Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Sources/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2

Planeta Wrestling (Spanish language site)

What about this site? They seem to have all of their writers with full names, but I don't know Spanish so I can't check fully.★Trekker (talk) 13:47, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

It seems to be associated with Mundo Deportivo which is a mainstream Spanish sports newspaper.★Trekker (talk) 13:58, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
@HHH Pedrigree: You speak Spanish right, do you have any input?★Trekker (talk) 09:47, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
Ummm, not really. I never saw this website. But Mundo Deportivo is a mainstream newspaper. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 10:58, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
@HHH Pedrigree: What is their associated according to the report there? Does Mundo Deportivo own the or something?★Trekker (talk) 11:01, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
Looks like more a colaboration. I readed a few pages and looks like they are associated, but not owned. For example, Solowrestling.com also has a colaboration deal with Sport, another mainstream newspaper. -HHH Pedrigree (talk) 11:12, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
@HHH Pedrigree: Ok, would you say it's an indication of reliability? By the way are you ok with me pinging you or should I stop?★Trekker (talk) 11:23, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
Yes, looks like. About the ping, don't worry, ping me whenever you want :) --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 16:11, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. :) ★Trekker (talk) 09:20, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
I'm feeling tempted to add it to the reliable section since it seems to have staff and is a colaborant of a mainsteam newspaper, does anyone have any objections?★Trekker (talk) 15:22, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Books

I assume all books from established publishers (obviously not self-published books) are okay as reliable sources? I've added to a couple of Road Warrior-related articles using The Road Warriors: Danger, Death, and the Rush of Wrestling as a source. Just didn't see any notes on the main project page regarding books. Might be worth it to add a paragraph about it! Ewen Douglas (talk) 18:52, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes books from reputable publishers are all fine, they have editorial oversight.★Trekker (talk) 15:23, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Bleacher Report

Would it be possible for us to start a discussion on why Bleacher Report is considered unreliable? I have long noticed that they are often referenced on WWE programming for their reporting as well as opinion columns and analyses. KyleJoantalk 06:05, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

I found past discussion here. It appears that they don't have a professional staff of writers, it's more user generated. Not sure if anything has changed over the years. StaticVapor message me! 06:39, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
I think that has changed because per this webpage, it seems as if the content presented is more closely monitored. Additionally, articles such as this clearly annotate their sourcing, and the sources listed in this particular article are credible ones. I don't know if at this point it's accurate to deem the website unreliable when they produce exclusive interviews such as this. KyleJoantalk 08:23, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
I'm with KJ on this one. Bleacher Report is basically CNN's sports department these days. It may have started as a "guy in his basement doing a blog" site, but in 2012 was bought out by Turner Broadcasting (owners of CNN and a million other major networks) and they turned it into a legitimate, professional sports website, long abandoning user content. I'd say BR can be put in the same class as ESPN, Fox Sports, CBS Sports, etc. Vjmlhds (talk) 13:49, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
They own CageSideSeats.com also, so would that fall under the same criteria? - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 21:11, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
CageSideSeats is actually owned by Vox Media, which is a national media company in it's own right. I'd say CSS is fine as a source. Vjmlhds (talk) 00:12, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
Cagesideseats is unreliable, they post rumors and fake news often. Their notable owner doesn't make them a reliable source. I would need a little more proof of BR having editors and having changed their previous ways to promote them. The content link above says they have editors that review content, but not who. StaticVapor message me! 01:10, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
Per this Variety report, BR hired Ben Osborne, who is known for his work on Slam magazine, the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, and the Washington Post, as editor-in-chief in 2016. Aside from this, I would like to go back to this article for a moment. If BR is considered an unreliable source, then would the mentioned interview be considered uncitable? Seems extreme for an article that provides direct quotes from a subject matter. KyleJoantalk 06:52, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
About your question, I don't think so. Maybe the source is unreliable, but it's Cody Rhodes talking, he is reliable. I had a discussion years ago, when I used Jericho's podcast as source for SummerSlam ending. PodcastOne is not a reliable source, but the wrestlers were Edge and Jericho, who were in the match. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 09:00, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
Understood, but when a podcast episode is referenced, I often find that the citation leads to one of the outlets listed under reliable sources that reports on the episode, rather than the link to the podcast itself, such as here. Therefore, that's not an exact equivalent. KyleJoantalk 09:48, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
I would have no problem linking to BR for an interview or reposting of a YouTube video. The user would just have to make that clear in the edit summary, if it isn't obvious enough. Same with podcasts, as long as it's clear that's what the link is referencing it should be fine. There are certain sites that we just shouldn't be linking to at all (Ringsidenews, rajah, wrestling.co), the really low quality websites. StaticVapor message me! 10:39, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

But how do we discern which sites are OK to link to if they're all under the same section (i.e. unreliable sources)? I guess my point is if there's some leeway for discretion to be used to cite BR, then is it truly an unreliable source? KyleJoantalk 11:05, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

It appears it was there due to its past history with user created content. I support moving it to limited reliability with a note saying it's okay to use for interviews / posting of YouTube videos, but not their analysis of said videos. Unless we can prove them to be a reliable source, then they would be good for anything. Opening this up to see what anyone else thinks. StaticVapor message me! 11:18, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
I agree that that would be appropriate for this time. KyleJoantalk 05:06, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
Bleacher Report is such a main stream site, I think there should be a more wide spread discussion, outside of this project, to make a determination. I do not think saying its limited to very specific things is an issue though. - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 13:40, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
I searched WP:RS/N archives and found a few discussions (mostly mentioning user-generated content). StaticVapor message me! 14:00, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
Yup...I did the same. Its also used to discuss other websites by the same founder, but nothing extensive. - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 14:10, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
If user generated content is not an issue anymore then I would say it should be promoted to relibale.★Trekker (talk) 15:25, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Tutto Wrestling Magazine

