career at Perry Highschool, a school renowned for their great wrestling program which holds the world record for most state championships. Another great historic wrestler graduated from PHS, Danny Hodge. He also wasn't recruited to OU as a 2 sport athlete. He was recruited to other schools for wrestling, such as OSU, but was only recruited to OU for football, then midway through his redshirt freshman year (after a little run in with Stoops after the OU-Texas game for reasons we won't disclose here) he quit football, and changed over to wrestling only. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:22, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


Shouldn't it say something about his noticeable lisp. Adam Penale (talk) 11:47, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Why would it say something about it? It's not like on Matt Hardy's page it says that he speaks with a slight Southern Accent. -- (talk) 23:27, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

eh? a lisp is a speech impediment which is very notable and definately more notable than an accent! It was also made fun of by Christian February 10 episode of ECW on Sci Fi! Adster95 17:55, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Ric Flair's lisp is also very noticeable but it isn't in his article either. It's not needed. JWC126 23:16, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

if you have a reliable source that this lisp, or speech impediment, is notable then add it in. Until then it can not go into the article. Fighting for Justice (talk) 06:26, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Current Finisher[edit]

The current is a gut wrench powerbomb pin. It is not what it says the move is. Mr. C.C. (talk) 22:38, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

It says his finisher is called the Swagger Jacker. Could I get a source? (Crippler4) 28:17, 23 April 2009 (EST)
Its obvious vandilism, when you see it you can just remove it. Ive Cena Nuff (talk) 22:45, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

World Champion?[edit]

The ECW Title isn't a World Heavyweight Championship because on the "3 for all" RAW episode, CM Punk mocked Matt and said he had never won a world heavyweight title even though he had won the ECW Title, and announcers have never said that it is a world heavyweight championship and if they did, it was a mistake, they call the WWE, World and ECW Title the "3 Major Titles." Also to become a Triple Crown Champion, you must win a World Heavyweight title, Intercontinental Title and a tag title and on the Triple Crown article, winning the ECW title doesn't contribute to the Triple Crown; therefore it isn't a World Heavyweight Title (Unlike the WWE Championship and World Heavyweight Championship)- (RKOLegacy (talk) 13:25, 30 June 2009 (UTC))

WWE has called it a world title numerous times over the years. As recently as Christian winning the title, in fact. The commentators have also called it a world title. A one-off remark by Punk doesn't mean much at all. Though it's not treated as being as important as the other two titles, it's still a world title. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 22:16, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

The name of the belt is ECW (Extream Championship Wrestling) Championship no where dose it say "World". In the artical that states World Championships it's not stated as one nor as it been over the years. I tryed adding 2Time world championship to RVDs page about 2 years ago but it was not allowed, we just can't decided it work now but not then. It's not a world title till WWE, or PWI state so (talk) 16:33, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually we can since consensus can change. WWE HAS stated it's a world title. Check the link I provided above. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 16:41, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I myself have run across a simlure problem and i say it's not a World Championship that's 3-1 looks like it's not a world championship. KCDavis (talk) 16:35, 15 August 2009 (UT

The link won't open, but anyway that was AFTER jack won the belt (talk) 16:57, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

There is consensus both at Talk:ECW Championship and at WT:PW that the ECW Championship IS a world title. To the IPs: 1)The name of the belt has ZERO impact on whether a title is a world title. 2)WWE also called it a world title last September when Matt Hardy won it (saying Hardy had finally achieved his dream of winning a world title). 3)Punk's comment came right when he was starting his heel turn and Hardy was trying to form an alliance with him. The bottom line is that the ECW Championship IS a world title, period. TJ Spyke 17:17, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

A Definitive Response[edit]

Consider this a response to the asinine statements regarding the ECW Championship and World Status.

1) Basing information on opinion, such as an opinion on how WWE "treats" the ECW Championship constitutes original research, and seeing as how many bring up WWE's stance on the status of belt, let this be made clear... The ECW Championship is a world championship acknowledged by every current professional wrestling promotion (as even noted by TNA... Yes TNA). Yes, WWE considers it a world championship.

take at look at Matt Hardy's bio page on and scroll down to the very bottom.

The page reads - "Apart from his sibling, Matt has achieved success in solo ranks as well, including United States, Hardcore, European and Cruiserweight Championship reigns. The greatest achievement, however, came in 2008 when Matt triumphed in a Championship Scramble Match to capture the ECW Title; his first taste of World Championship gold." - thus, affirming WWE's recognition of the ECW Championship as a world title.

