Talk:Warrior (wrestler)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| Start | This article has been rated as start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ] | ||
 |
Warrior (wrestler) is within the scope of WikiProject Professional wrestling, an attempt to improve and standardize articles related to professional wrestling. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, visit the project to-do page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to discussions. |
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. |
| Low | This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale. |
 Archives |
|---|
[edit] Different picture
Can we change the picture at the top of the page to a picture of him in his wrestling gear or at least put a picture of him in his gear somewhere on the page? It seems only logical considering thats the way almost everybody recognizes him. --71.36.128.104 (talk) 20:28, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Controversial section
The material added to this talk-page refers to the Controversial remarks about Heath Ledger section which was added to the article recently. If such material is verifiable, (and there is a link, which my browser wouldn't take me to today) and causes no undue Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons problems, then it seems that it is suitable for addition to the article page. FWIW Newbyguesses - Talk 04:24, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- I've pulled it, as it fails Wikipedia's original research policy. It's unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material (in this case a blog) that has not been published by a reliable source. Warrior has made numerous blog entries over the years that express his opinions (as ridiculous as they may be), and while this particular entry has been convered in some fringe media, (which would probably not pass if scrutinized if looking to determine if these sources are reliable by Wikpedia standards), it's hardly encyclopedic and is given undue weight by it's recency. Are we going to create a section every time Warrior posts something in his self published blog about a celebrity? Perhaps a paragraph about his blog in general with a passing mention of individuals Warrior has discussed/insulted, which Heath Ledger mentioned amongst the many would be more appropriate - if sourced properly. --Quartet 20:53, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
- I agree. Warrior is constantly saying things in his blog that could be considered controversial - but how are Warriors opinions on various topics of the day encyclopedic? This is an encyclopedia, not a place for certain editors to pick and choose what they feel is notable from an individuals blog and tag it on to that same persons Wikipedia entry. Warriors last last blog entry questions why we celebrate Martin Luther King's birthday and claimed that King "plagiarized a great many speeches" and wet on to claim that "George Washington’s life and its story deserves the same, if not more, reverence than even the man called Jesus Christ and his story."[[1]]. Certainly MLK is a far more important historical figure than Ledger, but where is the entire section related to this entry or the statement about Jesus? Allstarecho what is your rationale behind adding[2] a discussion of just the post about Ledger? Are there any reliable sources that reported this? Because a casual Google search reveals stories by nothing more than Wrestling blogs and other "news" pieces by independent columnists. I'll assume good faith it's not a conflict of interest, but to someone who just came across this Wikipedia article it could appear that way. --Yankees76 (talk) 02:27, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- Just because his rants about MLK and Washington weren't in the section, doesn't mean to remove any other sections. It means, add them yourself if you feel they warrant inclusion, not just delete a whole section. Now, to address the concern, his notability makes everything he says and does come under a microscope. His comments about Ledger, and yes, MLK should definitely be included here. When a person has achieved that level of notability that a biography is acceptable, all known facts about the person have an equal chance of being represented. The person, short of pointing out libelous statements, has no special prerogative to exclude certain details. We do not allow this priviledge to Ann Coulter, we do not allow it to Jimmy Wales, we allow it to nobody. It is a red-herring argument that only issues *related* to notability are included. We include a biography based on notability, but once included, each statement does not need to pass notability to be included. As long as it's verifiable and sourced, it's fair game, especially in this situation. As for conflict of interest, I'm not sure where you're getting that from. I don't know the man personally, never met or spoken to him. I just know of him from his WWF days and only saw him wrestle in person once, against Andre the Giant in Jackson, Mississippi. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ echo 02:58, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- I have no intention of adding anything Warrior says in his blog to Wikipedia simply because I don't beleive the content of a self published blog is notable or even encyclopedic. As per WP:DUE an article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. Creating an entire subsection on Warriors reaction to the death of Heath Ledger makes it appear that this one blog entry received extensive coverage and is a significant event in Warriors biography - when in fact it was one blog post in many over a period of 8 or more years, many of which I'm sure contain similar statements about other individuals. I fail to see why you're giving this one blog entry the same weight as his, bodybuilding career for example, for which there is far more information from reliable sources available. As is noted above by Quartet, it may be Warriors blog itself that deserves the mention, not merely one blog entry plucked at random. --Yankees76 (talk) 03:43, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