This is the largest Italian language wrestling magazine, it has a website that reports news too. Feelings?★Trekker (talk) 15:48, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

twm.news

This site (The Wrestling Mania) seems to take itself seriously and they claim to not report on rumors according to their about page. But I can't find if they have staff or editors. Anyone know anything?★Trekker (talk) 12:11, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

It says they don't report on rumors and got straight to the source, but they say in a headline that Mojo Rawley "reportedly" re-signed with WWE. If they don't report on rumors, saying "reportedly" doesn't lead people to believe they don't report on rumors. Any site can say they have sources, but that doesn't mean it is true. I am skeptical about giving this site a pass. They are not notable and don't have anyone of note writing for them. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 05:26, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
For the 100th time can you stop mentioning "notable" that word in this context hold no value to anyone but you and several people have already pointed it out. You can easily make your point without it.★Trekker (talk) 11:09, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

lastwordonprowrestling.com

I have seen them referenced a lot today due to this [1] news item. Have never heard of them before. Anyone know them? Here is there about page [2]. Here is what they look for in writers [3]. - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 15:13, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Seems like they take everything seriously having administrators and paid writers and such. I was actually planning to bring this website up for discussion. I would be glad to hear what anyone else says on this though. StaticVapor message me! 19:00, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
I'm not super familiar with the site, but I'll take a look.★Trekker (talk) 14:54, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
I think it looks rather reliable. But I hope more people chime in.★Trekker (talk) 12:19, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
The site has a lot of low quality content and recently reported fake info on the next WWE video game. I wouldn't trust them.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.80.34.250 (talk • contribs)
The quality of some of their articles is pretty bad and they seem to just try to put out as much content as possible without fact checking.--TrinitySkyBoat (talk) 15:46, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
75.80.34.250 @TrinitySkyBoat: Can you provide some examples? I can't say I have seen the low quality articles you guys speak. StaticVapor message me! 22:51, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Uproxx?

Seems reliable to me. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 12:15, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

The section above seems to be mostly positive. They also seem to cover more than just wrestling.★Trekker (talk) 12:18, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Puroresu Central

Been curious about the validity of the Puroresu Central website, a large database of Japanese wrestler profiles, match results and reviews etc. Looks to be run by a guy called Kevin Wilson and the site hasn’t been updated for some years. Even though it’s defunct and seems to be run by one guy, it still has a vast amount of info. Any thoughts? Ducktech89 (talk) 23 August 2019, 9:34 (UTC)

@Ducktech89: I am leaning towards no. But if someone can make a better case, than by all means. You also failed to mention the sister site Joshi City. It has been updated recently. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 16:32, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Books of Chris Charlton

I have recently acquired ebook copies of Chris Charlton's two books on pro wrestling, Lion's Pride: The Turbulent History of New Japan Pro Wrestling and EGGSHELLS: Pro Wrestling in the Tokyo Dome. Both of these have been acclaimed in the wrestling sphere (the latter won WON Book of the Year, and the former got Charlton a job at NJPW), and his sources are well-cited within the text. However, since the books are self-published I hesitate to use them as sources (well, also there's also the fact that the Kindle files I purchased don't contain page numbers and I don't know how to work around that, but that's another matter). Would Charlton's credentials be sufficient to consider him an expert, and therefore make citing his books (at least alongside some of the sources they cite) acceptable by Wikipedia's standards? TarkovskyFanX957 (talk) 06:44, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

  • I would support that. The lack of pagenumbering is always a pain, but that can happen on Google Books as well.★Trekker (talk) 18:51, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Online Onslaught

Looking at the list of sources and Online Onslaught is in the unproven section. If we only use them for WWE results, that would mean we can put them in limited reliability. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 01:21, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

411Mania for opinion

I have seen 411Mania used several times, usually in the reception section for PPVs and events. Should we include 411Mania as reliable for opinion? Right now it's limited, but I don't know if that means their columns are usefull for reception with Pro Wrestlers. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 10:42, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

@HHH Pedrigree: It has been said that Larry Csonka is a reliable writer for 411Mania which I would agree with. He has been with the site since the early 2000s or so. But that doesn't mean it should be 100 percent limited. You can use it for pay-per-view, house show, and TV results where applicable. Other news you'd have to be careful with depending on what it is. There has been two discussions on 411Mania. Scroll up to see them. They do report on rumors, so you have to be careful with that. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 07:34, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
@Fishhead2100: I asked because I included one of the columns (no written by Cnoska) in the CM Punk article, where Punk "opened the door for other wrestlers". Can I use 411Mania in such way? --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 10:28, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
@HHH Pedrigree:, columns and editorials can be tricky as they are someone's thoughts and opinions. That can led to POV issues. You always want to be neutral when writing articles. Sources for pro wrestling articles are heavily scrutinized. I'd err on the side of caution and not use it just be safe. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 14:18, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
@Fishhead2100: Of course. For example, I wrote a small thing in WWE Hall of Fame, how Koko's induction is considered by several people as... well, it's a controversy. I included some articles, one of them, the opinion of two of 411Mania stuff (one against his induction and the other support it.) --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 15:00, 13 March 2020 (UTC)--HHH Pedrigree (talk) 15:00, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
@HHH Pedrigree: If people are stating an opinion, they are not always neutral points of view. You have be careful when using editorials. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 01:23, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Wrestlingdata.com

 – Marchjuly (talk) 08:41, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

How reliable is the website wrestingdata.com considered to be when it comes to WP:BLPs about professional wrestlers? Someone claiming to be a family member of Bryan Clark recently made this change to the article. A citation to wrestling.com is given for the current article content, but I'm not reliable that website is considered. Another IP (72.201.0.109) claimimg to be Clark himself has also recently been trying to remove certain content from the article, but this IP did not try to change Clark's place of birth. That doesn't automatically make wrestingdata.com a RS, but it's bit odd that Clark himself wouldn't try to something as basic as "place of birth" if it was incorrect. Anyway, perhaps some members from this WikiProject can take a look at the article and try and figure out if the changes being attempted by these two IPs are worth further discussion. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:09, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