Also note this results page from WWE Backlash 09 after Christian won the ECW Championship.

The page reads - "Christian’s first World Title comes after a journey that expands well beyond his two months in the Land of the Extreme." - Christian Cage's accomplishments in TNA aside, this AGAIN confirms that the WWE considers the championship to be a world title.

So the argument about how WWE doesn't consider the championship to be a World Title is not valid. As far as the "Not recognized by WWE" argument is concerned, WWE does indeed recognize the ECW Championship to be a world title.

2) As for the "name" of the championship or the "words" etched on the physical belt having any effect on the status of the title... A championship's name doesn't necessarily reflect the "status" of the title. The WWE Championship hasn't been referred to with the word "World" in its name since the early 1990s and the physical belt hasn't had the word "World" etched on its design since the winged-eagle belt, last used by Steve Austin the night he won the title at WrestleMania XIV. If you look at the article of the WWE Championship, you can see that the title has gone through multiple name changes throughout its history, with its name getting shorter each time.

The ECW Championship when it was recommissioned for the ECW brand in 2006 was referred to as the ECW World Heavyweight Championship, and as time passed, the name continued to change, getting shorter each time. It began to be called the ECW World Championship and finally simply just the ECW Championship for short.

If you remember when the WCW World Heavyweight Championship was used in the WWF, it was only referred to simply as the WCW Championship. See a pattern? Did these change of names mean anything? No, plain and simple.

So even the naming of a championship doesn't necessarily reflect the status of a title.

3) World status is ultimately granted to a championship by the company or organization that owns it. Read over some of the boxing articles and the various organizations such as the World Boxing Association, World Boxing Council, International Boxing Federation and World Boxing Organization. Those in control of the WBC, IBF and WBO were simply of the mind that if the WBA had "world" champions, then so could they and that's exactly how it went. It's the exact same in professional wrestling. Just as various wrestling companies have done, those boxing organizations simply bestowed world status to titles under their control. The status can't be stripped away by any magazine or publication. No other governing body can come along and tell them "no, you can't call your title a world championship". There is no universal decision which grants world status to any championship, no matter which sport it is. How often have the winners of the World Series been called world champions? But are they really world champions? They didn't beat every other team from every other country that plays baseball, so how are they world champions? It's all ultimately about the stance of the organization, plain and simple. WWE has theirs, TNA, the NWA, the WBA, MLB and so on and so forth.

So in conclusion, the ECW Championship has been and still is a World title.--UnquestionableTruth-- 17:42, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Bullet makes the best argument possible, and for a more thorough discussion please go to WT:PW, where there is a centralized discussion regarding the term-World Heavyweight Championship.--Truco 503 18:40, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

In reference to Swagger's listing as World Champion, Punk has yet to give legitimacy to his ECW title run, saying he is looking to become a 4-time World Champ on the last Smackdown, even though the ECW reign would be four.

Now I do understand your argument, but you are leaving one fatal flaw: If you declare a top title of a company to be a world title, then shouldn't Swagger be a two-time world champ, as he won the FCW heavyweight belt.

Maybe you could clarify how ECW's time as a brand (2006-10) is receiving legitimacy on wikipedia, despite so many contesting it and multiple citings of show dialogue going against it, but you do not recognize FCW's. (Seantherebel (talk) 09:33, 6 February 2010 (UTC)seantherebelSeantherebel (talk) 09:33, 6 February 2010 (UTC))

Being the top championship in a brand or promotion is a factor, however, not the definitive factor. FCW has never referred to their championship as a world championship, and that is the definitive factor. As noted with the links provided through and other cited official sources (WWE Magazine, Broadcasted comments, etc.) WWE referred to the ECW Championship as a world title multiple times durring its time with the WWE. See point 3. :) similes! Also note about the difference between the ECW brand's status with the WWE and FCW's status; WWE has always maintained that FCW, WWE developmental system, is a step below WWE. Now as for the ECW brand, other than the internet smark's casual comment or the dirtsheet writer's added opinion, no matter how far and hard you look, you will never find an official source from WWE asserting that ECW is essentially "a developmental league on TV" (as smartasses liked to put it). With every press release, news article, and word ever mentioned, -anything and everything official and directly from WWE- to WWE, ECW was just a brand. Anything else, is simply one's own opinion. --UnquestionableTruth-- 23:39, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

