Talk:WrestleMania 23/Archive 6

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

Discrepancy in attendance figures

Quoting WP:V, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or the material may be removed."
Because of this guideline—one of three core Wikipedia policies—claims about "the official (and REAL)" number are not germane.
As it happens, it is the lower figure which is the more reliable, and which currently has the less compromised reference. Cites for the higher attendance come directly from WWE publicity sources, or from sources using their claimed data. The current link for the 80,103 number is the Wrestlemania DVD, which could also be used to establish the claim that the event contained "moments of immortality." But as a publicly traded company, WWE is obliged to release detailed business figures. For April 2007, these charts included exact merchandise sales data, both in total and per fan. The merchandise sales for WM 23 set a record for a WWE event, but divided down to 74,687 fans. The average April 2007 attendance numbers provided by the company to its stockholders also support the lower total, which includes papered attendance.
However, as there are generally accepted sources for both numbers, they should both be included in a NPOV way (e.g. WWE claims the higher number, other sources cite the lower).
If this is not satisfactory to you, TJ Spyke, I hope that you will explain your point of view in greater detail. Thanks!208.120.152.25 (talk) 05:10, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
I'll answer it. Your figures are inherently inaccurate, because it assumes that all fans made merchandise purchases. Equally, the merchandising would have included the sales outside of the venue - bringing that into further dispute with the official WWE figure. That is why your material is being removed. !! Justa Punk !! 08:11, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
They aren't my figures, they're WWE's. Your assumption is incorrect, because the WWE's figures do NOT assume that all fans made purchases-- they represent the total amount of merchandise purchased at the event itself, divided by the number of fans present. It could have been a single fan buying everything, as far as the company's math goes.
More to the point, the stockholders' math is only background for this discussion, on this talk page. It's not the material that was removed from the actual article. The lower attendance number has been amply referenced. You'll need to establish that Yahoo News, among other sources, does not meet Wikipedia's WP:V standard.
For another Wikipedian treatment of a disputed WWE attendance claim, see the article for Wrestlemania 3. It's in the article's fourth sentence.208.120.152.25 (talk) 22:35, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
I wouldn't say "ample" sourced. 2 of the 4 are unreliable and another is questionable at best. Only Yahoo could be considered reliable and they don't say where they got their info from. The MOST that can be added is that Yahoo CLAIMS that is the real number, no saying they is the actual or real number. Also, the burden of proof is on someone to proof a source is reliable (not for others to prove its unreliable). TJ Spyke 22:51, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
This says bye bye to Dave Meltzer [1] "Mar. 29--WrestleMania 23 is just a few thousand tickets away from breaking the Ford Field attendance record. The number of tickets sold as of this morning, 75,736, has already exceeded the attendance for Super Bowl XL, which tallied 68,206."--UnquestionableTruth-- 22:57, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Additionally, Sports Illustrated claims the number of 80,103 was the number first reported and recorded by Ford Field reps, not WWE. [2] "When the show began, word spread that the attendance figure for the show was a new Ford Field record -- 80,103. "Over 80,000?" asked a surprised Linda McMahon when she got the number from a Ford Field rep. "That's amazing." It was a crowd so large that most wrestlers, even if they were scheduled to perform later, made it a point to go to press box, located at the top of Ford Field, which was used as the family room during the show. "Everyone's telling me I have to go to the top," said Shawn Daivari, still in his wrestling attire, as he walked into the elevator with Mickie James. "They're all saying you have to see how big the crowd is." --UnquestionableTruth-- 23:04, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Both the quotes above originate from the WWE (spokesman, Linda McMahon), not outside sources. Of course, details like this are properly sourced regardless of their origins, and could be included in the article. So is the restored text.
To those citing WP:V, I'd like to re-post the first sentence: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true." It's a "core content policy"-- again, WP:V says so. Any editor would need to show how the material fails this fundamental Wikipedia principle before "saying bye bye."208.120.152.75 (talk) 00:23, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
It has already been proven how it fails, 208. If you don't want to read what's being said don't blame us for keeping the correct attendance that has been verified by Ford Field (not WWE as has been already said) as 80,103. Your material fails to contradict this with any authority under WP:V so it stays as is.
If 208 changes it again - I recommend to TJ and Bullet that warnings be posted on this anon's talk page. !! Justa Punk !! 08:47, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

If you would like to continue this come here--C23 C23's talk 02:44, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Curtis, it's the same person who is already involved there. !! Justa Punk !! 06:13, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

IP opinion pushing on Wrestlemania 23

Bullett and TJ are already aware of this IP, who is trying to push a trivial note about the attendance at Mania 23 in Yahoo Sports as a major controversy - when all David Meltzer did was mention in attendance (incorrectly) in passing in an article about Bobby Lashley's move into the UFC. I put a general warning on his page, but he's ignored it and done the revert again. I've restored it and labelled it vandalism and given him a Level 3 warning because I think this is now bad faith. He was invited here by Bullett, and then by me in the general warning - but he is yet to show up here. Would appreciate some help as Bullett isn't always around and I don't know what TJ is doing now. !! Justa Punk !! 10:25, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

There certainly seems to be an edit war brewing here. I've invited the IP here to discuss the matter. Mad Dog Dunstan (talk) 11:02, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
Justa Punk is aware that WikProject Pro Wrestling has already come to a consensus on Meltzer as a source (he is included as "reliable" under Sources on WP:PW/SG. The source in question is Yahoo Sports; I'm unaware of any debate regarding its reliability as a citable Wikipedia reference.
Twice, Justa Punk deleted comments from my talk page and replaced them with warnings. The second deletion was in response to being warned about doing so, and included the incorrect summary "rules do not apply to IP talk pages."
Despite the tone above ("push a...major controversy"), the material in question is handled in the same bland manner as the intro for Wrestlemania 3, which includes a quick mention of that event's attendance discrepancy. Incidentally, the WM3 section also links back to a Meltzer-related reference.208.120.152.75 (talk) 11:35, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
Justa Punk calls my edit "vandalism," and hopes 3bulletproof16 will turn up. He may not know that 3bulletproof16 already asked User:Wrestlinglover to "keep an eye on WrestleMania 23." But Wrestlinglover responded on 3b16's talk page, "As for the Mania 23 thing, I actually agree with the ip, sorry. That is why I haven't involved myself."[1] I posted a note on Wrestlinglover's page two days ago asking him to consider mediating, but he hasn't responded-- quite sensibly, no doubt. I would appreciate any third party wisdom in this matter.208.120.152.75 (talk) 11:35, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
Note - the Meltzer reference in the reliability list comes from Wrestling Newsletter, and NOT Yahoo Sports. That's a key difference because Meltzer owns Wrestling Newsletter. The reliability issue lies in Yahoo Sports and not Meltzer. A passing reference to attendance is NOT notable as a reference to be used in the manner 208 is trying to use it. The current version is more appropriate. This is what 208 doesn't get, and by wording it in his manner he is making it look like a major issue - when it's not. He speaks of the bland manner. Sorry - I disagree. The bland manner is contained in the current edit and it should stay that way.
Mentioning other users doesn't help, because there are many more users than just the ones he mentioned. I also call on more opinions - after all that's why I started this thread. The article concerned should stay as is until this is sorted out once and for all by a proper consensus on which version is appropriate and accurate. My view is that the current version is correct and of course 208 does not. !! Justa Punk !! 11:47, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

