Talk:Professional wrestling/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Athletic theatre?

@Czello: I don't like the use of "athletic" because that means sport. In fact, Wikipedia's own article on athletes says they are sportsmen. Pro wrestling pretends to be sport. Yes, there is a lot of physical stuff but it's not real fighting. Pro wrestlers are more like stuntmen. They're actors who do their own stunts.

Besides, do you know of any other kind of "athletic theatre"? Kurzon (talk) 19:27, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Athletic doesn't have to mean sport at all (per my definition above). Athletic just means being physically proficient. — Czello ^(music) 19:30, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Then dancing is also athletic. Kurzon (talk) 19:41, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

I would say that's an issue for the dancing article, but it does describe it as requiring athleticism, so yes - of course it is. — Czello ^(music) 19:44, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

I don't approve of you redefining words. Kurzon (talk) 19:51, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

I didn't redefine any words. I think you have a misconception that "athletic" is synonymous with "sport". Again, please see the definition I provided above. — Czello ^(music) 19:53, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Further sourcing [1][2][3][4] — Czello ^(music) 19:56, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

This is like how Vince McMahon calls his business "sporting entertainment". He doesn't want to pay sport taxes, but at the same time he doesn't want to let go of kayfabe. So you get silly stuff like that.

We have two weeks to argue this before I can do anything again. I do thank you for not doing massive reverts like RedWater14 did just because you disagree with a few lines. RedWater14 only started editing in April, his inexperience shows. Calling it "athletic theatre" for the time being is not a big deal for me. At least you didn’t delete my stuffs. Cheers. Kurzon (talk) 20:14, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Continuing this combative attitude is the best way to guarantee a further block or topic ban. GaryColemanFan (talk) 01:13, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

@GaryColemanFan: Why? I haven't reverted Czello's edit. I am talking it through with him. Kurzon (talk) 05:23, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

@Kurzon: Why would continuing with your combative attitude be a problem? First of all, it's got you blocked now. But a look through your block log shows that this is a pattern--you claim WP:OWNership of articles, engage in edit wars, shut down suggestions in a "my way or the highway" fashion, and make the editing more about your personal feelings than working together to build an encyclopedia. If you are WP:NOTHERE to work together, administrators will notice this and issue topic bans or an indefinite block. Just something to consider. GaryColemanFan (talk) 00:08, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

@Czello: I've read through the sources you linked and they all seem rather problematic. Contradictory writing in some places. I wonder if you carefully considered them. Kurzon (talk) 07:28, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Would you like to be more specific about the issues you think exist? — Czello ^(music) 07:42, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Let's start with https://www.thefightersgear.com/are-wrestlers-athletes/#:~:text=Furthermore%2C%20WWE%20wrestlers%20must%20adhere,although%20professional%20wrestling%20is%20fake.

"Furthermore, like other sports such as basketball or football, wrestling is an organized activity with rules and regulations designed to keep the competition fair among all participants. Thus, it can be seen that wrestlers possess the athletic qualities necessary to be classified as legitimate athletes by today’s standards."

Pro wrestling is not competition, it's all fixed matches.

"In conclusion, wrestlers should be considered athletes due to the physical and mental qualities necessary to compete in a sport. Professional wrestlers must also adhere to strict dietary and fitness regimens in order to stay in peak physical condition. Furthermore, anyone can become a successful wrestler with proper training and dedication regardless of their pre-existing athleticism. Therefore, wrestlers can be considered real athletes."

This is a non sequitur. It's also weird English. I wonder if this was written by an AI. Nowhere on this website can I find the names of the writers or where they're from. Kurzon (talk) 08:32, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

These are somewhat weak arguments. Disregarding their entire argument because of a quibble with their use of the word "competition" isn't how Wikipedia works; unless any kind of consensus can be found to say this source isn't reliable in general. — Czello ^(music) 08:38, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Well you're looking for a reliable, credible source. These sources don't feel reliable to me. Kurzon (talk) 09:39, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Let's go to some respectable dictionaries, why don't we? This is what the Oxford dictionary says about "athlete":

https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/athlete?q=athlete

"1 a person who competes in sports

2. (British English) a person who competes in sports such as running, jumping and throwing

3. ​a person who is good at sports and physical exercise

I don't think doing professional wrestling itself is what we'd consider "getting in shape". If anything, from what I hear, being a pro wrestler wrecks your body in the long run. I'm sure wrestlers do a lot of exercise to prepare for matches, but that's another thing.