How about this? In the article for Swagger's MITB victory at WM 26 ("Can't stagger Swagger". ), the first sentence of the final paragraph says, and I quote: "Now the two-time collegiate All-American has a golden opportunity to become a first-time World Champion." PCE (talk) 02:07, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Since ECW's cancellation, no references to ECW have been made on WWE programming.--UnquestionableTruth-- 15:56, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
And yet when Big Zeke returned to SmackDown!, he was noted on-air as the final ECW Champion. Irregardless of ECW (WWE)'s demise (and by extension the ECW Title's deactivation), the article pertaining to Swagger's MITB win states that he could (or in the case of the spoilers, has) become a future world champion. PCE (talk) 00:39, 2 April 2010 (UTC)


As extremely obvious as it is for anyone with internet access, somebody should remove the spoilers on the page. I'd do it but I don't want to totally find out what happens. KP McZiggy (Allow Me To Introduce Myself...) 05:02, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

It's one thing to post the plots of movies and television shows that reveal plot twists and the like. Reading those articles may spoil the film, book, etc. for the reader, but since that particular movie or show has been released, it's the reader's own fault for reading the article. You read articles like that at your own risk. But in this case, this is an event that hasn't technically happened yet as far as the WWE is concerned. The only people that have seen this are the people that happened to be there. For the rest of us, this is an event that hasn't happened yet, so reporting on it is sure to spoil it for the vast majority of fans who have no wish to know what happened until it actually airs.

Not to mention, oftentimes things that happen at the tapings are edited and/or not aired. Obviously, something as big as this will probably be shown as it happened, but in ALL cases, WWE events are not official until they are shown on TV. If they wanted to for some reason, they reserve the right to not even air this particular segment and keep the title on Jericho. Bottom line, while this is probably a very significant event that occurred at this week's Smackdown taping, it is not official until it airs on television, and reporting on it prior to that is irresponsible. -tazz20200

Read WP:SPOIL. Any edits to remove the information will be reverted, and constant removal will be reported. –Turian (talk) 15:09, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I have read that, but in this case, it doesn't matter. In the WWE, events are not official until they are aired. Chris Jericho is still the recognized World Heavyweight Champion. This is not the same as posting the plot of a movie that's been released, where we know for sure what happens in the film, and where there is also a "plot" or "ending" subtitle in the article, so readers can avoid that information if they so choose. Here, you are posting spoiling information in the first sentence of the article, based on something that has not yet happened as far as WWE and its history is concerned, and something that 99.9% of WWE fans have not seen because it hasn't aired yet. This spoils the experience for them, both the wrestling viewing experience and the Wikipedia experience. If Smackdown for this week had already aired, and a 10-year old fan who hadn't seen this week's show yet comes to Swagger's page to read about his favorite wrestler, then that young fan just learned a hard lesson about the availability of information on the internet. But if that same kid comes here today, before the show has even aired, then you've just ruined the whole experience for them by telling them something they would have found out for themselves in two days. -tazz20200 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tazz20200 (talkcontribs) 15:26, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

This isn't a news catering business. If it has taken place in the world, it is official. If they don't want to be spoiled (although is is plastered everywhere on the internet, then they shouldn't be on the internet. –Turian (talk) 15:49, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it is plastered all over the internet, on wrestling message boards and dirt sheets, where those kind of spoiler reports are expected. People read them at their own risk. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia of things that have happened, and despite your understanding of the wrestling business, it is NOT official just because it has taken place. Smackdown is like any other television show that is taped and not aired live. WWE reserves the right to edit, present, and produce the show as they see fit, and nothing that happened is considered WWE history or canon until it is officially aired on television, so reporting Jack Swagger as the World Heavyweight Champion is both incorrect and irresponsible. -tazz20200 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tazz20200 (talkcontribs) 16:01, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

