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) [reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

That's why IMO the footnote isn't important...^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 18:17, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Ah, yes, what Colbert calls "truthiness". That's clearly part of the problem - any reliable independent secondary source covering this would say that Meltzer estimates this figure and how, but all we have is the primary source where he says the attendance was 74,687, whihc is wrong on two counts in that (a) he doesn't appear to have stated that it was a guesstimate and (b) he uses meaningless precision. A bit like saying that the distance to the moon is "about 1,700 km (1056 miles 582 yards 1ft 8³/₁₆ inches)". You know, if he makes a habit of this and some of the press talk about it, that would make a great case for including his idosyncratic estimates in the biography of Meltzer, but we're still waiting for any evidence that a figure stated that precisely can be stated against the official figures. One more pointer to the need for reliable independent sources, I guess. I think I might have mentioned that before. Guy (Help!) 21:14, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I'm un-archiving it, since it is relevant to the current state of the article. Everyone said they could live with a brief mention in the prose with no additional footnote. Therefore, there was no footnote. You removed the mention from the prose, however, which goes against consensus. Please revert your edit to the article page. GaryColemanFan (talk) 17:33, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did.--C23 C23's talk 17:49, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I just fixed your minor error of archiving the active discussion along with the IP's silliness. Now, all we have to do is show the reliable independent sources for this figure being significant and having some valid source. Emphasis on independent, please. Remember: WP:NOR, WP:V, [{WP:RS]], WP:NPOV. All very important. So we don't reada columnists and then decide ourselves that what they say is important enough to be shown alongside official figures. Come on, peoiple, this is absolutely standard Wikipedia practice - just cite the reliable indpeendent secondary sources and we're done.

I might also just remind you that the comment was made in 2007 but was absent form the article until the end of 2009. This was not considered a problem except by a very few people. So, sources, sources, sources. Guy (Help!) 18:05, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We have a clear consensus of a footnote no matter what you say so i'm adding the footnote.--C23 C23's talk 18:34, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How could there be a consensus agreeing on adding the footnote when only you, Garydude, and possibly Wrestlinglover agree while TJ, Justapunk, Guy, and I don't? Hmm..... You sneaky sneaky fella...^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 18:37, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ultimately, almost everyone, if not everyone, on the WT:PW page agreed that a brief mention was in keeping with verifiability, reliable sources, appropriate weight, and neutrality. At any rate, User:Future Perfect at Sunrise waited until someone removed the sourced text and then leapt on the article with a protection template. GaryColemanFan (talk) 18:39, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I also stated on my talk page right now, the timing of the protection was honest-to-god coincidence. Of course it's the wrong version. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:43, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Ultimately"??? Sure just as soon as you show me the diff that suggests "ultimately" The page was blocked because you and Curtis continued to revert instead of continuing on with this discussion. You're both acting like that very IP. Sit down (or stand up... where ever the hell you're at) and at least be willing to discuss the matter like a normal established contributor to the project... Jeez...^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 18:44, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to help. Here we go:

• "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." - User:3bulletproof316 [1]
• "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." - User:Hazardous Matt [2]
• "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." - User:sephiroth storm [3]
• "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." - User:Wrestlinglover [4]
• "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." - User:Justa Punk [5]
• "I'd support a footnote, too. In fact, I suggested that seven days ago." - User:Nikki311 [6]
• "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). " - User:TJ Spyke [7]

Ultimately, only two people disagreed (Darrenhusted, and JzG), so the current version is supported by only 2 of the 11 involved editors. GaryColemanFan (talk) 19:14, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What actually Justa said he agreed to a small unbiased footnote he just didn't like the phrasing a first. I think you should take Guy's comments with a grain of salt as he just doesn't like me or GFC. Which gives me a pretty good consensus. Oh and by the way i'm not at all like the IP.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Curtis23 (talk • contribs)