The issue here is about the attendance number. The issue was discussed more than two years ago when Dave Meltzer first disputed the 80,103 number recorded by Ford Field and WWE. [3] That same discussion then spilled over to the WrestleMania III talk page over the same issue. [4] In the discussion over the WrestleMania 23 attendance number, it was concluded that Dave Meltzer's work failed to meet WP:RS due to falling under what would be classified as "dirtsheet" or rumor reporting material. The discussion was closed after noting the amount of Third Party sources (that's non-WWE and non-Wrestling News Sites) that reported the 80,103 attendance number. --UnquestionableTruth-- 12:13, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Meltzer is reliable in his own right. In fact, WP:MMA considers anything published by Meltzer as reliable. There is too much trying to determine what is fact instead of just writting what is held up by sources. I would say in the reception section just talk about the attendance problem. Don't list an attendance in the infobox or the lead. Explain WWE states this is their reported attendance on the event, while journalist Dave Meltzer published through Yahoo Sports that ??? was the attendance.--WillC 23:17, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
Bulletproof, thanks for the two discussion links, which I've just read. However, neither ended in a vote, ruling, policy statement, etc. Could you point us to where the consensus conclusion is that declares Meltzer's work invalid under WP:RS? And in light of such a conclusion, why does WP:PW currently list Meltzer as a reliable source? Also, why is the Wrestlemania 3 approach unsuitable for WrestleMania 23?
Justa Punk, the Yahoo Sports ref was chosen because it's a prominent, reliable online news source. There are a huge amount of other "passing reference" mentions being used and accepted as sources on Wikipedia. (You won't find many full articles about the year someone was born, for instance.) As a compromise, I would be happy to use text from the Wrestling Observer newsletter as the source rather than Yahoo Sports, since that is what you say meets the RS standard. Incidentally, while we're discussing this, it's hard to read good faith into your December 20 post on 3bulletproof16's talk page ("whoever catches him first"), or your post on my talk page that the "official" warning "stands."
BTW, I wasn't citing Wrestlinglover's talk page comment as the one-man end word on the subject-- it was merely to illustrate that the edit was patently not "vandalism," and that I hadn't been ignoring the dispute or rejecting consensus. I hope that uninvolved editors will review both the content of the edit, and the tone of the reaction.208.120.152.75 (talk) 23:50, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
Discussions aren't ended with votes (WP:NOTDEMOCRACY) to come to a close. The discussion ended when the opposition to the 80,103 number was referred to the Third Party sources that recorded 80,103. Will, as for your views on Meltzer, that is subject for another discussion. For now, per WP:RS (3rd party sources) and consequently WP:NPOV, and until the consensus changes, 80,103 will be recorded in the article. --UnquestionableTruth-- 00:14, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
3bullet: No, in light of your previously posted comments on WrestleMania 23 ("not necessary TJ. written by Meltzer and that alone fails WP:V"; "this says bye bye to Dave Meltzer"; "Its not about Yahoo. its about Meltzer")[2][3], it's very much a subject for THIS discussion.
Despite the certainty of your reply, you did not address the direct questions posed to you:
  • If, as you claim, Meltzer fails to satisfy WP:RS and WP:NPOV, why does this talk page's project, WP:PW, currently list Meltzer as a reliable source?
  • And again, why is the Wrestlemania 3 approach unsuitable for use for Wrestlemania 23?
The WM23 discussion you linked to doesn't appear to have the clearcut outcome you describe. But even if we accept your interpretation of that debate, a project guideline offered in December 2009 carries more community weight than an equivocal talk page discussion from April 2007. And so, I intend to replace the Yahoo Sports source with a direct Wrestling Observer Newsletter ref, as per current WP:PW guidelies, as well as the preference Justa Punk expressed with his previous comment.208.120.152.75 (talk) 20:33, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Question: WrestleMania III had different attendance numbers reported by multiple sources, many of which note that the figures are debatable...which is why I believe it is safe to note the different figures in the article. Can this be said for WrestleMania 23? If multiple sources give the different number, then it would be okay to mention it IMO, otherwise it just looks like Meltzer reported wrong information (which happens to even the most credible sources sometimes), and it shouldn't be mentioned. Nikki♥311 21:34, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
208, unless you can prove that there is a major issue with the attendance, you can't change a thing. Consensus supercedes project policy, and besides - the policy you are claiming assumes that a noted "reliable source" is always right, and as Nikki rightly said this is not the case. Multiple sources (as indicated in the discussion Bullet linked) agreed with the WWE figure AND the Ford Field figure. That alone destroys your claim no matter what policies you quote.
Reality check - Meltzer got this wrong, so it should not be added. For the record, I think his scoop about Bret Hart is BS (as an example) but that's just my opinion based on his refusal to appear at Wrestlemania when he went into the Hall of Fame because of the presence of Shawn Michaels. Just because someone is listed as an RS doesn't mean every word they utter is gospel. !! Justa Punk !! 22:36, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Nikki-- Meltzer didn't make an inadvertant reporting error in this case. He published analysis of WWE's figures that indicated the publicized attendance total was inflated, and has since returned to it. This isn't to say that his data is right or wrong, but it's not a mistake. It's worth repeating that the 'lower attendance' sourcing currently being used on Wrestlemania 3 goes back to Meltzer's claim for that event.
Justa-- So, Meltzer is a reliable source only until he publishes something you disagree with? Interesting argument. You are incorrect on a significant point. The edit does not assume or assert that Meltzer is right, let alone "always right." Nor does the policy. Again, here's the first sentence of WP:VERIFY: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true." What about this core content policy is unclear to you?208.120.152.75 (talk) 23:32, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
What about the fact that he IS wrong in this case - as proven in the April 2007 discussion that Bullet pointed to - is unclear to YOU? The verifiability battle is won by WWE and Ford Field because that figure has WAY more support that Meltzer's. Through reliable sources as well. !! Justa Punk !! 07:27, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Justa is right since Wrestlemania 23 was a WWE event what WWE states as the attendance is probably right I mean what reason do they have to lie? Also since it was a WWE event exactly as Justa says WWE is more reliable in THIS case (i'm not saying all cases) than Meltzer.--Curtis23 (talk) 15:44, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)In the case of reporting attendance, WWE has it in their own self-interest to inflate their numbers. However, as their numbers have been corroborated by another source there is no reason to doubt them for this instance. HAZardousMATTtoxic 15:49, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
Can't we just put in something about Dave Meltzer disputing the figure? it can't be that hard can it to just slot in something so simple, Meltzer is somewhat a reputable source and if he is disputing it we don't necessarily have to say its wrong or right just that he disputes it. Afro (Not a Talk Page) - Afkatk 15:47, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't see why we should they didn't in Wrestlemania 3 when there was a dispute.--Curtis23 (talk) 15:55, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

What if we compromise by writing the WWE/Ford Field figure in the prose and infobox, but adding a footnote that says something along the lines of "Dave Meltzer, however, disputes this claim, reporting that the attendance was actually blah blah etc etc."? Nikki♥311 21:02, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
Sentences 3 and 4 from the Wikipedia intro to Wrestlemania 3: "The event is particularly notable for the reported attendance of 93,173, the largest recorded attendance for a live indoor sporting event in North America.[1][2][7] Though the attendance number is subject to dispute, the event is considered to be the pinnacle of the 1980s wrestling boom."[1][8][9] 208.120.152.75 (talk) 21:08, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
I know, but that's because other sources have reported that there was a dispute for WM3 (even if that can be traced back to Meltzer). The reason it shouldn't be added to the prose of WM23 article is because Meltzer is currently the ONLY one reporting a dispute. If you can show me some links that prove differently, my mind can be changed. Nikki♥311 21:41, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Is Dave Meltzer the only person reporting this because I know that a lot of people are reoprting the figure WWE said.--Curtis23 (talk) 21:35, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes he is, Curtis - and for everyone's benefit, the dispute is already mentioned in the Mania 23 article. 208 is trying to expand upon it, when there's no need. !! Justa Punk !! 21:43, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
The problem I have with even just mentioning Meltzer's number is that he is the only source that disputes the 80,103 number. The biggest difference between the WrestleMania III dispute and this particular one is that there were multiple sources that cited conflicting numbers for WrestleMania III, which resulted in a compromise on the event's Wiki article noting that in fact, the number is disputed. Here (WrestleMania 23) its just one guy disputing millions of other sources... Noting it just doesn't seem warranted.--UnquestionableTruth-- 02:39, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
WP:VERIFY is an absolute principle, but a simple one. Has the material already been published? Yes. Is Meltzer accepted as a reliable source? Yes. Does the edit assert that Meltzer is correct, or that WWE is wrong? No.
The dispute is not already mentioned in the Mania 23 article.
Nikki-- some other sources claim the lower attendance figure. Here are a few of them, and the relevant text within.
http://www.thehistoryofwwe.com/07.htm
"WrestleMania 23 - Detroit, MI - Ford Field - April 1, 2007 (74,687; 68,500 paid; announced at 80,103; sell out; new attendance record)"
http://74.125.93.132/search?q=cache:KZ0U7nBx7WIJ:www.prowrestlinghistory.com/supercards/eventinfo.xls+74687+wrestlemania+nbc&cd=4&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
"Wrestling Crowds of 25,000 and Greater -- #8 WWE; Ford Field; 04/01/07; 74,687; $5,380,000; Detroit, MI USA; HBK vs. Cena; Batista vs. Undertaker; Trump vs. Vince hair"
http://www.wrestling101.com/101/article/AdamS/1038/
"Following the excellent Royal Rumble and decent No Way Out, WWE presented WrestleMania XXIII, their biggest show of 2007 in front of a billed attendance of 80,103 (although apparently the real figure was 74,687… impressive enough in it’s own right) at Detroit’s Ford Field."
The print version of the Wrestling Observer published an analysis in June 2007, using WWE's public business finances for April 2007. A shorter account of the same discrepancy was published in the Observer two weeks ago.
Those, and the additional sources that cite the smaller number are no doubt getting their information from the Observer, perhaps indirectly. But all of the sources that cite the larger number have gotten it from WWE's WM23 press release-- again, sometimes indirectly. There is no direct "all-time Ford Field record" citation from Ford Field itself. 208.120.152.75 (talk) 04:44, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Its no longer mentioned in the article because I removed the note. The two main problems with your argument...
  1. all of the links you provided aren't reliable sources for the matter.
  2. your entire argument is based around your opinion that Meltzer is right and that WWE and the thousands of other news orgs are wrong...
You're not making any progress for your side of the argument. --UnquestionableTruth-- 05:19, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
To repeat (and repeat), the edit absolutely does NOT claim that Meltzer is right, and that WWE is wrong. How many more times will that misrepresentation need to be corrected?
The two main problems with your rebuttal are...
  1. All of the links provided were for this discussion only, as a response to Nikki's direct request. They needn't be used at all in the WM23 article. A single ref verifying Meltzer's alternate claim will more than satisfy Wikipedia's RS standard.
  2. Second, in mischaracterizing what you say is my "entire argument," you didn't address a central issue: "the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." Whether Meltzer's analysis is correct is not the criteria, according to immutable Wikipedia policy. I have no idea, none at all, whether Meltzer's numbers are correct. But I do know that Meltzer has been deemed a credible analyst by consensus, and I do know that Meltzer's earlier views on the WM3 attendance are considered notable.
I understand that you are unhappy with using the Wrestling Observer as a reliable source, but that ship has sailed. This site's policy and guidelines carry slightly more weight than either of our personal opinions. 208.120.152.75 (talk) 06:30, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
I mean literally, its Meltzer's word against, The Seattle Times, ESPN [5] [6], The New York Times, Sports Illustrated, The Detroit News, The Sun, some international for yah, PrimeraHora [7], IndianTV, ...LiveDesign, The New York Daily News, MSNBC, FOX News, MLB.com... I mean it's not even funny... --UnquestionableTruth-- 05:53, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Do you realize that a half dozen of your links are the same AP wire service article? Or that others include phraseology from WWE's press release?
The WM3 dispute has gained more traction for several reasons, with the 20 years' headstart being just one of them. For one, the discrepancy between the two claims is much larger for Wrestlemania 3: approximately 18% of the announced total, as compared to less than 7%. Also, the Wrestlemania 3 claim is historically significant ("the largest indoor attendance in North American sports history") as opposed to negligible {"the all-time attendance for a particular arena that opened 5 years beforehand"). And most obviously, the attendance dispute did not exist at the time of WM23, and those publications have had little reason to write about WM23 since. It would have required a time machine to mention the dispute in the links you provided.208.120.152.75 (talk) 06:30, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Pressing the last point, the dates for those articles are, in order, April 5, April 1, April 23, April 1, April 4, April 2, April 2, April 2, April 3, April 2, April 23, April 2, April 3, April 2, and April 2 (all 2007). Meltzer first wrote about the attendance dispute that June. 208.120.152.75 (talk) 06:51, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