It has happened. He holds the belt, he's the champion. With tape delays, the events are always placed before they air (Big Brother comes to mind). Read WP:SPOIL and drop it. –Turian (talk) 16:08, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
It has happened, according to reports of people who were at the show talking to some online sources; that doesn't equate to a reliable source as far as I'm concerned. Until it actually airs, the WWE can make changes as they see fit, as posted up above; as far as I'm concerned - despite the multiple quotes of WP:SPOIL there's nothing in that guideline that does anything to change my mind here - Swagger is not the world champ until the show airs on Friday. This should be removed until then. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:37, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
There are multiple sources stating the obvious. Sorry, it isn't some hoax brought on by millions. As far as I am concerned, there are multiple sources stating the exact same thing. WWE doesn't state it because it would remove viewers from their show. It should and will stay. –Turian (talk) 16:41, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I know there are multiple sources; I read about it on 411 before popping on here. That doesn't alter the fact that the show has yet to air, and the sources are all based on hearsay at this point. "Hey, so-and-so said Swagger won the title!" doesn't really meet WP:RS unless there's been some serious rewrites since I read that last. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:43, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
Matter of fact, here's a recent discussion of this topic in WP:PW: the general consensus is that without reliable sources spoilers shouldn't be posted. Question here is whether the Bleacher Report, or any of the other fan-report-based sites that have posted this, are reliable sources, I suppose. I would say "no," personally. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:51, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
The same thing happened with Big Brother. People would see the live feeds online, and we would update it here. It was definitely allowed, and it is the same thing as watching wrestling at the event. –Turian (talk) 16:54, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
How do you figure that? Live feeds from Big Brother are an official broadcast by the network. Some guy tweeting from the arena is not. Can you point me towards discussion of the live feeds for sourcing Big Brother info? Tony Fox (arf!) 17:03, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
Talk:Big_Brother_11_(U.S.)/Archive_1#Spoilers - Knock yourself out. Also, it isn't different. They posted no information about the live feeds on their site. If you didn't pay for the live feeds, you didn't know, unless you checked blogs and other sites. It is exactly the same. –Turian (talk) 17:09, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
Yes, but the fact that people were paying for the live feeds would, to me, make them official. Kind of like you pay for cable TV, and then get to see Smackdown. At any rate, I've started a discussion here to get more folks looking at this. Tony Fox (arf!) 17:16, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
And people pay for tickets to watch the show... your point? –Turian (talk) 17:18, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
My 2 Cents. Wikipedia policy on Spoilers clearly states that: "it is not acceptable to delete information from an article because you think it spoils the plot." So Turian is in the right here. However, accusing what appears to be a good-faith edit (though misdirected) of vandalism, and single-handedly reverting deletions by multiple editors may cross the line into edit warring. Turion, I suggest you work with the other editors on this page to educate them on what should and should not be in a Wikipedia article. Hopefully then consensus will be reachable. FellGleaming (talk) 19:52, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
I think we have been discussing it on about 5 pages now... I might have lost count after the same argument was drilled into my head like a good ol' brainwash. If most of these members had made an effort to talk about it (since I definitely have the leverage with sources), I would be willing to wait until Friday. However, that is way past its chance. –Turian (talk) 19:55, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

How about you look at it this way. Remember back in the late 80s, early 90s (can't quite remember when) when The Rockers beat the Hart Foundation for the tag titles in a 2 out of 3 falls match that was taped for an episode of Wrestling Challenge and the top rope broke during one of the falls. They were awarded the belts in the arena but the match never aired and The Rockers were never officially recognised as the tag champions. Surely a similar rule applies here. Until it's aired on TV it's not official. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:18, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Per WP:SPOILER, spoilers are allowed on the basis of reliable information/sources. The event has happened, its not like the information is being speculated or made up. In the past this issue has come up with Edge doing the same thing with his MitB contract. We added the information on that basis. This is similar to the accepted championship guideline we abide by, which is that the day the title is won is the day of the taping not the day of the airing show.Truco 503 22:20, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Not to long ago, an IP was banned for continuously spoiling Petey Williams X Division title win. Unless the rules have changed since then, the same should apply here. KP McZiggy (Allow Me To Introduce Myself...) 03:54, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I did some edits last night because I didn't feel this week's SmackDown should've been spoiled. However, I now declare this out of my hands. Have fun fighting, kiddies. (talk) 05:11, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

It was never in your hands to begin with. –Turian (talk) 05:53, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
I understand that. What I'm saying is I did all I'm going to do as far as the spoiler goes. I tried to follow the "no spoilers" etiquette that many on here ask us to follow. I'm saying no more on it, the edit wars are all you guys, I'll have no part of it. (talk) 08:25, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Please leave the martyr drama at home. You were disruptive and multiple users stopped you. –Turian (talk) 09:18, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I vote we lock this page[edit]

and Chris Jericho's and the World heaveyweight championships pages till Friday. It is getting out of hand with the spoilers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:25, 31 March 2010 (UTC)