We have Wrestling Data down as an unproven website (WP:PW/RS). Even if everything was deemed reliable, I wouldn't trust it for things like personal details, similar to how we treat cage match.net. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 07:13, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for that bit of info Lee Vilenski. Do you or anyone else have any suggestions on what to do about the information in the infobox related to Clark's birthplace then? Just remove it completely since the source cited doesn't appear to be "unproven"? -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:56, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
WP:DOB and Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biography#Birth date and place is the policy in question. With identity theft a serious ongoing concern, people increasingly regard their full names and dates of birth as private. Wikipedia includes full names and dates of birth that have been widely published by reliable sources, or by sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object to the details being made public. If a subject complains about our inclusion of their date of birth, or the person is borderline notable, err on the side of caution and simply list the year, provided that there is a reliable source for it. In a similar vein, articles should not include postal addresses, e-mail addresses, telephone numbers, or other contact information for living persons, although links to websites maintained by the subject are generally permitted. See § Avoid misuse of primary sources regarding the misuse of primary sources to obtain personal information about subjects.
In an ideal world, we would remove all unsourced information in a BLP (and, potentially all articles). However, in practice this doesn't work. If there are no sources regarding the DOB/POB, it should probably be removed. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:26, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: This should be on the sources talk page. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 01:16, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

@Fishhead2100:. Thanks for that suggestion. I didn't realize there was a separate page for discussing sources. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:37, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

The above discussion was originally at WT:PW, but I've moved it here as suggested. I am trying to assess the reliability of "wrestlingdata.com" as it's being used in Bryan Clark. Any input about this would be appreciated. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:41, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

BodySlam.net

I was checking out BodySlam.net to see if it is reliable and I noticed on their article from False Finish about Enzo Amore's firing that they are highly unprofessional with a terrible headline. False Finish is supposed to be satire a publication on BodySlam.net, but they are not even good satire. The note beside their entry in the unproven section, it says "seems to have named staff." But the only one of note is Phil Stamper as he is in the known on a lot of independent wrestling events in the northeast and even into the Midwest. Their other authors/journalists are not notable. I don't see them posting anything WWE based that you can't find on other websites. Thoughts? Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 23:19, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

If you think they seem like another trash source then they probably are.★Trekker (talk) 23:46, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
Even Phil Stamper can't save them from being unreliable. Will move it to unreliable. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 05:57, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
I'm going to go ahead and strike this comment, I'm not really comfortable relying on Fishhead2100's judgment and I was unsure when writing that comment in the first place. I feel this needs more input.★Trekker (talk) 02:24, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

They reported a fake story involving Samoa Joe. They didn't initially retract when reliable sources debunked the story, just reported "conflicting reports". They finally reported on "quashed rumors" when Joe returned to action a few days later.[4] This source may be totally unreliable.LM2000 (talk) 23:40, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Just pointing out, this story was not false, they just jumped the gun on the announcement. WWE frequently will have performers wrestle for weeks after being suspended, likely while they appeal or to write them out of current storylines. RF23 (talk) 05:02, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Slamwrestling.net

A few days ago, the Slam! Sports section of Canoe.com was announced as defunct and the writers of the site have launched their new webpage, slamwrestling.net. Thoughts on this? Unsure if it is still a reliable source as they have sourced Sportskeeda, a untrusted site, in one of their new articles. DTH89(sexy talk page) 10:57, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Do they still have an editor? Reporting rumours as rumours is one thing, I can live with that if its to keep the site going, but if they don't have an editor like they used to then its a different matter.★Trekker (talk) 11:21, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
Produced by Greg Oliver. Editor-in-chief is John Powell, who wrote many of the articles for Slam! Wrestling. I'd say it's reliable for many things based on those names. I wouldn't use it (or anything) to source rumors, though. Rumors don't belong here. GaryColemanFan (talk) 06:49, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
Absolutely rumours don't belong no matter where they came from.★Trekker (talk) 08:11, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

luchanoticias.com

This is another Spanish-language source. I can't really make out myself if it has any reliability.★Trekker (talk) 13:59, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

@*Treker: You have to use Google to translate the site into English. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 11:47, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
I'm aware Google Translate exist, but I would rather have input from a Spanish speaker.★Trekker (talk) 12:02, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Pushing for a ruling on the "unreliable sources" that have "citation needed" next to them...

...And apparently have had for years. The sites in question are:

[The following are defunct, and per Wayback, were sister sites that promoted each other on their homepages[5][6][7]. WZR was headed by Ryan Clark, who is listed as an unreliable author, albeit with no citation.]

These sites publish(ed) a lot of content and have been used as references, so it would be good to firmly establish whether or not they – and Clark himself – should have a presence on Wikipedia. From perusing the aforementioned outlets, they either deal in rumour/sensationalism or lack a documented editorial process, so I don't see an issue with labelling them as unreliable. Thanks for weighing in. Dory Funk (talk) 02:19, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Last Word on Pro Wrestling

The Alexander Hammerstone article has references from Last Word on Pro Wrestling. I don't know if they are reliable. Thoughts? Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 02:14, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Its discussed briefly up above. There seem to be several concerns. - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 13:55, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
It appears that the content that is sourced to it is just he won these titles or he worked for these promotions. Not something controversal that you need a tier 1 source for. The most significant thing it cites is that he had a WWE tryout. StaticVapor message me! 22:48, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
@Galatz: and @STATicVapor:: Limited reliability for title changes, where one has worked, and results? Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 04:13, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Definitely unreliable, which is why I added it. Galatz removed it for a consensus. The managing editor is Jamie Greer who used to work for established unreliable source Wrestlezone. Rich Laconi doesn't appear to have any credentials alongside Greer. Recommend strongly as an unreliable source. Addicted4517 (talk) 07:35, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

List is unreliable?