It think we should end this the consensus is not to add what Dave Meltzer said.--Curtis23 (talk) 13:56, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Closed? --UnquestionableTruth-- 00:05, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
Closed IMO, Bullet. Suggest we watch WrestleMania 23 and revert on sight any further attempts by 208 to violate WP:NPOV by pushing that view of Meltzer's that is outnumbered by miles. I call that tetentious (sp?) editing as well. IMO if 208 does it again in the face of this evidence, he is editing in bad faith and has to be considered a vandal. !! Justa Punk !! 01:42, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
I don't think there is a need to go that far. It's not a string of IPs constantly adding the text. We just need to keep an eye on it. If the situation escalates, additional measures will be taken. For now, the discussion is closed. --UnquestionableTruth-- 03:03, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
It's lovely that you've reached consensus with yourselves. Since you've repeatedly refused to address "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true", sure, why not skip WP:CONSENSUS as well?
  • "Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. For instance, participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy does not apply to articles within its scope, unless they can convince the broader community that such action is right."
  • "Developing consensus requires special attention to neutrality and verifiability in an effort to reach a compromise that everyone can agree on."
  • "An option that is narrowly preferred is almost never consensus."
  • "A consensus by a small group of editors cannot override policies and guidelines that have been agreed to by a wider range of editors."
  • "When in doubt, defer to WP:policies and guidelines. These reflect the consensus of a wide range of editors."
And a freebie from WP:VAN: "edits/reverts over a content dispute are never vandalism, see WP:EW"
See you after the holidays. 208.120.152.75 (talk) 04:28, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
*shakes head* Your italicised quote has been addressed. It has been verified by multiple reliable sources that the 80K crowd figure is correct. That is verifiability at work. And if anyone is preferring a narrow option, it's you - relying wholly on Meltzer's opinion and ignoring the multiple contrary sources. That's it. Case closed. !! Justa Punk !! 07:39, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Exactly it's like me with Zack Ryder everybody against 1 doesn't get you what you want.--Curtis23 (talk) 19:46, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

The IP user makes a good case. The question is whether or not it is verifiable that there is a dispute over the attendance figure. The dispute is verified by Meltzer's statement, which means that Wikipedia policy supports the addition of the material. It doesn't matter which attendance figure is correct, since Wikipedia is about a balanced presentation of information supported by reliable sources. I see no problem with a statement like "Most sources give the attendance fugure as (whatever WWE's number is); Dave Meltzer, editor of the Wrestling Observer Newsletter disputes this number, however, stating that the true attendance was (whatever Meltzer's number is)." Stick with WWE's number in the infobox, but include all reliably sourced information (both sides) in the prose. Problem solved, in accordance with Wikipedia policy. GaryColemanFan (talk) 21:12, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
Exactly what I was trying to get off above. I agree with Gary.--WillC 22:25, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
When I tried suggesting something similar to the IP, they seemed opposed to any wording that made it clear that Meltzer is claiming that WWE and Ford Field are wrong (the IP basically wants the article to say that Meltzer's number is the correct number). TJ Spyke 22:39, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
Stating that Meltzer's number is correct would go against the verifiability policy. There are two versions. Both can be attributed to reliable sources, but it seems clear that Meltzer is claiming that WWE is wrong. GaryColemanFan (talk) 01:35, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

So GFC what your saying is any source the reliable that says something about a certain things has to be in an article. So if Dave Meltzer said that the attendance number is 24 would we have to put that in the article?--Curtis23 (talk) 22:48, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

That doesn't deserve a response. GaryColemanFan (talk) 01:35, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
lol. I think GCF's wording in neutral enough to work, and since there really is no way to verify a correct number...that might be the solution to end this argument. Nikki♥311 01:40, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

How do we know he didn't pull that number out of the water?--Curtis23 (talk) 04:55, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

You are missing the point. Regardless of whether or not Meltzer's number is accurate, he is a reliable source. As such, including information from his in a neutral manner meets Wikipedia's standard for verifiability. It is not Wikipedia's place to determine the correct figure any more than it is Wikipedia's place to solve the JFK assassination. We just report which reliable sources said what and leave the decision making up to the reader. GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:11, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

The vast majority of reliable sources agree with the figure given by WWE and Ford Field. This is the reason why Meltzer's figure isn't being used. Just because he is also regarded as a reliable source as well does not mean he should be noticed in the face of the number of other reliable sources. Remember that 208 wanted to put Meltzer's number on a pedastal. Because Meltzer is the ONLY person to claim that the figure is incorrect and without verifiable back up, his figure in this instance alone has to be considered unreliable. It's the weight of verifiable evidence against him that kills this whole discussion outright. It's not a slight on Meltzer's reliability in general. Usually he's pretty good. He just blew it this time. Nobody's perfect. !! Justa Punk !! 12:11, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

You're still trying to solve the JFK assassination. Wikipedia reports what is verifiable. In this case, that would be the fact that there are two different attendance numbers stated by reliable sources. It doesn't matter if the IP editor wanted to give preference to Meltzer's number. That's just not going to happen. Forget about that suggestion. Remember, however, that ignoring Meltzer's number altogether is also a violation of Wikipedia policy. GaryColemanFan (talk) 15:22, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
Meltzer's claim is NOT verifiable. There is a difference. Just because he's listed as a reliable source doesn't mean he passes WP:V in this instance. Show me a reliable source that backs Meltzer up. Until then - the claim fails WP:V purely because of the sheer number of reliable sources that agree with WWE and Ford Field. And the lack of coverage of the "controversy" (which as I understand it is what the difference is between this and Wrestlemania 3). So - ergo - it gets ignored, and rightly so under WP policy. !! Justa Punk !! 21:30, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
You clearly don't understand WP:V. Meltzer's statement is verified by Meltzer's statement. It cannot be denied that a reliable source states that the attendance figure is different from the one given by WWE. That is all that should be stated—that a reliable source reports a different attendance figure. Not that Meltzer is correct, because this has absolutely nothing to do with truth. You have verifiability and truth mixed up, which is a serious misreading of Wikipedia policy. Perhaps the phrasing taken directly from the policy page will help clear things up: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true." - WP:V. GaryColemanFan (talk) 02:36, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
YOU don't understand WP:V from the point of view of number of reliable sources. Ever heard of 1 against 100 proverbially speaking? When 100 reliable sources say one thing, only a fool would add the 1 that goes against it. This is to do with a controversy over the figure - which there isn't. THAT is what is not verifiable. If you don't get that..... !! Justa Punk !! 10:05, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Words right out of my mouth.--Curtis23 (talk) 15:59, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

We seem to be at an impasse. Policy supports my position, but JustaPunk is apparently unwilling to even read the policy before claiming that it supports his. For some reason, he believes that the number of sources is relevant to inclusion or exclusion. Since the number of sources (many of which are the same source, but that's another issue altogether) shows that the majority is on the side of the higher number, it should be indicated in the article that the majority of the sources support the higher number. Since a reliable source gives a different number, though, it should also be indicated that a different figure exists. JustaPunk is unwilling or unable to understand this, so we apparently need to waste time by seeking some sort of dispute resolution. Suggestions for how to proceed? RfC? Personally, I think RfC is also a waste of time, because it ends up with the same people arguing the same points, with only one or two other editors giving opinions but getting lost in the shuffle. Something needs to be done, though. GaryColemanFan (talk) 18:07, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Remember my question about if a "reliable source" gives a number that couldn't be right at all would we have to put it in the article. You didn't give an answer because it would prove mine and punk's side is correct.--Curtis23 (talk) 22:31, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Your question was ridiculous. A reliable source wouldn't give a stupid attendance figure. People would stop reading Meltzer's work if he made up stuff that was obviously incorrect. He is considered a reliable source because of a long track record of investigating information before reporting it. The only possible way that you and JustaPunk could be considered correct is if Wikipedia suddenly did away with WP:V, WP:AGF, WP:VANDAL, WP:OWN, WP:CIVIL, WP:NPOV, and WP:NPA. GaryColemanFan (talk) 23:01, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Almost all websites that reported the attendance as 80,103. Meltzer is the only big (and probably the only) source to report the lower figure.--Curtis23 (talk) 00:41, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Antiochus IV was the Greek ruler during the Maccabeean rebellion. GaryColemanFan (talk) 01:47, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
Happy holidays, everyone.
For those people with an interest in Wikipedia policy, WP:TPG says "Do not misrepresent other people: The record should accurately show significant exchanges that took place, and in the right context." WP:TPG calls such misrepresentation "unacceptable," and says that repeated violations can lead to sanction.
From the original post by me on the WM23 talk page two weeks ago: "...as there are generally accepted sources for both numbers, they should both be included in a NPOV way (e.g. WWE claims the higher number, other sources cite the lower)."
Me again, from this discussion we're reading right now: "The edit does not assume or assert that Meltzer is right, let alone "always right." Nor does the policy."
Me yet again, from this discussion page: "To repeat (and repeat), the edit absolutely does NOT claim that Meltzer is right, and that WWE is wrong. How many more times will that misrepresentation need to be corrected? ...Whether Meltzer's analysis is correct is not the criteria, according to immutable Wikipedia policy. I have no idea, none at all, whether Meltzer's numbers are correct."
Subsequent responses, from TJ Spyke and Justa Punk:
TJ Spyke: "When I tried suggesting something similar to the IP, they seemed opposed to any wording that made it clear that Meltzer is claiming that WWE and Ford Field are wrong (the IP basically wants the article to say that Meltzer's number is the correct number).
Justa Punk: "Remember that 208 wanted to put Meltzer's number on a pedastal."
Finally, here's the wording of the edit: "However, other sources including Yahoo Sports claimed the attendance figure was 74,687." 208.120.153.110 (talk) 02:03, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

WHAT other sources? This is the point. Meltzer is the ONLY reliable source giving this number. Who else is doing it? Every other reliable source says that WWE and Ford Field'd figure is right. This comes to a blatant number situation. When you have one source ONLY claiming a number - without back up - the remaining sources take precedence. Especially in such numbers (I think Bullet gave something like 20 sources that all fulfilled WP:RS - and I don't even include WWE and Ford Field in that count). I note that GCF is calling on me to read policy. I think he's the one who needs to read it, but then that goes back to him being his usual stubborn self. We've clashed before, and this is no different.

So - either provide reliable sources that back Meltzer, or this discussion is clearly over per WP policy. !! Justa Punk !! 21:58, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Need a policy-based decision for WrestleMania 23 - we'll see if anyone there can help. GaryColemanFan (talk) 00:33, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
They suggested seeking help elsewhere, so I've posted a question at WT:V, since the big problem is different interpretations of the policy on verifiability. GaryColemanFan (talk) 01:37, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Make that WP:RSN. GaryColemanFan (talk) 02:34, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

My 2 cents - the problem isn't different interpretations of WP:V, it's not seeing WP:V alongside WP:NPOV. That numerous sources say the attendance was 80,103 is verifiable. That Meltzer lists a different figure is also verifiable. WP:V does not allow for one statement to be more verifiale than another. You now have to decide if Meltzer's view is significant enough to include. WP:UNDUE (part of WP:NPOV) says -

"Neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification: In general, articles should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more widely held views; generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all. For example, the article on the Earth does not mention modern support for the Flat Earth concept, the view of a distinct minority."