I neither like you nor dislike you. Actually I wouldn't know you from a hole in the ground. Neither would I know Dave Meltzer from one. What I do know, having been here for quite some time and seen many many disputes, is that the swiftest and surest way to resolve a dispute is by references to what reliable independent mainstream sources say, and the surest way to prolong a dispute is to continue arguing your own personal interpretation of the significance of a primary source and fail to produce reliable independent secondary sources to show their interpretation of the source. That is, I think, one of the more repeatable facets of content disputes around here. Guy (Help!) 21:02, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To be frank... The only thing everyone agreed to was just shutting the IP up... ^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 18:55, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

...and please don't start with that "Oh the resident admin has something against us" crap because I can tell you first hand that it isn't true. The only reason both of you feel that way is because the admin just so happens to disagree with you two. FYI he isn't violating anything as he hasn't used any of his sysop abilities while involved in this argument. Again just sit down (or whatever) and discuss this like a member of the project. ^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 19:01, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We has certainly violated WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA by calling me an "idiot", a "fool", and a "fuckwit". GaryColemanFan (talk) 19:15, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The first rule of WP:CIVIL is that when you point the finger, there are three more pointing right back at you. You called me a vandal, I advised you not to, you called me a vandal again, I advised you not to, you template wanred me, I advised you not to, you template warned me again so I gave you back a dose of the same but with an overcoat of humour (entirely lacking in everythign you've done here, b y the way) as a way of lightening the mood. You're behaving like a Class A m:DICK. All you have to do is: provide a reliable independent source for this controversy and its significance, so it is not WP:OR and we can verify that it's not WP:UNDUE. This has been requested rather a lot of times now, it's the single most common request on Wikipedia - we even have templates to pick up such problems - and it is a fundamental and basic tenet of the project. So do be a good chap and instead of arguing the toss, find reliabel independent secondary sources about the dispute. Otherwise we go back to the position up until the POV-pushing started in December, which is not to include disputed text of unknown veracity and unknown significance, just as we exclude millions of other similarly trivial facts. Guy (Help!) 21:02, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He does look at this (it's on Gary's page but it's also inferred against me.) [8] and he has a report at ANI.--C23 C23's talk 19:15, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You know as GFC said me, him, Justa, Matt, Will, TJ, Nikki, Bullet, and Storm be all agree it's just you JzG and Darrenhausted who don't want the footnote if that's not a consensus what is?--C23 C23's talk 23:18, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not about that anymore. It's about figuring the importance of the footnote. Can you legitimately justify the inclusion of such a trivial note when it was deemed non-notable due to the fact that no reliable independent source...or any source for that matter...to cover Meltzer's attendance dispute actually exists? I mean the whole thing is that trivial... And as for whatever was "agreed" you can take my name along with TJ's and Justa's out. Storm and HazardousMatt didn't agree either btw.^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 23:27, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just so no one argues, I agree with bullet. I never wanted the note to be the article in the first place. The only thing I "agreed" to was the wording of the note IF there was gonna be a note included. My original choice is to not include the note at all though. TJ Spyke 23:44, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And if you're going to use my name, at least spell it correctly Curtis. If you want to keep count then that would be 208, GCF, you, Will, Nikki for, me, TJ, JustaPunk, Bulletproof, HazardousMatt, Storm and Guy against. Not that it really matters as the figure is taken from a primary source. Several times over Guy has asked for secondary sources and each time the conversation has shifted to another subject. Darrenhusted (talk) 00:28, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm almost persuaded to switch sides. I think i'm going back to against a footnote as now after re-reading the whole discussion to footnote would be better. I'm off the agree list.--C23 C23's talk 01:20, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Meltzer's claim is a verifiable statement that is in keeping with Wikipedia's guideline on reliable sources. Having appeared in a reliable source is sufficient to establish notability for the claim. As was stated by an administrator when this was first brought to ANI: "Obviously you should use sources representing both figures." [9] For an encyclopedia to bill itself as "the sum of all human knowledge" and then dismiss facts that are in keeping with the encyclopedia's guidelines would be stupid and hypocritical. There is absolutely no policy or guideline to support your view. I can prove that it meets RS and V; you can prove nothing. Therefore, the information must be added back. It doesn't matter to me in what form, as long as it is added. As a compromise solution, I am willing to go back to the footnote that was agreed upon. Since there seems to be a lot of confusion regarding the word footnote, this means that it would not be in the prose itself, but a small [note 1] would be added after the mention of the 80,000+ attendance; in small text in a section below the article, a short summary like "Dave Meltzer of the Wrestling Observer Newsletter states that the correct total is [whatever number Meltzer says]." That complies with all relevant policies and guidelines, and even gives the moving goalpost crowd a little extra room on the weighting issue. Then the problem's solved and people can move on with their lives. GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:09, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1. You keep repeating the same argument... We're still waiting on a reliable independent source discussing the "dispute"
2. It is clear now the consensus is against the use of a footnote...