First of all, I wouldn't put much stock in this project's list of "unreliable" sources, as much of it has been assembled by editors with a flawed understanding of reliable sources. Many sources found their way onto the list based on incorrectly reporting a single fact, which does not mean that they should be considered unreliable. GaryColemanFan (talk) 08:10, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

@GaryColemanFan: What other sources do you feel are unfairly labeled unreliable?★Trekker (talk) 08:51, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
Everything with footnotes 2, 3, and 5. Not being familiar with the situation, I don't understand footnote 4 enough to have an opinion. This doesn't mean that I think any of the sites are necessarily reliable, but citing a single incorrect statement is not enough to deem them unreliable. GaryColemanFan (talk) 13:54, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
@GaryColemanFan:, I split your comment because you brought up a separate issue that Trekker followed up on. I hope you don't mind. Could you expand on this? If it can be shown that the vast majority of stories are reliable for a source you would have a sound case for a source being removed from this list. Also, I wonder how you come to the conclusion that editors don't really understand reliable sources. I am interested given that I have a strong interest in reliable sourcing. Addicted4517 (talk) 07:55, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
I think Starship.paint created the footnotes in question years ago. For a source to be unreliable, they have to have a record of bad reporting. Even the most reliable sources report inaccurate information sometimes, but the good ones will offer corrections when this comes to light. Generally, I think we should use caution with all sources until we can prove a record of reliability. These footnotes give examples of why they would be unreliable, although perhaps not proof. As with any source, we'd have to analyze it independently before moving them from the unreliable column.LM2000 (talk) 21:57, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
No. For a source to be unreliable, they have to not meet the criteria for WP:RS. I'm not arguing for any of those sources to be deemed reliable. I doubt most of them are. I don't think I'd recommend using most (or any) of them even if the project deemed them reliable. I'm just saying that the reasons provided show a lack of understanding of WP:RS. Stating that The Undertaker wrestled at SummerSlam 1991 doesn't make a source unreliable. It makes the source incorrect. Some of the other footnotes are even more ridiculous. A site reported something and posted a picture from Facebook, so that makes them unreliable? Making a misogynistic argument? It makes him a jerk. How does it make the source unreliable? Mocking Rosey's death? Again, a jerk. Not necessarily unreliable. "Uses Marc Middleton"? Prove why that makes the entire site unreliable. Or even a valid reason why Marc Middleton doesn't meet the criteria for WP:RS. Honestly, even if all of the sources in the list truly are unreliable, the reasons given are a disgrace. GaryColemanFan (talk) 00:34, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
While I agree that by itself "jerk" type behaviour isn't consistent with WP:RS, editorialising (which is also what material is) is a no-no when it comes to the expectation of reporting facts. That goes strongly to reliability - in particular WP:BIASED. I'm just putting that out there as a counter point for discussion. Perhaps we could go through them and improve the language once we understand where the issue really is? Addicted4517 (talk) 07:28, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
LM2000 - thanks for tagging me. Please go ahead and make changes as you like, if you wish. I will defer to editors' judgments. starship.paint (exalt) 12:49, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Can a 2018 Bleacher Report article be used for the purpose of describing a tag team as "comic relief"?

Specifically, User:Galatz and I disagree over whether this article: Matthews, Graham (June 1, 2018). "B-Team's Success Represents How Little WWE Cares About Tag Team Division on Raw". Bleacher Report., can be used for this purpose with respect to The B-Team (professional wrestling). BD2412 T 18:43, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

I don’t see why not ItChEE40 (talk) 02:37, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
I do. It's an editorial and is therefore subject to WP:BIASED. Addicted4517 (talk) 07:28, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

PRWrestling

Hello. Another user and I are trying to improve Carlito's article. However, we don't have sources for Puerto Rico. What do you think about https://www.prwrestling.com/nw/ ? It was a lot of PR events, so it would be usefull for several articles. Do you think is reliable? --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 11:10, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Is there any information about the qualifications of the writers? GaryColemanFan (talk) 00:43, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
There is some mainstream coverage. Of them, Manuel González wrote for the Observer and José Aponte works backstage for WWC. The issue here is that PR is a black hole in terms of sourcing, only OWW (both of them) actually quote pieces of the storylines. El Alternativo (talk) 16:05, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
The issue always has to be WP:RS. We can't just say that we'll go with the least unreliable source because there's nothing better. Flipping through, I see a bunch of unsigned articles, many from McGyver, and a bunch from Joe Colon. That doesn't fill me with confidence. Who is McGyver? Does Joe Colon have any notable expertise? GaryColemanFan (talk) 14:25, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
”McGyver” is Francisco Gaztambide, former manager of the Puerto Rico Convention Bureau (He now works as both a website owner and SEO consultant). And Joe Colón is a wrestler, currently working for independent promotion CWA with an on air role as its president. El Alternativo (talk) 14:45, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Cagematch, dates

Hello. At WrestleMania 36, it was pointed that while every source said they didn't know the date when the matches took place, Cagematch said that every match was filmed in order. Now, the problem stills. We don't know when title changed took place (ROH, Heritage Cup), but Cagematch includes the date when the match aired as the date when the match took place. Should we include a note in the table like "Do not use for dates if the information is unkown"? --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 09:55, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Friendly Reminder: Unreliable and Unproven Sources

If you're on an article and see an unreliable or unproven source, change it or remove it. Don't look at it and think someone else will deal with it. I added Nick Patrick to List of former WWE personnel (N–R) and found such sources for other entries. I either changed or removed them. We should be more of a stickler with sources in terms of not letting them slip through the cracks. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 16:10, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Heel by Nature and Wrestle Votes

Heel by Nature does have some staff, but most articles are written by "HBN Staff." Other articles are written by "Jake" or "Joey G." Using full names is the professional thing to do. They have used Wrestling Observer as a source in the articles I checked, but no other sources listed as reliable or partially reliable were used.

Wrestle Votes is a Twitter account that has been credited with breaking stories. This account has been used as a source on some sites. Being as it's a Twitter account, the fact checking methods are next to impossible to find out. Generally, social media is not to be used as a source.