I don't know how many sources claim 80,103 as the crowd figure, or if that number is significant enough to exclude Meltzer's claim. Personally, I don't see any harm in including Meltzer's figure as long as it is given appropriate weight. Given that the attendance figure is a fairly trivial detail anyway, I would probably only include Meltzer's number in a footnote.

As this is an NPOV issue, you could try WP:NPOVN if you can't agree. --hippo43 (talk) 02:16, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Bullet gave the sources that contradicted Meltzer further up, Hippo - and I don't think that was all of them either. The Seattle Times, ESPN [8] [9], The New York Times, Sports Illustrated, The Detroit News, The Sun, PrimeraHora [10], IndianTV, ...LiveDesign, The New York Daily News, MSNBC, FOX News, MLB.com.
I read what was at WP:RSN, and actually I like the idea of a footnote. As was said, this is about weight - which was my point as well. The difference was I was wiping it out altogether, because I disagree that Meltzer's figure is verified (WP:RS notwithstanding) because he has no verifiable sources to back him up. So..... !! Justa Punk !! 11:45, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Proposal

I propose that we agree to edit WrestleMania 23 to add a footnote noting Meltzer's figure dispute. That way the balance of reliable sources is held to. What say we all? !! Justa Punk !! 11:45, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

As I stated above, I can live with that (I don't like including the claim at all, but as long as it is made clear that it is just Meltzer's claim and not factual I can accept it). TJ Spyke 16:48, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
I support the footnote without specifying the claim as non-factual. How about instead of saying it's not factual we say it's an unsubstantiated claim? HAZardousMATTtoxic 17:07, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
The two sides can be given appropriate weight by including WWE's number in the prose and Meltzer's in a footnote. Using words like "not factual" or "unsubstantiated" would violate WP:NPOV, however. What about stating in the prose that "The majority of sources give the event's attendance as xx,xxx" with a footnote stating "Dave Meltzer of the Wrestling Observer Newsletter reports the figure as xx,xxx."? That way, the number found in the majority of sources is given more weight in the article, and Meltzer's in relegated to a footnote but presented in a neutral manner. Of course, the phrasing for the 80,103 number can be different from how I presented it above (the footnote could simply be placed at the end of the sentence that is currently in the article ("The all-time attendance record at Ford Field of 80,103..."). GaryColemanFan (talk) 17:25, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
I suggested "unsubstantiated" 1) because I personally don't view it as a non-neutral word, and 2) because I found it to be an accurate description of Meltzer's claim as no other source has confirmed it. However if many are satisfied with GCF's above suggestion I won't argue for the inclusion of "unsubstantiated". HAZardousMATTtoxic 17:31, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Matt about "unsubstantiated". That word basically just means "without evidence". Melzter offers no proof of his claim, so his number is unsubstantiated. TJ Spyke 18:14, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
In order for it to be considered "with evidence", according to the project's guidelines, it would have to be claimed by at least one reliable source. That source is Meltzer. Let's just add a footnote without any of these point-of-view words and move on with our lives. This time would be much better spent contributing to the project's stub reduction drive (only 3 days left to expand 21 more stub-class articles!). GaryColemanFan (talk) 19:34, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm willing to go with just the footnote. Now that I think about it "unsubstantiated" may have been suited for a less-reliable source in general. HAZardousMATTtoxic 19:41, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

The footnote is fine (Like TJ I wouldn't like it at all) just as long as it doesn't have a spot right in the introduction.--Curtis23 (talk) 00:20, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd support a footnote, too. In fact, I suggested that seven days ago... ;) Nikki♥311 01:11, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

[11] Thoughts? --UnquestionableTruth-- 01:49, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I think we can all live with that. HAZardousMATTtoxic 01:55, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Should this article also be used? [12] The Detroit Free Press reported 75,736 already sold days before the event took place. The number is greater than the final number tallied by Meltzer of 74,687. --UnquestionableTruth-- 01:55, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
As it stands now, I don't love it, and I don't hate it. Let's leave it alone and get back to the final two days of the stub reduction drive. GaryColemanFan (talk) 02:54, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Good edit, Bullet, and well placed as well. Looks like we are all in agreement - so we have a consensus to point to if 208 wants to try and push his line again. !! Justa Punk !! 03:45, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

As always, Justa's posts define the concept of good faith. It's amazing how far this discussion has come since "case closed."
I've deleted the MLB ref in the infobox-- because that article never cites an exact number, it can't be used for that purpose. I replaced the Seattle Times link with the NBC Sports one, because the wire service text is identical for both links and NBC is presumably higher-profile. I replaced the Yahoo Sports link with the more direct Observer link, which also eliminates the "in an unrelated..." commentary. For the Meltzer sentence, I put the majority of the sources and their refs ahead of Meltzer, since they came first chronologically. I included a brief NPOV description of his methodology, since that was a concern in the above discussion, while making it clear that his version remains outnumbered. 208.120.153.110 (talk) 04:28, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Oh, I also got rid of the ugly run-on sentence in the intro, which had nothing to do with any of this but kept getting reverted anyway. 208.120.153.110 (talk) 04:31, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
"based on his own independent analysis of official WWE business figures" That statement alone is an unverifiable claim. The way you've worded the note clearly shows the author's (Your) point of view, a bias for Meltzer.--UnquestionableTruth-- 04:45, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
The Seattle Times article and NBC Sports article may contain similar text but it is clear that one is written by the Seattle Times reporter while the other is taken from the Associated Press, thus making the two sources unique and perfectly acceptable. The Yahoo! Sports article written by Meltzer was about Bobby Lashley's move to MMA and not about the subject that is being cited (the attendance number), thus making "in an unrelated article" entirely accurate. The source you provided directly from the Meltzer's Newsletter wasn't a link at all and didn't even contain a direct quote from the supposed article. --UnquestionableTruth-- 05:04, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
You want a direct quote? Here's the June 2007 text from the Observer:
"WWE publicly claims that 80,103 fans were in attendance at WrestleMania 23 at Ford Field. They claimed this number so that they could claim it as being a Ford Field record. As it turns out, 80,103 isn't the real figure. The show actually drew 74,687 total fans. And the real paid attendance was 66,670 fans. WWE's corporate website released business figures for the month of April and listed seven domestic shows for the month, averaging 16,900 per event as paid attendance. The same chart notes that if you take away WrestleMania from skewing the average, you have 8,605 fans as the average for the other six shows. Doing the simple math, you come up with 66,670 fans in attendance at WrestleMania. The 74,687 figure comes from WWE releasing the record merchandise numbers along with the per caps (how much the average fan spent on merch at Mania). That number comes out to be 74,687 real people who were able to buy merchandise."
Would you like a December 2009 quote instead?
"WWE made up a number for WrestleMania 23 at Ford Field. As to why they did so, it was to be able to claim a building attendance record so they find the old record, and give a number that is several thousand above that and that nobody could actually get into the stadium, and that way they can claim the all-time record that isn't going to be broken. Since that time, in Ford Field newspaper stories, the Detroit media has pretty much accepted the Mania 80,000 figure as a work and when stories list the biggest crowd in the arena, it's a college basketball crowd that they use."
Do you really want Meltzer's direct quotes in the article text, or footnoted, or as reference text, or anywhere else? Doesn't "However, based on his own independent analysis of official WWE business figures..." summarize it in a MUCH less provocative way, while making it clear that it's just one person's analysis?
Meanwhile, the "despite the majority of sources.." phraseology creates a new POV problem, because it implies a nonexistent "X vs. Y" faceoff. Meltzer was NOT reacting to the immediate coverage of WM23, which merely repeated WWE's press release information. Meltzer didn't dispute the WWE claim until subsequent data emerged and he got out his calculator.
The revised text explains where Meltzer's alternate total came from, without making the smallest suggestion that it's correct. In fact, it directly addresses the concerns and skepticism that you (and other editors) have previously expressed about the sources of Meltzer's information-- both in the discussion on this page, as well as the 2007 one you linked above.
Here's the full text: "However, based on his own independent analysis of official WWE business figures, the Wrestling Observer's Dave Meltzer has reported a lesser attendance figure of 74,687." Could you please quote the biased part? 208.120.153.110 (talk) 05:38, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Sigh... you're not getting the point. "based on his own independent analysis of official WWE business figures" is unvarifiable.--UnquestionableTruth-- 05:47, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
"WWE made up a number for WrestleMania 23 at Ford Field. As to why they did so, it was to be able to claim a building attendance record so they find the old record, and give a number that is several thousand above that and that nobody could actually get into the stadium, and that way they can claim the all-time record that isn't going to be broken. Since that time, in Ford Field newspaper stories, the Detroit media has pretty much accepted the Mania 80,000 figure as a work and when stories list the biggest crowd in the arena, it's a college basketball crowd that they use." ... Now you're just being a troll...--UnquestionableTruth-- 05:47, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
The entire dispute is so trivial it deserves no more than a simple mention. "Dave Meltzer noted in an unrelated Yahoo! Sports article an attendance figure of 74,687 despite the majority of sources reporting the 80,103 attendance record at Ford Field." This note establishes two things. 1) Dave Meltzer reports a different number than other sources. 2) His number was reported After the other sources reported their number. Isn't that what you've been fighting about this entire time? We'll do this... I'll split it into two sentences.--UnquestionableTruth-- 05:58, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
3bulletproof wrote:
"The source you provided directly from the Meltzer's Newsletter wasn't a link at all and didn't even contain a direct quote from the supposed article."
This is absurd. YOU want direct quotes from the Observer, I give them to you, and then you call me a "troll"? You guys need to knock this name-calling off.
The 2007 Observer quote explains the methodology behind Meltzer's claim. That's how he calculated it. That's what he published. HOW is that unverifiable?
Whenever you're done fake-sighing, I'd still like to see you follow up "The way you've worded the note clearly shows the author's (Your) point of view, a bias for Meltzer" by citing the precise wording that shows the bias. 208.120.153.110 (talk) 06:10, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
(1) This has gotten really stupid. (2) 208 is correct. The quotations have been given as evidence. (3) The phrasing that was added (after people had pretty much agreed to a neutral footnote) was definitely not neutral. (4) That run-on sentence is terrible. (5) End this dispute and expand stub-class articles instead. GaryColemanFan (talk) 06:58, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Why are you so obsessed with that?--Curtis23 (talk) 16:50, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