-
- "his notability makes everything he says and does come under a microscope" is a flawed argument as Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and not an indiscriminate collection of information. There is no historical notability stemming from Warriors reaction to Heath Ledgers death, despite the notability of Warrior himself. Ledger's family did not react to this blog or make a statment about it. In fact no-one outside of a few Wrestling bloggers and independant columnists deemed it newsworthy at all. The article for Tom Cruise does not have a single mention of Cruise's reaction to Ledgers death, despite Cruise having a far stronger tie-in than Warrior.[3] And yet here we have an article where half of this individuals personal life section is taken up (with a header no less!!) by the synthesis of one blog entry made that discussed Heath Ledger that also contained yet another rant about Hulk Hogan? Undue weight is putting it lightly Yankees76! Now I'm not saying that this information should never be added to Wikipedia, but we're trying to create a biography of a living person here. I'm suggesting a re-write of the section as I mentioned above that discusses his blog in general, as these sorts of statements and "outbursts" seem to be the norm for Warrior, as pointed out by Yankees76 above. Literally this blog entry on Heath Ledger is deserving of a sentence in this section - if that. It could read something like this:
- Warrior maintains a blog entitled "Warrior's Machete" where he discusses his personal life, his personal views on politics, sexuality, patriotism and his legacy as a wrestler, amongst other things. There have been numerous instances where Warrior has used the blog to attack?? members of his wrestling past(Vince McMahaon, Hulk Hogan) and celebrities who were newsworthy at the time of the blog (Heath Ledger, Saddam Hussein). He's even used the blog to post replies to letters from fans - both positive and negative.
-
- I have no intention of adding anything Warrior says in his blog to Wikipedia simply because I don't beleive the content of a self published blog is notable or even encyclopedic. As per WP:DUE an article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. Creating an entire subsection on Warriors reaction to the death of Heath Ledger makes it appear that this one blog entry received extensive coverage and is a significant event in Warriors biography - when in fact it was one blog post in many over a period of 8 or more years, many of which I'm sure contain similar statements about other individuals. I fail to see why you're giving this one blog entry the same weight as his, bodybuilding career for example, for which there is far more information from reliable sources available. As is noted above by Quartet, it may be Warriors blog itself that deserves the mention, not merely one blog entry plucked at random. --Yankees76 (talk) 03:43, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- Just because his rants about MLK and Washington weren't in the section, doesn't mean to remove any other sections. It means, add them yourself if you feel they warrant inclusion, not just delete a whole section. Now, to address the concern, his notability makes everything he says and does come under a microscope. His comments about Ledger, and yes, MLK should definitely be included here. When a person has achieved that level of notability that a biography is acceptable, all known facts about the person have an equal chance of being represented. The person, short of pointing out libelous statements, has no special prerogative to exclude certain details. We do not allow this priviledge to Ann Coulter, we do not allow it to Jimmy Wales, we allow it to nobody. It is a red-herring argument that only issues *related* to notability are included. We include a biography based on notability, but once included, each statement does not need to pass notability to be included. As long as it's verifiable and sourced, it's fair game, especially in this situation. As for conflict of interest, I'm not sure where you're getting that from. I don't know the man personally, never met or spoken to him. I just know of him from his WWF days and only saw him wrestle in person once, against Andre the Giant in Jackson, Mississippi. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ echo 02:58, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- I agree. Warrior is constantly saying things in his blog that could be considered controversial - but how are Warriors opinions on various topics of the day encyclopedic? This is an encyclopedia, not a place for certain editors to pick and choose what they feel is notable from an individuals blog and tag it on to that same persons Wikipedia entry. Warriors last last blog entry questions why we celebrate Martin Luther King's birthday and claimed that King "plagiarized a great many speeches" and wet on to claim that "George Washington’s life and its story deserves the same, if not more, reverence than even the man called Jesus Christ and his story."[[1]]. Certainly MLK is a far more important historical figure than Ledger, but where is the entire section related to this entry or the statement about Jesus? Allstarecho what is your rationale behind adding[2] a discussion of just the post about Ledger? Are there any reliable sources that reported this? Because a casual Google search reveals stories by nothing more than Wrestling blogs and other "news" pieces by independent columnists. I'll assume good faith it's not a conflict of interest, but to someone who just came across this Wikipedia article it could appear that way. --Yankees76 (talk) 02:27, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