With that being said, these two should be listed as unreliable. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 09:33, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Bodyslam

You list Bodyslam and two other sites as unreliable because they reported Samoa Joe was suspended then another source said he wasnt, making them "unreliable", but he *was* suspended. they reported it in february, others said "nah no he isnt", then a week later he was suspended.Muur (talk) 10:04, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

I'd be reluctant to take it off of unproven or unreliable. Whether or not Joe was actually suspended is secondary, their reporting was garbage. They didn't even stand by their story in a follow-up, they actually dismissed the earlier report as "rumors", which were apparently squashed when Joe showed up on TV shortly after.[8] Their big source on the story was some random guy on Twitter in the first place.[9]LM2000 (talk) 10:17, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Last Word on Pro Wrestling decision?

Proposal: Add Last Word on Pro Wrestling to the unreliable source list.

Other users have alleged poor quality articles. As I previously mentioned the managing editor is Jamie Greer who used to work for established unreliable source Wrestlezone. Rich Laconi doesn't appear to have any credentials alongside Greer. If no one objects, I believe it would be time to be bold and add it per my proposal. There doesn't appear to be much interest in defending the site after my comment from a little over two months ago. Addicted4517 (talk) 07:48, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Greer doesn't seem to have any compelling credentials. The biggest argument that I can find is that he is the author of one piece that was cited in another author's self-published book. Laconi, on the other hand, appears to be a Spanish commentator for ROH. That could be a good assertation of reliability, as he is an industry insider. I don't see much else for him, admittedly, although he appears to have been published by Slam! Unfortunately, this is a broken link. I wouldn't necessarily say it's unreliable, but I would not feel comfortable using it as a source, if that helps. GaryColemanFan (talk) 08:10, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
This does help, especially with Greer. Thanks. Anyone else? Addicted4517 (talk) 07:55, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
As there have been no objections or any other contributions either way, I have added it now. Addicted4517 (talk) 21:11, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

IMDb.com

Just a query. I seem to recall that this website is generally frowned upon due to user generated content. However the article on it on WP (IMDb.com) suggests that there may be oversight on it now. I'm asking because it has been used as a source on List of Impact Wrestling personnel with regard to Masha Slamovich and her real name. I'm going to add an unreliable source? tag to it while waiting for some views here (and fix the link while I'm about it). Also note that the tag may be removed and I may need help to maintain it until this issue is sorted out either with some guidance or a consensus. Addicted4517 (talk) 08:57, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Per WP:IMDB, "The content on IMDb is user-generated, and the site is considered unreliable by a majority of editors". "IMDb content inappropriate to reference on Wikipedia: Any potentially contentious material about living persons (BLPs)." On the other side, I made a quick research but 0 results. Only a WrestlingInc article, but I don't know if that's usefull. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 09:49, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
Thank you. Wrestling Inc isn't a reliable source either so I have restored the section to "Unknown". Addicted4517 (talk) 07:09, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
@HHH Pedrigree, just seen this, but Cagematch is also user-generated, but we still use them for certain things yet we don't use IMDb for sourcing. I'm not going to question it. Redundant to do so. But as far as Cagematch goes, it's used as sometimes that's all you can find for certain things. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 18:51, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
Outside of match results it has been deemed as unreliable. Addicted4517 (talk) 22:46, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Wrestling Recaps

Looking for sources outside the usual official promotion sites, Cagematch, etc. for show results, I came upon Wrestling Recaps. It doesn't have news, but does have magazine and shoot/interview transcripts. They do have a list of writers. They have links to sites that are not reliable or generally shouldn't be used unless it's for certain things like results. I will be looking it over for results for title histories that I create. I am all for putting it in limited reliability just for results. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 17:51, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Not unless you can prove why it should be there. There's nothing on the site that indicated reliability. Also, Cagematch shouldn't be used. I moved it to "unproven" (a.k.a. unreliable) based on a recent WT:PW discussion. GaryColemanFan (talk) 07:26, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
@GaryColemanFan: If you ignore the writer's thoughts at the end, it's just detailed results. There is nothing unreliable about results. It's better then sticking with just Cagematch or promotion's site. So... Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 10:01, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
What makes the author reliable? GaryColemanFan (talk) 23:38, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
Can someone link the site concerned? I am unable to locate it. Addicted4517 (talk) 22:53, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
https://wrestlingrecaps.com/. GaryColemanFan (talk) 06:50, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Pro Wrestling Sheet / The Sportster

Pro Wrestling Sheet was previously deemed reliable because Ryan Satin was its lead editor. He left there some time ago, and the site apparently got rebranded into The Sportster. We discussed Sportster on WT:PW awhile back (I wasn't aware about the rebranding at the time), and most of us were in agreement that it clearly is not reliable.[10] I would support listing the Satin era (2015-2018) as reliable, but everything after that is either unproven or completely unreliable.LM2000 (talk) 12:45, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Yeah its pretty much a new site now, PWS is gone.★Trekker (talk) 15:01, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Can I use the WWE Network as a source?

Hi. Some piece of information which I would like to add to some article or other is backed by a certain program (formerly a DVD?) I watched on the Network. Can I refer to that as a footnote, or is that discouraged (e.g. because it requires paid subscription)? Thanks. כרסומת (talk) 14:58, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Something being behind a paywall doesn't affect whether or not it can be used. In theory yes, you can use the WWE Network - the only question is how the source is used. For example, is it a kayfabe documentary, or something that requires interpretation from a show? — Czello 15:30, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
Thanks a bunch. It's someone's non-kayfabe commentary and it will be presented as a claim, not as fact. כרסומת (talk) 17:17, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Wrestling Observer

WP:MELTZER - Clear consensus that Meltzer and WON are considered reliable sources — Czello (music) 08:42, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Can someone direct me to a discussion that might have been used to determined whether or not to the Observer as a reliable source? I have watched several podcasts where wrestling experts and producers have said that Dave is completely unreliable and had spread rumors and speculation constantly over the years. Jeremyeyork (talk) 00:56, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