Here's the Cambridge Dictionary's definitions:

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english-french/athlete

"1. a person who plays sports well

2. a person who is good at sport, especially running, jumping etc"

What do you say to that? Kurzon (talk) 09:46, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Dictionary definitions don't really overrule other independence sources. Furthermore one of your sources says and physical exercise, which would include wrestling. — Czello ^(music) 10:05, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Actually they do. Wikipedia wants editors to reliable sources. See WP:SOURCE. None of your sources seem particularly reliable to me. Kurzon (talk) 10:18, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Can you demonstrate why they are not reliable? — Czello ^(music) 10:20, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Some of them have no named author and are not from a verifiable organization, never mind an academic one. Kurzon (talk) 10:47, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Authors being named isn't mandatory (and the majority do mention their authors). I'm not sure what you mean by a "verifiable" organisation. Sources don't need to be academic to be reliable, either. Finally you'll notice the most recent source I've added is from the NYT, which is absolutely considered reliable. — Czello ^(music) 10:58, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Ok, let's go through your sources one by one

https://www.thefightersgear.com/ This website does not identify its authors. It just says that they are "two brothers" who are into martial arts. The website doesn't say where they're operating from. The English is sometimes odd. I wonder if they used ChatGPT to write this.

https://www.topendsports.com/sport/list/wrestling-professional.htm This website seems reasonably credible. The author names himself, and he as a PhD in sports science, with links to published papers. So let's look at what he says about pro wrestling:

"Ultimately, whether professional wrestling is considered a sport or not may depend on how one defines "sport" and what criteria you believe are necessary for an activity to be considered one. Professional wrestling does not fit our definition of a real sport. Although it is a physical activity, it is not a fair competition."

"Professional Wrestling is a style of wrestling and also a form of entertainment. It involves staged performances that blend elements of athletics, drama, and storytelling. It typically involves two or more performers (known as wrestlers) engaging in scripted matches that are designed to entertain audiences."

He says pro wrestling has "elements" of athletics, but that's not the same as athletics per se. And he refers to the wrestlers as performers, not athletes.

https://bleacherreport.com/articles/837282-wwe-debate-is-professional-wrestling-a-sport-theater-or-both

He doesn't address the definition of "athlete", which is what we're really after. Also, he is a little facetious at times, like when he says that there is competition in pro wrestling... but in the sense that wrestlers are competing with their fellow performers for popularity and career advancement. That's not the same as defeating your opponent in honest combat.

https://www.practicaladultinsights.com/what-is-professional-wrestling.htm

This website is not an academic website. The writer of this article identifies herself. She has a degree in journalism. Not quite as credible as Rob Wood's site but at least it's not suspicious. So I don't give her much credit when she calls pro wrestling a sport and the wrestlers athletes.

What do you say now? Kurzon (talk) 11:08, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

In the first instance, as previously mentioned the authors being named isn't a requirement for an RS. In the second link, blending elements of athletics still means that it is athletic in nature. He also says "Some people consider it to be a form of athletic entertainment". In the third link actually directly defends the status of wrestlers being athletes several times over. Taking issue with his tone is irrelevant. Finally in the fourth case, as I've said a source isn't _required_ to be academic. Finally, there are two additional sources I've added, again including the NYT. — Czello ^(music) 11:20, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

If not a named author, then at least an organization that is recognizable and credible, like Oxford University or the New York Times. You've given me only two sources I respect: one from Dr Rob Wood, and one from the New York Times. Kurzon (talk) 12:03, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Carbon is an element of life but that doesn't mean charcoal is alive. Kurzon (talk) 12:10, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

The problem with this analogy is that carbon itself isn't alive. Regardless, you've conceded there are at least two sources you're accepting, and further to that I don't feel you've adequately demonstrated why the other 4 should be dismissed. Even if some were removed, the description of "athletic" is well-enough sourced. In fact, at this point I'd say that there would need to be strong sourcing saying wrestling isn't athletic in nature. — Czello ^(music) 12:44, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Well I did give you two DICTIONARIES. You know those things that are all about precisely defining words? Produced by two big time universities? And what do you provide? Some random stuff you got off Google. Kurzon (talk) 13:59, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Sources that talk about wrestling precisely trump dictionary definitions that don't mention wrestling at all. — Czello ^(music) 14:07, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

CREDIBLE sources that discuss wrestling in depth might trump a dictionary, but you've only provided one that I really respect, an article written by a guy with a sports science degree. Kurzon (talk) 14:26, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

It was two sources you respected only a few comments ago (which alone is enough), and on top of that I've since added two more sources including an academic one. You've also not adequately addressed my defences of the remaining sources above. On top of all of that, I even pointed out where the dictionary definition actually supports the use of "athletic". That's even before we get to the fact that your use of dictionary sources hinge on the fact that wrestling isn't a sport - which is disputed (and indeed, some sources even say it is).

I'm not sure why you have such an WP:AXE to grind against pro wrestling being described in such a way, but by this point the term is more than well-sourced (and, if I'm being honest, it was WP:BLUESKY territory to begin with). I think it's time to drop this unless you can provide much better reasons why we shouldn't describe it as athletic. — Czello ^(music) 14:37, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Why don't you drop this? You're as stubborn as I am.