With what? Expanding articles instead of spending time bickering over phrasing issues? I would hope that would be self-explanatory. Add to that the fact that the project set a goal of getting the percentage of stub-class articles below 10% by December 31 and that there are still 16 or 17 articles to go, and you should be able to see what would be of greater benefit to the project and the encyclopedia. GaryColemanFan (talk) 18:22, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
"Though the attendance was reported to be 80,103, a Ford Field record, Dave Meltzer of the Wrestling Observer Newsletter contested the claim, reporting an attendance figure of 74,687."
How's that? Work for everyone? Can we move on now? HAZardousMATTtoxic 17:01, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
I like the phrasing. I think it would be important to include multiple references for the 80,103 figure to demonstrate that the number has been reported by several reliable sources. GaryColemanFan (talk) 18:22, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
I just re-worked what was already in the article. I didn't have time to edit or re-arrange any of the sources. I felt once we had decided on the copy the sources would be easy to tack on. Hopefully we can all agree on this and we can leave this issue in 2009. HAZardousMATTtoxic 18:39, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

His "own independant analysis" may need to be taken out because he probably had help from a few other people.--Curtis23 (talk) 20:43, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I didn't include "own independant(sic) analysis" in my proposal above. HAZardousMATTtoxic 20:47, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
I've removed it. It's opinion and has no business there. !! Justa Punk !! 23:39, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Not so. Calling it "opinion" is as accurate as your previous estimations of "consensus" and "vandalism." Here's the relevant excerpt from the Observer: "WWE's corporate website released business figures for the month of April [2007] and listed seven domestic shows for the month, averaging 16,900 per event as paid attendance. The same chart notes that if you take away WrestleMania from skewing the average, you have 8,605 fans as the average for the other six shows. Doing the simple math, you come up with 66,670 fans in attendance at WrestleMania. The 74,687 figure comes from WWE releasing the record merchandise numbers along with the per caps (how much the average fan spent on merch at Mania). That number comes out to be 74,687 real people who were able to buy merchandise."
"Based on his own independent analysis" is an objective, concise summary of the above process. You're the second person to call it "opinion," so it must be a very simple matter to explain precisely where and how the description fails the NPOV standard.
The wording should satisfy both sides. It makes it clear that he didn't just pull a randomly lower number out of the clouds-- but just as importantly, it verifies that it's Meltzer's personal research, rather than an official audit. Also, the edit acknowledges the preceding suspicions about Meltzer's methods and/or sources; most recently, Curtis just speculated about whether Meltzer might have "had help."
You can't say "The number's unverifiable, how do we know where the heck Meltzer got his cockamamie math?" and then say that addressing the existence of the full explanation of Meltzer's cockamamie math equals bias. We can and will work over the phraseology to everyone's satisfaction, of course. But the context of the dispute needs to be referred to, in as few words as possible. 208.120.153.110 (talk) 01:21, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Gosh, all I said is he might have had help you don't have to make a 4 paragraph argument about it.--Curtis23 (talk) 02:30, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

"Based on his own independent analysis" is an objective, concise summary of the above process. By who? That's the point. No one has said that - except YOU. That's an instant opinion right there. Do we have to go to the dictionary to explain the definition? The context of the dispute is covered to the satisfaction of WP:RSN. To add more detail would be to give it too much weight. !! Justa Punk !! 13:04, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Is this a serious reply? "By who?" Only by Dave Meltzer himself. Meltzer's blow by blow description of his own arithmetic is part of the very Observer text that's being mentioned and cited. It's already been posted twice on this talk page.
Another option is to include the verbatim Observer text, but as part of the ref instead of the article itself. The quote would appear in the smaller font at the bottom of the page, down in what's currently Reference #41. That approach has been used in many other Wikipedia articles. Will that put an end to this? I've made the edit to demonstrate what it looks like. 208.120.153.110 (talk) 22:16, 31 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.120.153.110 (talk) 22:13, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
I still don't see what's wrong with saying: "Though the attendance was reported to be 80,103, a Ford Field record, Dave Meltzer of the Wrestling Observer Newsletter contested the claim, reporting an attendance figure of 74,687." It's simple, it's effective, and it's accurate. HAZardousMATTtoxic 22:22, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
If we're keeping the Observer text in the -ref- at the bottom of the page, I agree. MATT's suggested wording works. 208.120.153.110 (talk) 23:58, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Just curious, why is it so important to have the text listed in the reference? The link is there, can't the reader click on the reference and access the material just like they would on any other reference? HAZardousMATTtoxic 01:37, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
It's not, Matt, and Bullet removed it. If he hadn't I would have. If people want more information, they just go to the source and read for themselves. Adding it here - even within the reference - is actually too close to WP:COPYVIO for my liking. The quote that 208 wanted to add stays off. Under WP:RSN the current situation as I type this is right. It's balanced and gives appropriate weight to the sources. !! Justa Punk !! 03:02, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
Another day, another pretext. Meltzer's methodology needs to be addressed, either by the wording or by the reference. Although there are a ton of Wikipedia articles that use text-in-ref-- e.g. Abraham Lincoln; Philosophy; The Godfather; and many many more-- I would also prefer to keep it in the article. But wiping out the fundamental basis of the claim is not an option. Omission can also go against WP:NPOV.
MATT-- the reader can't access the bare reference with a click because it's a print source. The edit now relies heavily on your wording, with an added mention of WWE's monthly data. 208.120.153.110 (talk) 12:07, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
That doesn't matter. A source is a source. Adding stuff like that adds weight against WP:RSN. The current edit per my last edit is the correct weight and makes appropriate mention of the claim per WP:NPOV. To add to it goes against both these policies. The article is balanced on this issue, and should be left alone. !! Justa Punk !! 03:31, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Quoting Wikipedia on "other aspects of reliable sources and undue weight":
  • "Opinions, data and statistics, and statements based on someone's scientific work should be cited and attributed to their authors in the text."
  • "Declaration of sources — A source which is explicit about the data from which it derives its conclusions is more reliable than one which does not, ideally a source should describe the collection process and analysis method."
The "collection process and analysis method" has to be acknowledged in the article, either by summary, by direct quotation, or excerpted within the reference. 208.120.153.110 (talk) 04:07, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

It is obvious that neither side, that is you and everyone else, will come to an agreement, even on something as simple as wording. A result of your stubbornness and refusing to be flexible. This has dragged on longer than it needed to. You will not push this project any further. That is all. --UnquestionableTruth-- 05:58, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. Let me make some quotes 1 vs. 100 and consensus is the answer (my quote). Exactly as the point Bullet is trying to make. We've made a consensus just leave it as it is this discussion is over. P.S. if 208 talks on here again just ignore it.--Curtis23 (talk) 23:28, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

LOL @ Mr. "Give Zack Ryder a Page" telling people to ignore someone. Wwehurricane1 (talk) 02:45, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

ANI

It appears 208 has raised the issue at ANI. HAZardousMATTtoxic 14:49, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

  • Nothing needs to change. The consensus is clear, and the fact that 208 does not appear to accept it is his problem not ours. Guy (Help!) 11:52, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
    • Worth watching? If this IP doesn't get their way I can see trouble on the horizon. Podgy Stuffn (talk) 22:40, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Yah it's not worth it all of his statements there are unreal he's calling Bullet's last comment abusive which is obviously fake.--Curtis23 (talk) 00:43, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Case Closed

This is over there is a clear consensus of like 10-1 we want it as it is. PS 208 we are being civil your just stubborn.--Curtis23 (talk) 00:50, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

As I've mentioned before, I agree that 208 is correct in citing policy in the face of moving goalposts, bad faith assumptions, and a non-existant consensus (in reality, a majority opinion, which means nothing in a discussion intended to build consensus) that is, for some reason, believed to trump policy despite the fact that Wikipedia is clear that consensus simply cannot take precedence over policy. GaryColemanFan (talk) 01:33, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

There is a consensus so the discussion is over.--C23 C23's talk 04:14, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Consensus does not overide policy.--WillC 04:19, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
Curtis, you didn't help with the way you expressed yourself.
Will, consensus is that policy is being followed correctly. That's the key here - 208 is not being flexible with the issue at all. The underlying imputation is clearly that 208 considers the attendance to be a major controversy and should be included according to that. All policy references point to the footnote being the best balanced result (WP:RSN, WP:V, WP:RS and any others that I might have missed). That's where the consensus is. Consensus isn't over riding policy here. Policy is supporting the consensus that the article stays as it is per Bullet's last undo.
The question now is - will 208 let it go and move on? The latest report the Wikiquette suggests otherwise, and frankly I call that a frivilous report by a tetentious editor. I think any admin who sees that report and then sees this will see that we (with the exception of Curtis) have been 100 percent civil and flexible. Which is the reason for my opening remark. !! Justa Punk !! 05:11, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
Hold your tongue, GaryColemanFan. Hush up, Wrestlinglover. You're spoiling the "clear consensus of like 10-1."
Just remember, disagreements aside, these editors understand consensus. For example, the consensus which previously proved that Meltzer's claim could never be mentioned at all, even in passing, discussion over, that's it, case closed.
Also, how can GCF possibly talk about "moving goalposts"? As Justa Punk wisely notes, "Suggest we revert on sight any further attempts by 208 to violate WP:NPOV by pushing that view of Meltzer's that is outnumbered by miles... So - ergo - it gets ignored, and rightly so under WP policy." Ahem, wrong quotes, totally my mistake. As Justa Punk wisely notes, "The current edit per my last edit is the correct weight and makes appropriate mention of the claim per WP:NPOV... All policy references point to the footnote being the best balanced result." It's that kind of consistency that makes the process rewarding for everyone. Anyone who disagrees is merely being disruptive and tendentious. 208.120.153.110 (talk) 12:01, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
I am uninvolved to my knowledge on this issue. From what I see here, I see a clear attempt to build consensus. Above we had a clear discussion of the issue and compromises suggested and a gradual view was established, indicating that a consensus has been reached. There is no defining line in the consensus policy that determines exactly when a consensus has been reached, therefore it is for the editors involved to decide. WL is incorrect, Consensus may override policy, per WP:CONLIMITED. I am not seeing any arguments that policy does not apply to us, but if so please provide diffs, and I will look at the issue. At this time, I have no comment on the issue, only the discussion of policy interpretation. Sephiroth storm (talk) 15:09, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