There will always be some people who disagree with a reporter's telling of a story. I don't know that there has ever been a discussion of Meltzer in the sense that you're talking about, but I would point to the fact that his reporting has earned him the James C. Melby Historian Award from the George Tragos/Lou Thesz Hall of Fame as well as the James Melby Historian Award from the Cauliflower Alley Club. Recognition as being among the top tier by a hall of fame and by an organization of industry insiders is more than enough to meet verifiability and reliability policies. GaryColemanFan (talk) 16:04, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
When were those awards won? And were they for Meltzer or were they for the website as a whole? I'm just asking so we can sort this out for everyone as there is a lot of angst towards Meltzer as of late. It's the case that Newsweek was once a reliable source but around 2015 it lost that designation. Addicted4517 (talk) 22:48, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
Meltzer won those awards in 2016 and 2017 respectfully.
Rather than there been a prolonged widespread criticism of Meltzer, I am aware that this week there has been a kneejerk reaction/controversy to Meltzer incorrectly reporting that a WWE segment that aired in 2014 aired in 2024. A retraction/correction in the next edition of the Wrestling Observer Newsletter is expected to be printed in the coming days.
Although a silly gaff to make, wrestling fans have latched onto this specific error in a bit of a dogpile and made "a mountain out of a molehill" somewhat. This very same week, Meltzer engaged in an hour and a half conversation with Tim Marchman of VICE News in which they covered in depth details relating to an alleged sexual assault on Ashley Massaro. I would describe working with notable journalists from outside the wrestling business as an example of good, reliable reporting. Wrestling forums discussing Meltzer focus entirely on his surface-level reporting of the on-screen side of professional wrestling rather than his reporting of negative, behind-the-scenes stories such as the Massaro case. Frankly, they're not a good judge of reliability, especially as several of these forums have been the recent victims of hoax-reports by Brandon Cutler.
It would be a large mistake to jump on the bandwagon with those forums and take an incredibly short-term view of Meltzer and WON rather than a long-term one that analyses his work over decades, rather than weeks.
Finally, to touch on "several podcasts where wrestling experts and producers" criticising Meltzer; We wouldn't expect most of those people to like Meltzer to begin with, in the same way we don't expect bankers to enjoy the Financial Times writing negative stories about them personally. With that in mind, It would be another mistake to assume that because some industry figures dislike Meltzer that this means his reporting is unreliable. I think that's something GaryColemanFan was touching on in his comment. CeltBrowne (talk) 04:50, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for the years of those awards. Just a couple of things. First - I wouldn't be putting any weight towards Vice Media, given that it is listed as having no consensus as a reliable source. Second - My own view isn't limited to this latest controversy. There has been a lot of angst towards Meltzer in terms of his reliability and while I'm not saying he's crossed the line into unreliable (and never did) some of his conduct over multiple situations is having an adverse effect on his reputation. I'm just saying it should be looked into - that's all. You make good point, but the wider stench is hanging over him. Addicted4517 (talk) 11:25, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
Agree with GaryColemanFan and CeltBrowne here. There's no journalist in the pro wrestling industry who has come close to the level of recognition of Meltzer. Ultimately there's two ways of looking at criticism of Meltzer – firstly, there is sadly a lot of tribalism that has manifested against him owing to his criticisms of WWE, which seems to have artificially inflated discontent towards him. Many of the criticisms don't come from neutral sources, they come from those with a vested interest in discrediting him. Secondly, even the most reliable of sources have made errors in their reporting. The BBC, for example, which is seen as one of the most reliable sources imaginable, has to make several corrections and clarifications a month – far more than Meltzer. We even have a whole article on its controversies. In short, I see a lot of attention on Meltzer as of late owing to the bizarre tribalism that exists, but little in the way of reasoning why he shouldn't be considered reliable. — Czello (music) 11:32, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
Hello. My 2 cents. I like three sources, which I think are highly reliable: Fightful, Wrestlenomics and PWInisder. PWInsider has pointed many times that their issues with Meltzer came from ECW. Before PWInsider existed, Dave Schrerer send information to Meltzer about ECW, but Dave wrote completly different things on the Newsletter. But, as Gary said, he has many awards and recognition. He has been featured on Dark Side of the Ring, HBO's Documentary about André the Giant... --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 13:21, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
That last point is particularly crucial – an indicator of whether a source is reliable is how much other reliable, mainstream sources depend on and cite them. Any time anything happens in the wrestling world that is reported in mainstream press, Meltzer is the first person they speak to. — Czello (music) 13:30, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
I agree with HHH Pedrigree and Czello. He is undoubtedly regarded as an expert. His appearances on these programs are beyond what would be needed to confirm his reliability. Arguments from Dilbaggg below don't appear to be based on Wikipedia's definition of reliability. GaryColemanFan (talk) 01:07, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
In 2014 Dave Meltzer said CM Punk will be back in WWWE "that year": [https://www.reddit.com/r/SquaredCircle/comments/4ed92b/dave_meltzer_on_alleged_cm_punk_march_2014_return/] but he was wrong and Punk didn't come back to WWE until 2023. Now he was wrong about Rock vs roman being WM 40 main event but you guys still use him as a source. Also when WWE claimed 100,000+ attendance for WM 32 in 2016 Meltzer and other sources reported 90,000+ but when AEW claimed 80,000+ in 2023, Meltzer who is always biased and anti WWE claimed thats real figure but then it was proven wrong and its just 70,000+ and per Recentism Meltzer reduced the WM 32 figure to 80,000+ but most TRUE reliable sources CBS https://www.cbsnews.com/texas/news/record-wrestlemania-crowd-in-arlington/ say it was actually 90,000+ or even 100,000+ which is the case even Meltzer himself said 90,000+ until AEW recently gave the false figure for All Out 2023 where gis biasedness showed but it was proven inflated. Respected wretlers like Baron Corbin called Meltzer cancer to wrestling. Meltzer is also a narcisist who gave Generation Me/Young Bucks best finisher just cause they named their move after him. PWMania was made unreliable in 2016 just for one wrong report since then they haven made any mistake byt Meltzer gets a free pass every time despite countless false information, a dirt sheet writer should not be seen as an accurate source, he didn't even attend the events or conduct proper research methodology techniques and its purelyu based on his speculation, so lets start a consensus to strip him of his reliability status. I can't comment further but I hope neutral editors not part of the project see how many times this guy was proven wrong yet he seems to be covered up for, so it would be good of we go for WP:30 and get more neutral views on the matter, best wishes, bye all. Dilbaggg (talk) 14:00, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