Why is it listed that Jack is in Smackdown if there was no draft, yeah he got the title but shouldn't that mean he brought it to RAW? and plus there is not a good source that lists him on the Smackdown roster--FHJoker (talk) 08:40, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Itching suspicion that Jack Swagger chose to be on Smackdown instead of RAW. rather than staying on RAW and defending the World Heavyweight Title on Smackdown. And at this time he is on the Smackdown Roster Thewi2kbug (talk) 04:41, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I just came from, his profile page was moved to the SmackDown section. His picture still appears on the RAW page, but if you click it, you get one of those "This page has either been moved or no longer exists" type messages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:10, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

What is the use of protecting the page if you are protecting it with the spoilers[edit]

It makes no sense. Isn't the use of protecting it to avoid them —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:45, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Please read WP:SPOIL. –Turian (talk) 11:15, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
It is something that has been taped. But going to the offical site it still list Jericho as the world Champion. So it may confuse some users. Do you see Swagger listed as champion there. No he is not. If it is not listed as so on the actual website of the company then it should not be listed on here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:20, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
The decision has already been made across many pages. Drop it. –Turian (talk) 11:23, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
I will drop it. But I will tell you I did alert the WWE that you are spoling one of there shows.-- (talk) 11:40, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Bite me. I'm not dropping nothing. You guys are spoiling the article with an event that has yet to air. Why protect the page with the spoilers? It makes no farking sense. Sue me, I am griping, and I am pissed. (talk) 13:25, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Thank you some one who sees it how I am. It makes no sense what so ever to protect a page when you have already spoiled it. You might as well unlock it if you are not going to get rid of the spoilers. -- (talk) 14:35, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
By removing the information, you are violating Wikipedia policy; ergo, your edits were seen as vandalism. I then reported it because people like you felt it necessary to waste time and debate events that are well documented. You can be pissed. You can gripe. You can be 'farking' pissed. However, you will not vandalize the page because you don't want to 'ruin a good moment'. If people wish to not have it spoiled, then they shouldn't get on the internet, where it is posted everywhere. I was looking up information about him in Google, and under 'suggestions', it said Jack Swagger World Champ. If you want to remove the information here, then take your pity crusade to the entire internet. Okay? –Turian (talk) 14:44, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
If the WWE doesn't have Jack Swagger listed as the champion and it is an article about a wrestler working for the WWE, shouldn't the champion still be listed as Jericho since that is who WWE says is the champion? And I didn't think you were allowed to have spoilers on wikipedia because I've seen other people try to edit articles in the past to say someone won the title or that a match was made on Smackdown for a PPV but they wouldn't allow them to be posted because Smackdown hadn't aired yet. (talk) 16:14, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Are you that fucking dense Turian that you can not see how wrong you are on this. THE OFFICAL WEBSITE TO THE WWE DOES NOTY LIST SWAGGER AS THE CHAMPION. Who gives a fuck what google says. Google is not a reliable source. is a reliable source. But I guess offical webistes are not reliable anymore. God who is incharge of hiringthese mods. I would love to talk to them about you Turian
I'm not a mod; I'm a user with common sense. It doesn't matter because you are only bitching because you didn't get your way. We are done here. –Turian (talk) 18:53, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
I am far from done. How are you using common sense if you are posting spoilers. Common sense would be not t oruin the surprise for people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:14, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
It does seem wrong to post spoilers when other times it is not allowed. I think if you can't do spoilers for PPV matches then you shouldn't be able to do spoilers for champions, as the champions is much more of a spoiler than a match being made for a PPV. Please reconsider the change and remove it until tomorrow night. Is one day really going to hurt the page when it shouldn't be there to begin with? If WWE didn't announce it, it isn't official. WWE has had championships changed before after a match happened. (talk) 22:32, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
why do you keep fighting this Turian. It is like you vrs the world here. You are the only one who seems to think it is ok. Why is it if a majority seem to think it is wrong you are right. Who made you incharge of the page. You seem to be abusing any little power that you do have.-- (talk) 22:42, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── WP:SPOIL. I really don't understand why you are unable to read. Also, the majority of users support the addition of the information. So please don't pull false statements out of your ass. And for the last time, WP:SPOIL. –Turian (talk) 22:57, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I voice my agreement with the "spoilers" being included. If you have an issue with "spoilers", I would suggest you take it up with the WWE. As they are the ones who decided to have a title change on a tape delayed event. But credible wrestling news sites are reporting the change, and thus it is sourced and verifiable. -- TRTX T / C 00:05, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
Additional Note: Comparisons to PPV result rumors are irrelevant. This is not a speculative report from "sources" that Jack Swagger may use his contract on a future Smackdown. This is documented reports that he has actually done it. If the WWE decided to start taping PPV's three days in advance then we'd be posting those results as they became available, just as we did here. Heck, if the NFL tape delayed the Super Bowl we'd be posting results here before it was aired if they were available. Wikipedia does not care about spoilers, as it is an encyclopedia. That's why Empire Strikes Back mentions that Vader is in fact Luke's father, and why The Half-Blood Prince confirms that Snape kills Dumbledore. -- TRTX T / C 00:18, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
THen why is it in the past people have gotten in trouble for posting spoilers on here huh. Explain that one to me. Also I highly doubt the NFL would alow you to post the spoilers. They would either edit it them selves to stop something like that or they would talk t owhoever they need to to make ure it doesn't happen and have have the page locked. Like I said I alerted the WWE about it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:55, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
There are "rumors" and there are "spoilers". "Rumors" are what we typically see before a WWE PPV where various sites suggest that they have found out the results of future storylines. The WWE, however, is a live product and thus can change it's plans at a moment's notice (see Montreal Screwjob). Therefore any "spoilers" regarding future storylines are irrelevant to an encyclopedia as it is impossible to know if the WWE will follow through on those plans. In this case, the WWE decided to have a title change on a tape delayed show. The event has happened. There is no "rumor". Swagger won the belt during the Smackdown tapings and it will air tonight. Also, if the NFL ran an event on a 3 day tape would have to be in an empty stadium with no press allowed if they wanted to actually prevent people from finding out the results early. And no, if Vince McMahon himself came onto WP and tried to remove any mentions of Swagger being champ until Smackdown aired tonight today they would be reverted just like every other edit trying to do so has been.
Likewise, "spoilers" are when an event has occured and the results are known. This includes the airing of a television episode, release of a film, or publication of a book. If there are reliable sources reporting the outcome of these types of events, then it is WP's duty to record these sources as per it's policy regarding spoilers. -- TRTX T / C 13:33, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
Okay, well I don't really care anymore about it since its water under the bridge or over the dam, however I just want to clear up a misunderstanding that you had with my comment. I was comparing the title situation with people not allowing PPV pages updated with matches, not results of matches, just the match. For example, say on Smackdown they say it'll be Edge vs Swagger for the title and then I decide to post it, people have taken matches down because Smackdown hadn't aired yet, even though the match has been announced at the then live event and could been found online, just not on television they wouldn't let people edit the pages to add that, that is what I was talking about. (talk) 13:40, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