GFC your saying the agreement I have of 8-3 is not a consensus would please explain to me what a consensus is because i'm pretty sure a consensus is a general agreement.--C23 C23's talk 03:01, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I would define consensus as an agreement (often an agreement to disagree) achieved by taking all well-supported sides seriously, entertaining all reasonable suggestions, discussing in a neutral manner rather than beginning with accusations of "opinion pushing", not discriminating against editors for trivial reason such as editing with an IP address rather than a named account, observing policy, not claiming ownership of articles, recognizing that people who are not project members may have valuable insights, being open to discussion rather than trying to stifle it from the outset, and ultimately acting based on that agreement (in this case, everyone agreed on a footnote, so naturally, the information was added to the prose without a footnote). Short quotations are completely acceptable in footnotes. This argument could be ended with a ten-word quotation in the footnote. For a quick reminder of how ridiculous this argument has become, take a few seconds to read Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars#WrestleMania III. Then add the ten words and move on with your lives. GaryColemanFan (talk) 04:56, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
We won't because the claim by Meltzer is unverified. We've been over that, and WP:RSN effectively renders the current edit correctly balanced.
I suspect we have a different person editing under the 208 IP now. !! Justa Punk !! 09:43, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
You seriously can't understand that Meltzer's statement is verification of the fact that Meltzer reported a different attendance number? You seriously still haven't figured out the difference between truth and verifiability? GaryColemanFan (talk) 15:28, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
What part of "Meltzer's claim can not be verified by other independent reliable sources" don't you understand? If it wasn't for the fact that he was a reliable source himself the note wouldn't be there at all. It's all about correct balance - which is what we have. That's it - I'm done with this section. !! Justa Punk !! 01:10, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
I apologize for the tone of my previous statement, but I'm just not sure if you're trying to change the subject or are serious about not understanding what the word "verifiable" means in this context. Based on the definition given at WP:V, the question to ask is: "Does the claim exist in a reliable source?" If so, the claim is verified. That does not mean that it is accurate. It simply means that a reader would be able to find a source for the statement. If something is verifiable, it should be included. In this case, both attendance figures (80,103 and 74,687) are verifiable. Obviously, both are not true, but that has absolutely no bearing on the situation. Again, I repeat: I strongly believe that this can be settled with a 10-word footnote. Why is this so objectionable? GaryColemanFan (talk) 03:05, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Can we just end this it's been going on for about 20 days obviously no one can agree on anything so there are 2 choices: 1. Drop this completely or 2. Just to leave it as it is. (Footnote sounds good though)--C23 C23's talk 03:32, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with adding the footnote.--WillC 06:12, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
It has already been added. !! Justa Punk !! 10:12, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Just for laughs, I'll ask the same question that's already been ignored before. Will Justa Punk, or any editor, ever go beyond the WP blue links, and cite specific, relevant policy text from within those pages that prohibits the addition of the kind of contextual info being disputed? (That is, Meltzer's not disputing the attendance until months later, and the data or methodology he used to come up with his claim.) After all, if such a prohibition actually exists, it should be so much quicker and simpler to find and quote it than to continue this lengthy chat.
Justa invokes WP policy to claim that the addition of that context is inappropriate. But Justa was appealing to the very same policies two weeks ago in this discussion-- WP:V! WP:RSN! WP:NPOV! -- claiming that they forbade ANY Meltzer mention at all. Now, he claims just as emphatically that those links support a footnote, but only in the sparsest, most truncated form possible. As he was mistaken before, it's incumbent upon Justa (or someone in agreement) to demonstrate that his new reading of policy is correct this time. An appropriate excerpt or quotation of policy would be a good way to genuinely engage in "100 percent civil and flexible" discussion.
The version that's on WM23 now is the result of inflexible editing. Supplementary details contained in the claim have been removed as "opinion," despite the fact that they come from the claim itself. Conversely, eight references were added in support of the officlal attendance total (which is not under dispute), presumably to promote the false April 2007 "Meltzer vs. the world" faceoff that never occurred. The context-free edit is currently attached to the bottom of an unrelated paragraph about in-ring match ratings.
Journalism uses the "Five W's" of information to establish credibility: who, what, where, when, why. After trying unsuccessfully to keep the Who and What out of the article, some editors are now pushing to block When and Why. If their response is honestly mandated by adherence to Wikipedia policy and not personal feelings, I ask yet again: show us exactly where the policy says that. 208.120.153.110 (talk) 17:41, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Your responses are probably personal feelings.--C23 C23's talk 03:08, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Phrasing of footnote

There seems to be support for adding a footnote (including several statements that a footnote currently exists in the article, which doesn't seem to be accurate). Although there have been concerns that an extended quotation from Meltzer would constitue a copyright violation, a short summary seems reasonable. I propose: "Two months after the event, Meltzer examined WWE's monthly attendance figures and concluded that they pointed to an attendance of 74,687."). Objections? GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:40, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

From WP:RSN Noticeboard; In this instance the singular source clearly has no detailed personal knowledge of the attendance figure, but is instead suspicious about the official figures supplies by the promoter. The official figure should be given, and then it should be considered whether this wrestling commentator's personal opinion about the reliability of the figure is notable enough to be mentioned in the article.
That's the objection. Meltzer is giving an opinion - an opinion that has not been verified as accurate. The current state of the article reflects this to an appropriate balance. There is no need for the suggested footnote by GCF because it unbalances the issue against the plethora of reliable sources that agree with the official figure.
I'll give 208 a policy. WP:NOTOPINION.
There's no point continuing this. It's not going to change anything. The end. !! Justa Punk !! 06:14, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Link to the RSN discussion for those interested. HAZardousMATTtoxic 15:33, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

This isn't about being accurate. We have a reliable source which states something. We aren't the ones who determine what is correct and what isn't. We publish what reliable sources say, that is all.--WillC 06:20, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

And it has. Dave Meltzer of the Wrestling Observer Newsletter reported an attendance figure of 74,687. (quoted from the current version of the article). !! Justa Punk !! 07:20, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
The Wrestling Observer source text from June 2007 addresses the RSN comment by one editor. Not only was Meltzer NOT "suspicious about the official figures supplied by the promoter" in the immediate aftermath of the event, but the April 2007 Observer could be used as another reliable source in support of the WWE total. The June text is what's relevant to the footnote:
""As it turns out, 80,103 isn't the real figure. The show actually drew 74,687 total fans. And the real paid attendance was 66,670 fans. WWE's corporate website released business figures for the month of April and listed seven domestic shows for the month, averaging 16,900 per event as paid attendance. The same chart notes that if you take away WrestleMania from skewing the average, you have 8,605 fans as the average for the other six shows. Doing the simple math, you come up with 66,670 fans in attendance at WrestleMania. The 74,687 figure comes from WWE releasing the record merchandise numbers along with the per caps (how much the average fan spent on merch at Mania). That number comes out to be 74,687 real people who were able to buy merchandise."
WP:OPINIONcontains no policy or guideline that applies to this dispute, or to Meltzer's report. None. Can we please have a moratorium on indiscriminate blue links as a response? We're still waiting for a direct quotation that defines the policy violation. Why is that so difficult? 208.120.153.110 (talk) 14:27, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Where did you find how he figured this out? Please tell.--C23 C23's talk 21:24, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

  • My five bits. 208, I strongly recommend that you refer to essays in Wikipedia as it relates to your own conduct. You've been accused of not being flexible. You should review all user conduct policies and you may or may not realise that you are being somewhat fanatical over this issue. Your flexibility appears to be at absolute zero and that only leads to trouble. Justa Punk did not link WP:OPINION. Punk linked WP:NOTOPINION. Two different policies. The quote you placed above has been disputed for it's accuracy and I can see that point. There's an old adage in statistics; You can make statistics prove anything you like. That's why Mr Meltzer's opinion is not notable whether he is reliable or not. Speaking personally, that quote is full of mathematical holes so I would question it's reliability as well. The biggest one is the assumption that every fan in attendance purchased merchandise. That is a fatally flawed assumption by Mr Meltzer, and I would have thought assumptions would play no part in an encyclopedia. I wonder what 208's purpose is here. Is it to contribute in a positive manner as part of a team? Or is it to push his or her own agenda? I'm seeing no team work here on 208's part. Podgy Stuffn (talk) 00:45, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
I honestly think the IP won't be happy unless the article says something like "WWE claims the attendance was 80, 103, but Dave Meltzer has revealed that the REAL attendance was 66,670". As Podgy stated, Melzter's sole argument seems to rely on the assumption that every fan bought something at the show (which anyone who has been to a wrestling event can confirm that is NOT true. A lot of fans don't buy anything at show). The IP also refuses to compromise anyways (I think that the most the note should say is the Meltzer doesn't agree with the number that is supported by every other reliable source, including the only ones who would actually have access to the numbers). TJ Spyke 01:46, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
The quotation certainly does not imply that every fan bought merchandise. If, to make the numbers a little smaller, three fans spent an average of $50, that could mean that they all bought something. Or, it could just as easily mean that two bought nothing and one spent $150. How much the "average fan" spent obviously includes zeroes. Not spending money doesn't mean they aren't counted in the average. Three people jumping on a non-issue stemming from a simple misreading added to TJ Spyke intentionally misrepresenting 208's viewpoint doesn't do much toward making your side look good. GaryColemanFan (talk) 03:07, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Meltzer is basing his number of fans on the merchandise total, that much is fact. He may not be saying every fan bought something, but his method his faulty because he is using the amount of merchandise sold to determine his guess. TJ Spyke 04:15, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Did you actually read what he wrote? If you have the average amount spent and the total amount spent, simple math gives you the number of people. To simplify things by making the numbers smaller once again, let's say $45 was spent on souvenirs and the average fan spent $5. It's fairly simple to figure out that there were 9 fans. Once again, that could mean that one spent $10, one spent $35, and the rest spent $0, but there is absolutely nothing wrong with the math, and it is certainly not a "guess" when you are given two of the three parts in an equation. GaryColemanFan (talk) 04:32, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
It's okay to dispute it, but Meltzer's math is more basic than that. Two months after the event, WWE Corporate released both per-person merchandise sales numbers for Wrestlemania 23, and the total amount (which set a company record). Dividing the overall total by the per-person number comes out to 74,687. As GCF notes, the math comes out the same if one person bought everything, or if each fan in the building bought a single inexpensive item. The rest of the math was to determine paid attendance vs. full attendance, which doesn't matter for our purposes.
Curtis-- as noted, the quote comes directly from the Wrestling Observer.
Podgy-- I mistyped the link and left out "NOT," although I'd read the page that Justa invoked. So let me now say that WP:NOTOPINION contains no policy or guideline that applies to this dispute, or to Meltzer's report. None.
I find it a little absurd to be accused of inflexibility when I've offered a variety of ways to address the missing context, while also soliciting and endorsing other wording suggestions. It's doubly odd when those making the "inflexible" accusation keep leaving comments like "There's no point continuing this. It's not going to change anything. The end." and "there are 2 choices: 1. Drop this completely or 2. Just to leave it as it is." This dispute could be simply and fairly handled in a half dozen ways, with everyone's input, but some editors' response from the beginning has been "absolutely not."
And believe it or not, we're still waiting for a policy/guideline quote that explains how the context behind Meltzer's claim, which is contained within the claim itself, is invalid. Some folks keep getting stuck on accuracy/verifiability, but they need to familiarize themselves with the difference, because it's one of the three core Wikipedia policies. As I noted above, based on WP:V, two separate issues of the Wrestling Observer could be properly used as reliable sources: one for the lower attendance claim, and another for the higher official total.
TJ Spyke-- your characterization of my motives continues to be false. It's past time for you to stop it. I've already offered several wordings which plainly DON'T say what you "honestly think" I'm trying to get the article to say. Heck, I'd be happy to entertain your last edit to Wrestlemania 23, which included "...with Melzter claiming an attendance figure of 74,687 based on his personal analysis." It's fairer than the current version. 208.120.153.110 (talk) 05:09, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
There is nothing wrong with the current version. It states The attendance was reported to be 80,103 by numerous sources, a Ford Field record.[39][40][41][42] Dave Meltzer of the Wrestling Observer Newsletter reported an attendance figure of 74,687.[43]. This is perfectly fair. It presents both figures, equally, without any preference to either one. There is no reason to add that it was due to Meltzer's personal analysis, as that is self-evident by his arrival of a different figure. Additionally, anyone interested on how Meltzer got to that figure can click the link to the source and read Metlzer's analysis. HAZardousMATTtoxic 21:07, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
I still question Melter's "methods" of determining attendance since he seems intent on just refusing to accept the number given by everyone who would actually know the attendance number (and this time he can't claim the arena operator told him a different number). TJ Spyke 20:36, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Meltzer's questionable "method" is commonly known as "division." You are entitled to your skepticism, but it does not override Wikipedia's policy on verifiability.
The Meltzer link is to a print source, not an online one, so there's nothing to "click to." That's why the context for the claim needs to be alluded to or quoted, in the article text or in the ref, using mutually agreed-upon wording. It's hardly an unusual solution. Shall I provide a variety of Wikipedia pages which include a textual quotation in the reference when citing a print source? 208.120.153.110 (talk) 00:01, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

