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)
"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)
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)
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? 220.127.116.11 (talk) 23:15, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
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
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)
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)
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.
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.
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)
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)
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. AKKIfokkusuTaLk 09:05, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
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)
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. AKKIfokkusuTaLk 01:14, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
— — — — —
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.
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)
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).18.104.22.168 (talk) 00:23, 14 January 2014 (UTC)