You should probably just let this go and move on with your life...^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 05:17, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My argument is the only valid argument being presented on either side, so it's all that needs to be said. There is no policy or guideline requiring a second source for the statement. Consensus can change, and, even if it doesn't, in can't trump policy. GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:24, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh my young padawan... Consensus can override policy, per WP:CONLIMITED. FOR CRYING OUT LOUD MAN WP:SELFPUBLISH is the very reason your argument FAILS!^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 05:42, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus can override policy, yes. However, that would require the consensus among the limited group to then be adopted by the larger Wikipedia community. In other words, you may belong to a group of several editors who believe that any source given a statistic ending in 7 should be deemed unreliable. Your consensus on that point would not trump the guideline on Reliable Sources. If you brought your arugment forward for discussion by the Wikipedia community as a whole and were able to establish a wide-reaching consensus that the guideline should be changed to reflect your view, then consensus could be said to have overridden a guideline. Until you get to that point, you haven't a leg to stand on. As for SPS, I can only assume that I'm one of the very few who actually reads policies before using them in arguments. Go back and try again. GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:51, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You've failed per your talk page.

"Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." (Lets see some links of reliable third-party sources to have published Meltzer's work) " However, caution should be exercised when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so." (nope.... No one else but Meltzer)

"Similarly, some self-published sources may be acceptable if substantial independent evidence for their reliability is found. For instance, widespread citations without comment by other reputable sources" (nope can't see any of that anywhere in his reports) "...are a good indicator of reliability, while widespread doubts about accuracy weigh against the self-published source. If outside citation is the main indicator of reliability, particular care should be taken to adhere to other guidelines and policies, and to not represent unduly contentious claims. The goal is to reflect established views of sources as far as we can determine them."