Much of this has already been addressed above: even the most reliable sources (BBC, for example) make errors and have to issue retractions. The Baron Corbin quote is kind of irrelevant - firstly, it's out of context (what's he talking about exactly? Pro wrestlers notoriously don't like any dirtsheet writer) and secondly we wouldn't give him disproportionate weight on this. I'm not sure what your point around the Bucks is, that seems to mostly be a personal attack/opinion on him. — Czello (music) 14:04, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
Ok just commenting on this once more, the Bucks thing shows his biased attitude he selectively chose a move named after him as a best move, narcissisms, anyway hes been proven wrong time and time again for over a decade, good day. Dilbaggg (talk) 14:12, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
Wrong. The Wrestling Newsletter Observer readers voted for the move. As I have pointed, looks like you have a personal grudge against him, WP:IDONTLIKEIT. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 14:17, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
The votes may be rigged, the magazine is not as popular as PWI the reason Meltzer claims WWE figures are inflated may be because he himself inflates the no of votes, he hated Dixi Carter and said TNA was the wrorst promotion 2007-2016 until Anthem came, after dixie left he stopped it, despite there being way worse promotion like Vince Russo's one that has bad wrestling people don't even know about, and TNA was at its best 2007-2016, Anthem ruined it and guys like Styles, joe, Angle and Sting left, Main Event Mafia, Fortune, Immortal, EV 2 , Aces and 8s they were peak TNA anyway I stand correct as Meltzer has been proven wrong multiple times between 2014-2024 alone and he is unreliable, on the other hand you made PWMania unreliable for just one wrong report in 2016 and that reported has left since but its classified unreliable yet meltzer who is so much prone to unreliable stuff is still classified reliable, we need more neutral views fomr non WP:PW members thats the last thing i say, bye. Dilbaggg (talk) 14:23, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
Okay, we're entering odd conspiracy theory territory here. All of this post just kind of exposes a personal dislike of Meltzer, and so won't be taken seriously in consensus forming. — Czello (music) 14:37, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
As usual Dilbaggg, your posts are full of bias and outright lies. Has the Observer gotten it wrong before? Yeah, definitely. That doesn't disqualify it from being considered a reliable source; there's an entire article about how many times The New York Times got it wrong and that's considered the paper of record. Oh, and leave your opinions on Anthem and TNA to the message boards, see WP:NOTFORUM.LM2000 (talk) 10:37, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
Czello (music) and LM2000 I gave accurate and valid points and gave numerous exapmles of times Meltzer was inaccurate, and yes I showed his biased attitude against TNA during Dixie's time also very inconsistent in 2012 he named Impact the best weekly show yet TNA the worst promotion, he has no logic. Anyway forget TNA, his reports on WWE and AEW stuff like Punk's 2014 return, supporting AEW All Out 2023's inflated figure , saying Rock vs Roman will main event WM and so many other misleading false infor4mation, you declassified PWMania for one mistake in 2016 that writer doesn't work there anymore but you guys worship Meltzer treating his claims accurate when he never did scientific research, no one outside WP:PW community will accept a dirt sheet writer as accurate. This discussion says it all [11]. Anyway there is no reason to disregard my consensus as I pointed out Meltzer's inconsistencies, inaccuracies and biasedness and any neutral Wikipedia member will agree with me. The over reliance of a dirt sheet writer in WP:PW needs to stop and hope your WP:GS is lifted someday, no disrespect to you guys, you guys made great articles on Wrestling but Meltzer is too unreliable and I will accept whatever consensus comes here but vote that he is unreliable and should no longer be taken seriously must stand as all my points are valid, good day. Dilbaggg (talk) 06:03, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
Again, wrong. Meltzer didn't give any award to Impact or TNA. the readers voted, no not his fault. Also, I don't get why you put so much focus on the Awards. 1, the readers are the people who vote, not Meltzer. 2, every journalist has his own preferences or taste. PWInsider's Dave Schrerer has an opinion about Tony Khan and AEW, but it doesn't interfere on his work as journalist. Meltzer has taste and opinion but, as far as I know, don't interfere with his work. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 16:46, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
Last thing I say my vote be counted as I gave valid reasons why Dave Meltzer is unreliable and any WP:Neutral assessment will say my vote is valid, good day. Dilbaggg (talk) 06:51, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
We've already gone through these points, and we're going in circles now. Every reliable source makes errors and has to issue retractions. And no, he didn't support the figure from All Out once the true number was revealed. no one outside WP:PW community will accept a dirt sheet writer as accurate. As I explained above, he is the first person mainstream media interview when something happens in the wrestling world – so he's even considered reliable outside of wrestling. And no, I don't think neutral members of Wikipedia would agree with you as you exposed your own bias against him earlier. — Czello (music) 08:29, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Just to put a lid on this - one point. It's a bit unfair to compare a single person (Meltzer) to a company/organisation (BBC or New York Times). But aside from that I think we have a consensus on Meltzer being reliable. With that in mind, I think once this is archived that we should stick a redirect in so if anyone comes in with the same query in the future we have a reference point. Addicted4517 (talk) 11:17, 29 February 2024 (UTC