The Questions of the Year

(of course to 208) Why is his claim so notable even though he is the only one reporting it? Why do you think everyone bought merchandise? Why can't you be flexible? Why can't you stop arguing? Do you think everything a reliable source says in an article? Why do you attack others when you want your way? Please tell me.--C23 C23's talk 01:23, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

He works for, or is Meltzer... :)--UnquestionableTruth-- 04:27, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

208 i'm still waiting.--C23 C23's talk 21:59, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

If you must go this route, can you take it somewhere else than the project page, please? HAZardousMATTtoxic 22:08, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Yah but these questions are crucial.--C23 C23's talk 22:59, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

1. Because Meltzer is a reliable source and the preeminent wrestling reporter. His analyses are taken seriously and are sometimes the only ones extant. The New York Times does not investigate 7% data discrepancies in two-month-old wrestling events. 2. I don't. Meltzer doesn't. Why do you think that's what the excerpt says? 3. You're the person who thinks "drop this" and "leave it as is" are two distinct options. I'm not the one saying "no" to every suggestion, "no" to every approach, "no" to every compromise. 4. Because Wikipedia policy is being miscited as a pretext for blocking unwanted context, occasionally in an abusive manner. I've defended my position with specific policy quotes. Arguing upsets you? A direct quote from Wikipedia policy supporting your side would go a long way towards ending further argument. Why can't/won't anyone do this? 5. Assuming you meant to type "...is true," an aspiring admin might want to acquaint himself with the fundamental premise of WP:V. It's one of the three core Wikipedia policies. 6. Hmm, I didn't realize that asking people to abide by rules and guidelines was an "attack." We can all agree that attacks are always bad, even if we're a "stubborn" "tendentious" "opinion pushing" "bad faith" "troll" and "vandal" who "won't be happy" until we've "put Meltzer's number on a pedestal." I'll definitely strive to be as "100% civil" as the shining example set here. 208.120.153.110 (talk) 00:01, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Close this

I think it's clear that this will never end if we don't choose it to end. I suggest to all contributors that no more edits be made to this section. 208, if you are unhappy with this please take it to dispute resolution and refer to here in that location. Curtis, don't bait. Hazardous Matt is right. Bulletproof might be right; there may be a COI issue with 208 but the place to bring that out is in formal process. This whole thing is wrecking this talk page IMHO. Podgy Stuffn (talk) 23:47, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Closed!--UnquestionableTruth-- 00:02, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Unclosed. When people have 15 arguments against including a footnote, and they're all shown to be unfounded, cutting off discussion through archiving isn't an acceptable alternative. GaryColemanFan (talk) 02:30, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Unfounded? That is nothing but your opinion. TJ Spyke 02:34, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

..."When people have 15 arguments against including a footnote..." ...so should we like... um... remove the footnote? Im confused...--UnquestionableTruth-- 03:46, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

..."and they're all shown to be unfounded". GaryColemanFan (talk) 04:50, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
"That is nothing but your opinion." - TJ Spyke... --UnquestionableTruth-- 05:39, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
I think if no consensus is reached in two or three days this should end which is why I named in the end of this.Ok, here we go the idea of a footnote sounds good (I really don't want it in the article but if it ends this i'm fine) I think the way it's written now is fine. Any disagreements?--C23 C23's talk 02:34, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
What is the footnote, like the exact text?--Truco 503 03:49, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
The current text reads... "The attendance was reported to be 80,103 by numerous sources, a Ford Field record.(source, source, source) Dave Meltzer of the Wrestling Observer Newsletter reported an attendance figure of 74,687.(source)" No "while" No "but" No "however" Nothing that even remotely suggests an author's view on the thing... Just two simple sentences that note the two sides and nothing else... problems?--UnquestionableTruth-- 05:30, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
For it to be 100% true it actually should read "Meltzer believes" because he has no proof, he has a piece of math with assumptions in it. I cannot believe this has gone on for so long, my god.  MPJ-DK  (59,25% Done) Talk  06:45, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Where would I add that?--UnquestionableTruth-- 07:17, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think Meltzer doing a math problem deserves any weight, all WWE figures are massaged (at the very least they curtain off empty seats, or paper over with free tickets on the night); and this discussion should be on the WM23 talk page. It was posted here to get the attention of the project, it has it. In fact it s a drain on the project, so archive it here and keep it open at the WM23 page. It's not as if concerned parties would not be aware of it. Darrenhusted (talk) 12:42, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

2 more days. I think that consensus won't come now i'm not asking for a vote but I just want to know what side your it's not a vote.--C23 C23's talk 13:45, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

2 days, 3 days, four weeks, eight years; any time period is arbitrary so why 2 days? Consensus does not need to be 100%, but that is not my concern. This section is well over 100k and was opened to point up a problem on an article, and now it would be better moved to the talk page of that article, where it can be kept open until time runs out, but it being here is not useful, just obstructive. Darrenhusted (talk) 14:27, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
This is what it's come down to? "However" or "but" is evidence of bias?
Here are four of the rejected wordings:
1. "Live attendance was widely reported to be 80,103. However, based on his own independent analysis of official WWE business figures, the Wrestling Observer's Dave Meltzer has reported a lesser attendance figure of 74,687."
2. "Live attendance was announced as 80,103, setting the all-time record for Ford Field. However, the Wrestling Observer's Dave Meltzer has claimed a lesser attendance figure of 74,687." (A text excerpt from the Wrestling Observer was then included in the reference.)
3. "Though the attendance was reported to be 80,103, a Ford Field record, Dave Meltzer of the Wrestling Observer Newsletter contested the claim following the release of monthly WWE business figures, retroactively reporting an attendance figure of 74,687."
4. "Though the attendance was announced to be 80,103, a Ford Field record, Dave Meltzer of the Wrestling Observer Newsletter contested the number following the release of monthly WWE business figures, with Meltzer claiming an attendance figure of 74,687 based on his personal analysis." (A later edit by User TJ Spyke deleted the opening "Though.")
Some editors say those wordings (or any possible others) introduce imbalance and "opinion," and violate a series of Wikipedia policies. But they are unwilling or unable to cite specific Wikipedia policy text that would explain why that is so. This discussion would have been a whole lot shorter than 100K if somebody could just do that one simple thing. Will anyone ever provide a relevant policy quote here? Anyone? Bueller?
There are two contextual issues. The first is the timeline of Meltzer's counterclaim. Despite the abundance of references meant to depict Meltzer as a lone consensus-buster, Meltzer originally reported the same 80,000+ attendance figure announced by WWE. His retroactive claim did not occur until WWE subsequently released business data on its corporate website. The second issue is the existence of the WWE data and Meltzer's basic analysis of it, without which no alternate attendance claim would exist. The same editors rejecting the inclusion of any and all context have also scoffed about "how" Meltzer came up with his "false" number. True or false, the answer is contained in the claim itself-- but they don't want that central context included, or even alluded to. And as Wikipedia policy states, omission can be a POV violation. 208.120.153.110 (talk) 17:05, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Why does this have to drag on? Can we end this? I think that this is now just an argument over how we should write the footnote because almost all of say that we can live with a footnote why do we have to argue over the pharasing I think how it is written now is fine. But I do think the others violated WP:NPOV.--C23 C23's talk 20:24, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Curtis, a more helpful answer would be "But I do think the others violated WP:NPOV because NPOV says "____________"."
For example, WP:NPOV includes the following text: "The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting perspectives on a topic as evidenced by reliable sources. It requires that all majority- and significant-minority views be presented fairly, in a disinterested tone, and in rough proportion to their prevalence within the source material. Therefore, material should not be removed solely on the grounds that it is "POV", although it may be shortened or moved if it gives undue weight to a minor point of view... An article should clearly describe, represent, and characterize all the disputes within a topic, but should not endorse any particular point of view. It should explain who believes what, and why, and which points of view are most common. It may contain critical evaluations of particular viewpoints based on reliable sources, but even text explaining sourced criticisms of a particular view must avoid taking sides. The principles upon which [this policy is] based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, or by editors' consensus."
Any of the four wordings listed above accomplish the quoted guidelines. Perhaps as I have done, you could quote the specific Wikipedia policy language that explains where the phrasing of those four wordings falls short? After that, maybe you could even give us new suggested wording that you think meets the criteria for inclusion. That would be great. 208.120.153.110 (talk) 21:56, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
You have just supported the current version of the Wrestlemania 23 article via WP policy. It requires that all majority- and significant-minority views be presented fairly, in a disinterested tone, and in rough proportion to their prevalence within the source material. Thank you for finally seeing reason. !! Justa Punk !! 03:27, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Say, are you any relation to the Justa Punk who previously said WP:NPOV banned the material altogether as bad faith vandalism?[13] Is this what you mean by flexible?
The WWE attendance figure is detailed in the article intro, is mentioned again in the infobox, and then appears again at the end of the article. It has a total of nine references. Even after the proper context of Meltzer's claim is added, as in the examples above, it takes up the back end of the last sentence of the article (assuming it isn't relegated to a small print excerpt within a reference). I look forward to hearing how that won't qualify as "roughly proportionate."
And how about the bolded text above? The policy guidelines that state that disputes should be clearly characterized including an explanation for why they are believed, that they can contain text explaining any criticisms, and that they cannot be superseded by editors' consensus... any thoughts on those? 208.120.153.110 (talk) 05:31, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
The dispute is characterised appropriately per policy in the current version. I was able to be flexible and alter my view from the edit you noted. You are unable to show the same flexibility. The matter is closed as far as I'm concerned because I personally consider you to be a Dave Meltzer meat puppet at worst. At best a Meltzer fanatic. !! Justa Punk !! 06:11, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
In other words, no-- you have no thoughts on those. Nice to see you're staying civil, too. Incidentally, being wrong about the rules and getting corrected isn't a sign of "flexibility," it's adherence to obligatory policy. Speaking of which, not only does WP:MEAT say "The term meatpuppet is derogatory and should be used with care," but you don't even appear to understand the meaning of the term. And as for flexibility...
"Closed IMO, Bullet."
"That's it. Case closed."
"So - ergo - it gets ignored"
"this discussion is clearly over per WP policy."
"Looks like we are all in agreement"
"That's it - I'm done with this section."
"There's no point continuing this. It's not going to change anything. The end."
"The matter is closed as far as I'm concerned"
As the matter is "closed" for the 20th time, I suppose it isn't worth the trouble of asking you to cite an actual guideline excerpt for the 10th time, am I right? 208.120.153.110 (talk) 07:24, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Oh we can cite policy and guidelines alright. You're violating WP:UNDUE, WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and WP:STICK. You've had all te input you're going to get on this and it is pretty much all against you. Time to walk away. Guy (Help!) 10:32, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Not just the links, Guy, the text within. From WP:UNDUE:
An article should clearly describe, represent, and characterize all the disputes within a topic
When discussing the facts on which a point of view is based, it is important to also include the facts on which competing opinions are based since this helps a reader evaluate the credibility of the competing viewpoints. This should be done without implying that any one of the opinions is correct. It is also important to make it clear who holds these opinions. It is often best to cite a prominent representative of the view.
From WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT:
Signs of disruptive editing: This guideline concerns gross, obvious and repeated violations of fundamental policies, not subtle questions about which reasonable people may disagree.
Tendentious editing does not consist only of adding material; some tendentious editors engage in disruptive deletions as well.
A disruptive editor is an editor who: repeatedly disregards other editors' questions or requests for explanations concerning edits or objections to edits; repeatedly disregards other editors' explanations for their edits.
In addition, such editors may: Campaign to drive away productive contributors: act counter to policies and guidelines such as Wikipedia:Civility, Wikipedia:No personal attacks, Wikipedia:Ownership of articles,..." 208.120.153.110 (talk) 18:43, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