Now did you read that too or did you just stop at the part you thought agreed with you?^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 06:01, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's this simple... Your arguments have failed. Whether you accept this or not is up to you. The fact remains, however, that the current consensus opposes the inclusion of the trivial footnote. That is all.^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 06:07, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(1) Some reliable third-party sources who have published Meltzer's work: [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], and [15]. (2) "Citations without comment by other reputable sources" is one of the most poorly worded phrases I have seen in Wikipedia guidelines. I interpret that to mean that, if other reliable sources use the SPS as a reference, that is counted in favor of the SPS. To that, I would reply: "Dave Meltzer has built a publication with a readership of thousands. He is one of the most-quoted people in the wrestling business" - page 122 of Theater in a squared circle: the mystique of professional wrestling by Jeff Archer, Rick Boucke, and Linda Carlson. "The Wrestling Observer was blunt, opinionated, and accurate." - page 200 of Wrestling at the Chase: The Inside Story of Sam Muchnick and the Legends of Professional Wrestling by Larry Matysik. Vince Russo refers to Meltzer as "the wrestling authority" on page 90 of his autobiography, Forgiven: One Man's Journey from Self-Glorification to Sanctification. In WrestleCrap and Figure Four Weekly Present the Death of WCW, R.D. Reynolds and Bryan Alvarez write: "a huge thank you to Dave Meltzer, without whom there would be no book. Well, there would be a book, just one filled with countless errors." Need I go on? (3) Yes, someone else is likely to do so in some cases. That doesn't discount the rest of the cases, particularly in a situation like this. Press sources had stopped writing about WrestleMania 23 by the time Meltzer published his analysis. There would be no reason to go back and publish a story about a disputed attendance figure. That sort of information is simply not important to, say, The New York Times. That information is, of course, important to an article on WrestleMania 23 published by the "sum of all human knowledge", however. GaryColemanFan (talk) 06:26, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at those links, as far as I can tell not one of them mentions the attendance figure at WrestleMania 23. I'm sure you're not trying to throw dust in people's eyes so please cite the page numbers on which these sources discuss his claims over the attendance figure at WM23 and the basis on which it's made, then propose a version which is based on those sources and not the primary source. This is not about whether Metzler is considered an authority on wrestling, it's about Metzler's dispute of record attendance at this event, the basis on which it is made, and the significance attached to it by independent observers. This has been explained before. Guy (Help!) 08:55, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Guy, GCF does have a history of not listening. I've had trouble with him before, and he caused someone else to leave Wikipedia for what appeared to be exactly what he did with you with the warning on your talk page. I certainly said at the start that the dispute shouldn't even be mentioned. although I shifted just to be flexible. But I'm happy to go back to my original thought for the very reasons you stated. There are no independent reliable sources that back up Meltzer's claims, and until they are found everyone wanting the footnote now is fighting a losing battle. To use it is to give credence to Meltzer's opinion - which is against a basic WP tenet (what Wikipedia is not) - which can only be done with back up to prove it is notable (the only way an opinion could get past said basic tenet).

This whole thing has gone way past it's use by date TBH. !! Justa Punk !! 09:54, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here are the facts; 1) the IP208 inserted the text in December in addition to a note about WM25, TJ removed that. 2) after the IP refused to listen and stop reverting, and hopped an address, Justapunk started a discussion on WT:PW, with the aim of alerting other editors to the IP's actions. 3) the IP kept adding to the debate at WT:PW, causing some member of the project to agree to a footnote to try and put a stop to the IP's never ending comments. 4) the footnote was added, and removed on the 1st January and the debate shifted from if the footnote should be added to how much of the project was behind the addition. 5) Once the discussion had been shopped to a few admin boards JzG removed the footnote, citing lack of secondary sources. 6) The IP was topic banned from this page.

Did I miss any stages out? The truth is that the footnote was only proposed to try and end the discussion, once proposed (reluctantly it should be added by most) then the IP would not agree the wording, which forced some editors away from having the footnote. The debate then shifted to the consensus for a footnote, which again forced some editors away from the idea. The debate then jumped to Guy's posting on GCF's talk page, after Guy asked for more sources.

So allow me to try and wrap this up; I would be fine with the footnote if a source other that Wrestling Observer backed up Dave Metzler's number. Given that the source for the quote is "Meltzer, Dave, the Wrestling Observer, December 2009; June 2007" and thus provides no link (because of a pay wall) then the primary source is out. I didn't actually post anything at WT:PW until I thought I was seeing a primary source being given undue weight and a "consensus" forming around that idea, until that point I thought the project would robustly stop a breach of policy.