There are pleanty of dirt sheet writers in Wrestling biz, Meltzer being treated above others despite all his inaccurate repotrts over the years is illogical. Dilbaggg (talk) 06:03, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
Provide proof of that claim with reliable sources, or it's original research which does not interest us. Addicted4517 (talk) 06:54, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
You maybe new to the discussion, this was done multiple times in many previous discussions,, his 2014 false claim Punk is returning that year, [12] one of many exapmles was provided, this is just a follow up discussion, please remember to maintain WP:Neutral views and not blindly support Meltzer, you are a great editor and your work is appreciated. Dilbaggg (talk) 06:59, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
I'm not new because I know bias when I see it and it's coming from you. Multiple reliable sources speculated on CM Punk's return in 2014 after his original departure. Not just Meltzer. Addicted4517 (talk) 07:02, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
No the biase is from you, no WP:RS like say New York Times said Punk will come back in 2014, it was just a bunch of forum type soiurces quoting Meltzer, yes this biased worshipping of Meltzer is what must end and neutral parties must be involved in the assessmety, anyway i made my point and am done with this discussion and clearly this won't be fixed unless non WP:PW neutral members are involved, so this is my final say here. Dilbaggg (talk) 07:05, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
I am neutral and I know an unsourced claim when I see it. You identified one error only. There is no worship going on here. We talk in terms of sourcing. You are not talking in htose terms. Addicted4517 (talk) 07:13, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
These points have already been addressed, multiple times. — Czello (music) 08:30, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
I truly wish "non-WP:PW neutral members" could have a look at this discussion. The same people that forced the useless sanctions through might be interested to see how much time we waste on bullshit like this. You have demonstrated repeatedly over the years that you do not know anything about WP:RS. Wikipedia:Competence is required, or at least it should be. You are fortunate enough to edit in a niche wikiproject that nobody cares about.LM2000 (talk) 08:59, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
(I assume this was directed at Dilbaggg, not me? The indentation makes it unclear) — Czello (music) 09:02, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
Yes, my apologies Czello. You're cool and perfectly competent. I was trying to fix the indentation when an edit conflict ensued.LM2000 (talk) 09:05, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
LM2000 I respect your passion but no PA please, I edit many different articles than wrestling and long be3fore I started editing Wikipedia I always admired WP:PW and your efforts on wrestling articles being wrestling fan since 1999 and a Wikipedia reader since 2005. You and Czello and HHH are three of the editors I have respected since the 2010s. But expressing doubt about a dirt sheet writer who has been proven multiple times is not a display of WP:CIR. I brought valid points of how he ahs been proven wrong countless times thus expressing doubt about his statements is valid. And I have always respected and used WP:RS except a few occassions, I always check wheather they are WP:RS or not, but the status of WP:PW/RS have changed and thats where the problem has come, cites like PWMania which were very reliable have bnecome unreliable just for one single wrong report yet Meltzer gets a free pass despite countless wrong statements. Anyway I don't want you to think I hold anything against hard working members of WP:PW so i won't discuss here anymore, but I stand by my saying Dave Meltzer is unreliable, if you don't accept it fine but do not state WP:CIR when I have only raised valid points which any editor has the right to, and mostly I always respect work of WP:PW our only difference is regarding acceptance of Dave Meltzer as re,liable or not, so no need to be angry at me cause I share different viewc (shared by a lot of people too, just not here but look around the internet). This truly is my final message on this topic and do not ping me and I apologies if I hurt your feelings cause I admire WP:PW for years and am a wrestling fan just like you, lets just discuss civilly, you guys want Meltzer to stay reliable, I say Meltzer is unreliable (and I gave valid reasons), end of it, hugs and lets stop bickering and let it be, I am done with it, no need to address me any further and wish you and all WP:PW members well and hope wrestling articles continue to thrive and provide reliability to our readers. Goodbye and happy editing all. Dilbaggg (talk) 09:38, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
We've heard what you've said. It just isn't part of the WP:RS criteria. Maybe it would be helpful to think of it as expertise vs. accuracy. Everyone will make inaccurate statements from time to time. Ideally, they will correct them. If the inaccuracy can be demonstrated by another reliable source (or, ideally, multiple reliable sources), we should obviously go with what is correct. But Meltzer's expertise--his qualifications, if that word helps--isn't really something that can be questioned. He is acknowledged, both inside and outside the industry, as an expert. As someone who has a long history of reporting, with connections and a deep understanding of professional wrestling. As someone who people look to for the stories, the facts, and the interpretation. We have to think about why organizations and studios turn to him when they need an expert voice rather than writers for the other websites that get brought up here. Why him and not Wayne Daly from wrestling-news.net or Norman Quarrinton from The Sportster? You've brought up the same argument over and over again for years, and you've never been willing to stop and consider that accuracy is not what is in question. You keep using the term interchangeably with reliability, but they are different concepts. Pulitzer Prize winners will occasionally report something incorrectly. But being incorrect from time to time doesn't make a person unreliable. Until you're open to understanding this, you're going to keep bringing up the same "But Meltzer said in 2014..." argument, and people are going to shut it down by reminding you that it just doesn't matter. Because it's not part of the criteria. We want to have discussions about sources and their reliability. But it's important that every participant has read and understood WP:RS rather than coming at it with their own interpretations of what the word reliable should mean. GaryColemanFan (talk) 17:47, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Wrestling Headlines

As this website isn't on the list I thought I should throw it to the group for their thoughts. It has been used on The Mighty Don't Kneel article to prove past membership. I'm a skeptic of this but I'm not going to add it to the unreliable source list without a consensus. Here is the site. Addicted4517 (talk) 05:23, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Wrestling Headlines used to be Lords of Pain, which was listed as unreliable at WP:PW/RS. This is their personnel list; I do not think there is any evidence that they should be considered reliable.LM2000 (talk) 06:43, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for the link. They use Marc Middleton. I'll add it now. Addicted4517 (talk) 10:26, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
Dismissing a writer's entire career because they published a false report (that has since been taken down) makes no sense. We need to scrap the non-criteria used on this page, as it doesn't comply with WP:V. GaryColemanFan (talk) 21:59, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
My understanding is that it's more than 1 false report. Addicted4517 (talk) 22:23, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
Gary's right about the non-criteria. We've talked about removing the footnotes before, or altering the way we list unreliable sources generally. I still think Wrestling Headlines is not reliable though.LM2000 (talk) 04:23, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Professional_wrestling/Sources/Archive_2&oldid=1221524248"