World Title Win?[edit]

Not sure where this info is coming from, but Swagger hasn't won the world title.

Moreover, the date listed is the 29th, a Tuesday. Unless Swagger cashed in the Money in the Bank during NXT (which he did not, as I watched it), he is not champ. I don't see any credited sources, and has Jericho listed as the champ.

I tried to edit this but the page is locked. Can somebody unlock this, and make that change? (talk) 15:20, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Jack Swagger cashed in MitB during the taping of the April 2nd edition of Smackdown. He is the World Heavyweight Champion now. The article is well phrased to make this point clear. -- TRTX T / C 20:17, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
Editor foolishly updated the page before that episode aired.[[Special:Cont(talk) 12:43, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
It was not foolishly updated. SmackDown is not aired live (Event happend Tuesday, aired Friday) so multiple people saw the happen at the arena before it aired on TV. Several wrestling news websites covered it as well. This was easily verfiable and there was no good reason not to add it since there little to no doubt that it actually happened. The main oppoiton was people not wanting to see spoilers but our spoiler guidelines are clear on that issue. In short, there was no reason to wait for the episode to air to cover something we could already verifiy.-- (talk) 23:20, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
But when Drew Mcntyre was put into the MITB match it was not alowd to be put up until that episdoe of Smackdown aired. That is kind of backwards there. Why is it a person being put into a match is a spoiler but a man winning the world title is not.-- (talk) 21:01, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
The answer there is that two wrongs don't make a right. Simply because one piece of info was improperly not allowed does not mean we need to follow suit in all cases. It is also not that Swagger winning the tile was not a Spoiler but simply a case of the spoiler guideline not be followed in the case of Drew Mcntyre. In short that should have been added as well.-- (talk) 21:58, 25 December 2010 (UTC)


he cashed after five days of winning the money in the pank ladder match and he defeated chris put he tried after one day of winning the money in the pank ladder match to cash with john cena but when cena got up he changed hid mined ( so there in a mistake in the article )