So in conclusion; would everyone agree that policy dictates leaving this out until there is a credible secondary source? Because if the answer is yes (from all but the IP, who I assume would disagree given the acres of discussion at WT:PW) then maybe the article can be moved down to semi-pp and the next time this happens the project will back up TJ and Punk rather than side with an obsessed IP. All in favour say "aye" Darrenhusted (talk) 10:33, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, exactly that. It's the point I've been making all along, as a complete outsider to the area of professional wrestling (my only other involvement with wrestling that I can recall was when we banned user JB196 some time back). We have no context for the figure, so we can't include it. If we have context and the context gives us some reliable indication of significance then we can. Absolutely standard Wikipedia practice: disputed content gets referred back to reliable independent secondary sources. And, as an aside, people who continue to argue from the primary sources without providing secondary sources very often get topic banned. Guy (Help!) 11:38, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is not a single policy or guideline to support the exlcusion of material. Until one is presented, I will not change my position. It is reliably sourced , verifiable material and must be added. GaryColemanFan (talk) 17:17, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Once again you have it the wrong way round. The onus is on you to justify inclusion of the disputed content by reference to policy and guidelines. Given that the content is of at least some significance, disputing what is claimed to be a record attendance, that means you must provide reliable independent sources discussing the dispute and the basis on which Meltzer makes his claim because despite your protestations Meltzer is not a reliable source for attendance figures at events as he does not have access to the necessary raw data (gate receipts and turnstile clicks). In all the argumentation from you I don't think I've seen a single reference to a reliable independent source discussing this issue. Now is the time to get round to doing that. Guy (Help!) 19:54, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, as Justa Punk stated above, a similar discussion has taken place at ANI in the past. I would remind Justa Punk, however, that the user left Wikipedia because he disagreed with the policies, not because of me. The discussion (see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive549#User:GaryColemanFan), in which all administrators agreed with me, established several things:

• Removing sourced content from an article is de facto vandalism.
• Issuing templated vandalism warnings, even to a long term user, is acceptable.
• WP:N applies to articles, not sources.
• Information with a single reliable source is appropriate for inclusion in Wikipedia.

Since, as Justa Punk points out, the discussion has already taken place, I suggest that we restore unlock this article, restore the correct version (with Meltzer's information), and move on. Alternatively, I would be fine with a small-text footnote of no more than eight words. GaryColemanFan (talk) 17:39, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not going to happen because it's not the "correct version". It's pretty plain that the only consensus was that everyone had had enough of the vexatious IP. See below for another data point, several editors above have clarified that they were mainly looking to shut the IP up, and you have yet to address the crucial question of how we are supposed to frame Meltzer's estimate correctly since we have only a primary source, in which he states the claim as fact, but we know from elsewhere that it's an estimate and we have no idea how accurate - that's why you need independent sources. The sort of thing an independent source will do is check his method of calculation, pour scorn on his use of five significant figures when it probably can't be justified beyond one, look at the uncertainties and tell us if the official figure is within the range of accuracy of his estimate and so on. As an outsider, this looks to me like a forum meme that refuses to die but nobody outside the forums takes in the least bit seriously. We know exactly how to cover that kind of content on Wikipedia: it goes in /dev/null. Guy (Help!) 20:02, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My old position is now my new position as I said before NO FOOTNOTE. This is because of no secondary sources, un-notable claim, opinion, also Deja Vu GFC I can't back up a position that is supported by repeated arguments, no good explainations, and someone who just won't listen.--C23 C23's talk 19:26, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