A final thought on the Meltzer attendance figure

I'm really sorry to start this again, I would specifically ask that the anon does not chime in as we already know that he considers this something of surpassing importance. Looking at the long debate, the inclusion of the figure in the (failed) attempt to placate the IP who is so determined to promote this figure, I have serious qualms about why we have included this - it appears to be simply trying to shut up a vexatious complainant. So, the specific issues of policy regarding to the sentence I removed:

[[Dave Meltzer]] of the Wrestling Observer Newsletter reported an attendance figure of 74,687.<ref>Meltzer, Dave, the Wrestling Observer, December 2009; June 2007</ref>

I have the following concerns:

  • WP:OR: This is taken direct from the primary sources, where are the independent sources which have reviewed Meltzer's claim on which we can judge its significance or accuracy?;
  • WP:UNDUE: so one commentator disputes the figure? so what? where's the independent commentary that shows this to be a controversial or significant dispute?;
  • WP:V/WP:RS: there seems to be some discrepancy between his figure, the figures from the venue, and the figure he uses in his own magazine, which is self-published for our purposes, versus his figure on Yahoo.

The debate has been long, as I say - over two years - and people have been commendably patient with the IP this time around, but comparing this with other similar cases in my memory we would typically not include one person's dispute over a figure which is authoritatively sourced, when the claim comes, however passionately a few people seem to believe it, from from no obvious authoritative root source and is contradicted by the venue and the organiser - unless, of course, it was provably a significant or notable dispute beyond its few passionate believers. We judge that in the usual Wikipedia way: from reliable independent sources. There is some evidence of some kind of conspiracy theory in the forums about this, but I didn't find any reliable sources to cover it in the 15 unique hits Google turned up. Either it's a major controversy that can be sourced reliably, or it's something whose significance we are not allowed, by policy, to judge form the primary source(s). I certainly don't see anything in the evidence provided by the IP to counter the consensus reached over two years ago when this was first debated, and in the subsequent debates. As we all know, some folks will just keep demanding until they get what they want, and this looks disturbingly like one of those cases, especially reviewing the anon's further activism since the sentence was added - he seems ot want to constantly redraw a new compromise between what we have and what we want, an insidious ratchet effect.

Let's go back to basics. What do the reliable independent sources say about this dispute? If it is covered in those sources, then we can discuss the dispute. Those reliable independent sources will no doubt tell us on what basis Meltzer made his claim, and why the venue and the organiser have claimed the figure they have (when they, after all, have the receipts in their hands). Reliable, independent secondary sources is the way to go here. That's how we decide if, and how, to frame the issue. Guy (Help!) 23:46, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

WP:V, not Truth? Two or more independent sources refer to a figure published by one or more references, over one source disputing same? Put it this way, if the two sides of this discussion were to meet in the ring who would be pulverised? Try consensus, then. Most editors here think one figure is adequately verified, and one editor refers to one opinion (because it has no other authority) - result; only the official figure complies with WP policy. End of. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:03, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
Guy, thanks for your rescue. Gary Coleman Fan reversed it again for the record, but I pulled it back on your behalf. I hope you don't mind. If the discussion must continue it should be here and not WP:PW. This is after all where the dispute is located even though it is to all intents and purposes over. Podgy Stuffn (talk) 00:28, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
  • This just may well end up as a Wikipedia Pointless edit war. I think an unbiased footnote should be added, and close the case. There is no point in proving which side is right or wrong, we aren't here for that.--Truc</fontaa>o 503 01:18, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

So do we have a consensus of close this with a footnote?--C23 C23's talk 02:09, 16 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Podgy Stuffn (talk • contribs)

"What do the reliable independent sources say about this dispute? If it is covered in those sources, then we can discuss the dispute. Those reliable independent sources will no doubt tell us on what basis Meltzer made his claim, and why the venue and the organiser have claimed the figure they have (when they, after all, have the receipts in their hands). Reliable, independent secondary sources is the way to go here. That's how we decide if, and how, to frame the issue." The problem quite frankly is that there simply aren't any independent sources to have ever covered a so-called dispute on the event's attendance issue. This thing is that trivial and non-notable... Meltzer is the only source that has produced a number different than an official number. He's done this for previous WrestleMania's as well but for some reason, this particular one and WrestleMania III tend to get the most attention. This is probably due to both events having the highest recorded attendance...--UnquestionableTruth-- 07:56, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
So, what do the independent sources say? We can't all just agree to ignore policy and include stuff sourced form a primary source because we think it's Really Important, that is specifically forbidden as a novel synthesis form published facts (WP:OR). How can you add an unbiased footnote if the content of the footnote is biased? We have no idea where Maltzer got the figure or why he promotes it because we don't yet have any secondary, analytical source for it. WP:NPOV is non-negotiable, it requires us to be neutral, not to elevate the claims of one person simply because we think that person might be right. Where does the figure come from? What is the context? How important is it? Only reliable indepdnent sources can tell us. Guy (Help!) 10:37, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
Metzler claims that the WWE corporate records for the event given a figure for the amount spent on merchandise, he then takes that figure (X) and divides it by the average spend of most fans at most live events (L), he takes X and divides it by L and comes up with 74,687. This falls under "statistics which look accurate because they end with a prime", if I told you the attendance was exactly 80,000 you may not believe it (because it ends with a 0), but if I said it was 80,003 then you see the 3 as giving the number weight. Metzler could have reached 74,686 or 74,688, either way he is relying on two things 1) everything in wrestling is worked (height/weight/title wins/names/age) and 2) a 5 figure number finishing in a prime is easily believed with a pretend methodology behind it. He tells you how he arrived at the figure, you see the five numbers and go "well, it must be true because he explained how he got there". He could have come up with the figure then worked backwards, but no one really knows. Either way the figure is only backed by him, all other sources agree with the official figure. Darrenhusted (talk) 11:43, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Disruptive IP editor topic-banned

Because of the long-standing pattern of disruptive editing against consensus, the anonymous contributor recently contributing as 208.120.153.110 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is now permanently banned from this article and this talkpage. I hope we can implement this without technical protection for the moment, but I'll be ready to semiprotect either page if necessary. In concrete terms, this means that any contribution from this IP, any known IP range of this contributor, or any suspected new sock, if they resume pressing for inclusion of that attendance figure, on either the article or talk page, can be reverted on sight without regard to 3RR. Fellow administrators are welcome to help implement the ban with short-term protections or blocks regardless of having been "involved". Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:38, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank You finally this has ended.--C23 C23's talk 16:00, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Meltzer's attendance figure

Consensus was to include it. I don't actually care about an extra footnote to explain the math, but every editor involved except JzG agreed that, at the very least, mentioning it was appropriate. It cannot simplpy be removed because of one editor's lack of understanding of policy, long-term contributor or not. GaryColemanFan (talk) 17:23, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok sorry nevermind I even myself agreed I think I was misreading the discussion. BTW i'm archiving this--C23 C23's talk 17:28, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

  1. ^ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:3bulletproof16
  2. ^ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=WrestleMania_23&action=history
  3. ^ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:WrestleMania_23
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:WrestleMania_23/Archive_6&oldid=1088811965"