There is not a mistake in the article. He cashed in MitB at SmackDown tapings, which are on a tuesday. The title change/cash-in happened after two days, but was aired after five. The article is correct. ♥NiciVampireHeart♥ 19:52, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from, 2 May 2010[edit]

{{editsemiprotected}} change age against the machines to Rage against the machines

never mind i cant believe its not them i also cant believe there is a band called age against the machines (talk) 19:29, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. -- /MWOAP|Notify Me\ 20:58, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Jack Swagger/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Nascarking (talk) 05:02, 17 July 2010 (UTC) GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality: [[File:|16px|alt=|link=]]
    B. MoS compliance: [[File:|16px|alt=|link=]]
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources: [[File:|16px|alt=|link=]]
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary: [[File:|16px|alt=|link=]]
    C. No original research: [[File:|16px|alt=|link=]]
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects: [[File:|16px|alt=|link=]]
    B. Focused: [[File:|16px|alt=|link=]]
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias: [[File:|16px|alt=|link=]]
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc: [[File:|16px|alt=|link=]]
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales: [[File:|16px|alt=|link=]]
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions: [[File:|16px|alt=|link=]]
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail: [[File:|16px|alt=|link=]]


GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Jack Swagger/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Nascarking (talk) 05:02, 17 July 2010 (UTC) GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality: [[File:|16px|alt=|link=]]
    B. MoS compliance: [[File:|16px|alt=|link=]]
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources: [[File:|16px|alt=|link=]]
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary: [[File:|16px|alt=|link=]]
    C. No original research: [[File:|16px|alt=|link=]]
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects: [[File:|16px|alt=|link=]]
    B. Focused: [[File:|16px|alt=|link=]]
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias: [[File:|16px|alt=|link=]]
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc: [[File:|16px|alt=|link=]]
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales: [[File:|16px|alt=|link=]]
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions: [[File:|16px|alt=|link=]]
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail: [[File:|16px|alt=|link=]]


There is definitely an error in the weight mentioned. It says his real weight is 260 lbs and 120 kg. It says his billed weight is 263 lbs and 119 kg. How can a larger value in lbs be a smaller value in kg? Meaning that 263 lbs should be more than 120 kg and it shouldn't be 119 kg if 119 kg is 260 lbs Mayankeagle (talk) 17:44, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

That's very odd – I've never noticed that before. The weight is done via Template:Convert, so it must be a problem on that end. I'd suggest mentioning it at Template talk:Convert. NiciVampireHeart 18:53, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
I went ahead and brought it up at Template talk:Convert#Problem?. NiciVampireHeart 18:59, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
Fixed. NiciVampireHeart 19:38, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks Mayankeagle (talk) 05:04, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
Not a problem. NiciVampireHeart 16:25, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

No mention of the Bald Soaring Eagle?[edit]

While I agree that the gimmick has been overplayed, there is precisely next to nothing about it in the actual article. (talk) 00:21, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

champ belt?[edit]

if hes not champ anymore, why is there a pic of him with the belt? --Gokudbzgohan (talk) 23:10, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Probably because no one has gotten around to changing it yet.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 13:04, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
Why would we remove a perfectly good image just because it shows him with a championship he no longer holds? NiciVampireHeart 05:14, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
The only reason worth doing this is if he ends up returning to TV with that awesome beard we've seen. Ranze (talk) 01:39, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Italian American[edit]

Is Jack Swagger really Italian American? He is listed as one at Wikipedia's List of Italian American entertainers under Professional_wrestlers [1] but I have seen no reference to Swagger being part Italian on his wiki page. (talk) 20:17, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

I think that Jack Swagger is a white American (WASP) not of German or Italian descent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:18, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Jack Swagger. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:06, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jack Swagger. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:57, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

  1. ^