LOL @ Mr. "Give Zack Rider a Page" not being able to back up a position that is supported by repeated arguments, no good explanations, and someone who just won't listen! That's just funny! Wwehurricane1 (talk) 22:44, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is no Wikipedia guideline requiring secondary sources, the claim is notable because it is found in a reliable source, and there is no opinion involved. Of course I am not changing my arguments; to do so would be to argue that policies and guidelines are unimportant. Let's keep in mind that the big reason given by JzG was his complete lack of understanding of what the term "original research" means. To expand further, should the Reception section be taken out of all pay-per-view articles. How many secondary sources back up a statement such as "Greg Oliver of SLAM! Wrestling gave the event four stars out of a possible five."? Obviously none, but we include it anyway because it is part of the reception to the event, much like Meltzer's analysis of the attendance total. To spend this much time arguing about half a sentence of reliably sourced information is absurd and a huge waste of time, considering the actual violations of original research and verifiability out there. Get your priorities straight and get the reliably sourced, notable material back in the article. GaryColemanFan (talk) 19:57, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are this: wrong. WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV and WP:RS required reliable independent secondary sources. WP:SELFPUB allows use of primary sources as a shortcut for uncontentious information. this is not uncontentious information. Nor is this "reliably sourced" as Meltzer has no evident authority as a source of attendance figures. Guy (Help!) 20:03, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've read 'em all, and they just don't support your claim. Perhaps you need to spend more time reading the policies and guidelines and less time posturing because you think that length of time on Wikipedia means anything. This is most certainly uncontentious information. Do any of you, even for a second, doubt that Meltzer made the statement? That's all that is being source—Meltzer gave a different number. The very first policy you linked, WP:V, states exactly that. Wikipedia is about verifiability (reliable sources), not truth. Your pursuit of truth is a violation of NPOV. As for Meltzer's status as a cited authority on attendance figures, I suggest you do some research into the attendance for WrestleMania III, since his research there is heavily cited by reliable sources. GaryColemanFan (talk) 20:32, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You've got it the wrong way round yet again. You are the one making the claim, the onus is on you to demonstrate that your preferred text meets policy. What you're doing is combing policy looking for loopholes that will support your own interpretation (that this is a valid and significant estimate) but what you need to do is show that it's been covered in reliable independent secondary sources that will give us the context. You know, whether it's a serious claim or just an off-the-cuff comment, the margin of error, that sort of thing. Come back when you have the independent sources, but thanks for the belly laugh where you describe this as uncontentious. More than two years of battling over it rather says otherwise, don't you think? Guy (Help!) 20:45, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea how you (GCF) can take the statement "you need secondary sources" and turn it into "everyone else must trust Dave Metzler", you seem to be asking us to prove a negative; which is impossible. Forget the footnote, can you back up Metzler's figure, with a source other than WO? Metzler (much like most wrestling websites) is reliable for certain details, such as weights/heights/results of house shows/length of matches/winners and losers. When he takes information and does a sum to come up with a new figure may make him a math professor but it doesn't give his number any weight, and footnoting him will go against a whole slew of policies (not least of which would be UNDUE). Darrenhusted (talk) 22:29, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm starting to think you people can't possibly be serious and that a video camera is planted somewhere in my living room. There is almost no chance that this many people can type complete sentences but not understand the very first sentence in one of Wikipedia's core policies: "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." (emphasis in original). What that means is that, if I believe that a statement should be included, it must be published by a reliable source. According to WP:RS, a self-published source is acceptable as a reliable source if the author has previously had work published by other (reliable) publishers and is an expert in the given field. Meltzer meets both of these criteria, and is therefore a reliable source. As such, it follows that he meets the verifiability criteria and the threshold for inclusion. It's all there in the policies and guidelines, and you are free to double-check that if you don't believe me (in fact, I encourage it, since it would apparently be the first time reading them for some of you). To clarify further, I am not saying that everyone should believe Meltzer. I don't care if anyone believes him at all. That doesn't matter, however, since that would be the pursuit of truth, not verifiability. The only thing I am saying should be included is that Meltzer made the statement. I can't imagine that anyone would view that as contentious—including it in the article definitely doesn't mean that it's true. For example, WrestleMania III has multiple verfiable attendance figures; that obviously doesn't mean that they are all true, but truth has absolutely nothing to do with the issue. If people wish to state in the WrestleMania 23 article that it is an estimate, that's fine with me. Since it meets the verifiability criteria and, therefore, the threshold for inclusion, it must be included in some form, however, and nobody has yet quoted a policy or guideline that says otherwise. GaryColemanFan (talk) 23:18, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how many times we can say get a second source and it not sink in. Get a second source, I know Metzler is an RS for some things, not for this so get a second source. Stop trying to twist guidelines to your own views and get a second source. Don't talk about WMIII, talk about WM23 and get a second source, stop trying to tell me that I have to prove a negative and get a second source, do you think you could get a second source, I have some chips here with only one sauce on them can you find me a second source? I hear that the main source for Evian is running low can you please for the love of all that is holy (including my socks-holey, get it) get a second source? Do you think that you could? 'Cause then I really wouldn't be that bothered, but do you know what does bother me? Having no second source. Darrenhusted (talk) 23:52, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No need. It's already got a reliable source, which is sufficient to meet the threshold for inclusion per WP:V. You can't create a new threshold just because you don't like the source. GaryColemanFan (talk) 00:55, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just to go back to this for a moment - I would remind Justa Punk, however, that the user left Wikipedia because he disagreed with the policies, not because of me. (Gary from further up). This was the last comment from the user concerned;

• Right. That being the case, I hereby cease my activity completely as an editor of Wikipedia. This is due to the failure to properly protect users from arbitrary action.

Now who was responsible for the arbitrary action? The user started the section, and was clearly complaining about you, Gary. Now whether or not policy backed you up, you seemed to be the problem. It became a policy issue as well only because admins backed you up on that occasion. But was it just on policy? Probably. Did they review your conduct? I would suggest they didn't.

On topic, the reality is that Meltzer's figure should not be added because it is simply not notable. Reliability doesn't even come into it - that's why secondary sources are critical (along with what has been said by others). Just because Meltzer is seen as a reliable source doesn't automatically mean it should be added when so many reliable sources disagree and give Meltzer no coverage. There's no controversy because it hasn't been covered by reliable sources independent of Meltzer - so it fails the basic notability test. In order for it to be added, there must be evidence of a controversy. !! Justa Punk !! 00:59, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is no notability test. WP:N is clear that it applies to articles, not the content of the articles. WrestleMania 23 meets the criteria for notability, so that's as far as that goes. What you seem to be looking for is the threshold for inclusion in an article (which could be called "notability" for lack of an actual understanding of Wikipedia guidelines). The answer is publication in a reliable source (including self-published sources from experts in the subject area whose work has previously been published elsewhere). In other words, Meltzer's claim is sufficient for inclusion. GaryColemanFan (talk) 01:38, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it that Wrestlemania 3's article says the attendance for that event was in dispute, but this one can't. Upon checking the sources cited on Wrestlemania 3, it seems the source of that dispute is Meltzer himself. From the Slam Wrestling article cited:

The Wrestlemania III venture is in the Guinness World Record Book as 93,173, but some like David Meltzer of the Wrestling Observer question this number. Meltzer has written about number stretching in his newsletter and believed the crowd to be under 80,000." So there IS a precedent here. Wwehurricane1 (talk) 03:56, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To say "WMIII is disputed so this figure can be" ignore the passage of 20 years, and in that time Titan Sports became WWFE which became a publicly traded company which then became WWE. The reason they changed their name is the same reason that this figure is less likely to be worked, which is they can't afford for it to be worked. They could have sued the World Wide Fund for Nature, and twenty years ago Vince would have, because his company was his. Twenty years later and the actions of the company are publicly accountable, so Vince doesn't sue the "WWF" he just changes his company name.

Metzler's figure comes from number released by the WWE! He takes two numbers and comes up with a third. His methodology is flawed, and it all comes from WWE numbers. He takes the merchandise sales figure from previous PPVs then divides it by attendance to come up with an average spend, he then deduces that because WM23's total spend figure is 7% less than what would be expected that the attendance must be 7% less, with no explanation as to where the 5,400 extra people went. I'm guessing that at WMIII there were some fans who told Metzler that they were comped, but twenty years later he has to rely on maths. Darrenhusted (talk) 10:22, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]