I looked at the dictionaries. Also Encyclopedia Britannica. Athletics is a type of sport. In British English it specifically means track-and-field stuff. It just made sense to me. Nobody thinks of Hollywood stuntmen as athletes. Nobody thinks of dancers on stage as athletes. Kurzon (talk) 14:54, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

You're talking about athletics as a sport which is not synonymous with athleticism. — Czello ^(music) 15:02, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Well then why isn't dancing athletic? Kurzon (talk) 15:04, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

I have already addressed this above (it's also beside the point). — Czello ^(music) 15:04, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

All that really matters is if reliable sources that are specific about the claim support it, and Czello has shown that they do. General dictionary definitions do not exclude professional wrestling - not without applying WP:OR. MrOllie (talk) 15:25, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

A reliable source is irrelevant here because Czello and I are working from two different definitions. I think the word "athletic" means sport, while he thinks it means anything that requires your body to be in top shape. Kurzon (talk) 18:12, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

How's this for a source? This is how New Jersey law defines professional wrestling: "New Jersey Statutes 5:2A-1 : "Professional wrestling" means an activity in which participants struggle hand-in-hand primarily for the purpose of providing entertainment to spectators rather than conducting a bona fide athletic contest." Kurzon (talk) 18:14, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

A reliable source is not 'irrelevant' because we follow the sources here, we do not work from our personal definitions. What you personally think athletic means is irrelevant. Your legal citation also does not actually contradict the provided secondary sources. MrOllie (talk) 18:22, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Well, if what I think "athletic" means is irrelevant, is that not true for Czello too? That's the heart of our debate. We're each looking for a source to define "athletic" in the way we want. I quoted two dictionaries which felt appropriate. As for that legal citation, New Jersey passed that law after Vince McMahon testified that pro wrestling is not a real athletic contest. McMahon is the boss of the WWE. Kurzon (talk) 18:31, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Czello has provided sources. You have not - the citations you have listed here do not actually support your argument, not without reading things into them which are not actually there, and such leaps of logic are disallowed per WP:NOR. Saying that something is not 'a real athletic contest' or not 'a bone fide athletic contest' does not necessarily mean it is not 'athletic' - it could simply not be a 'contest'. MrOllie (talk) 18:33, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Have you scrutinized Czello's sources? He seems to have just pulled random pages off Google. Only two of them come from credible source, and only one is a scholar. Kurzon (talk) 18:43, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes. I have read the discussion and examined all the sources. I still disagree with your position. MrOllie (talk) 18:45, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Here's another one:

"With the championship title now merely a prop to be exploited by promoters, and all vestiges of catch-style legitimacy forever gone, wrestlers such as [Gorgeous] George truly became entertainers, as opposed to athletes."

From Ringside by Scott Beekman, page 88. Kurzon (talk) 19:01, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Well, if what I think "athletic" means is irrelevant, is that not true for Czello too? There is more than one definition for that word, and I'm not sure why you're struggling to get that. You're talking about the sport of athletics. We're talking about athletic in regards to physical prowess. — Czello ^(music) 19:10, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

I have found an academic work called Performance and Professional Wrestling where the authors in several instances describe pro wrestling as athletic. Perhaps in a figurative sense, but whatever. Czello wins the debate. Kurzon (talk) 19:25, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

If you would be so kind as to use these references instead of the ones Czello used:

Broderick Chow (2017). "Muscle memory: Re-enacting the fin-de-siècle strongman in pro wrestling". In Chow et al. (2017). Performance and Professional Wrestling, p. 151: "While pro wrestling is a hugely athletic form, wrestling itself does not produce the sculpted bodies of wrestling's most famous body guys."

Jon Ezell (2017). "The dissipation of "heat": Changing role(s) of audience in professional wrestling in the United States". In Chow et al. (2017). Performance and Professional Wrestling, p. 10: "The small television screen, better suited for the close-up than the panorama, could effectively convey wresting's athleticism, drama, and personalities in the ring."

Kurzon (talk) 19:34, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for compromising on this, Kurzon - I appreciate it. I'll add these sources and remove some of the existing ones. — Czello ^(music) 19:48, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Done; I believe the ISBN/Publisher I've added is correct. — Czello ^(music) 20:10, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Get rid of the NYT reference. Journalists frequently don't know what they're talking about. Kurzon (talk) 20:42, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

WP:NYT considers it to be reliable. — Czello ^(music) 20:57, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

The ISBN for that book is listed in the Sources section, so there is no need to put it in the ref tag. Kurzon (talk) 18:20, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

[5] Sociology of Sport Journal: Specifically, professional wrestling's mandate is to excite audiences via contrived and hyper-violent athletic competition. starship.paint (exalt) 13:56, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

But is the adjective athletic even necessary? It feels superfluous. Besides, there is no other kind of "athletic theater" out there. Kurzon (talk) 11:06, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

I don't understand - you already agreed that "athletic" was appropriate to add? — Czello ^(music) 18:00, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

I agreed with you on its meaning, that debate is settled. Eh, it's just a matter of taste, I guess. I've never heard of "athletic theatre", it's not a genre that art scholars mention. Also, some other editor just decided that pro wrestlers are actual athletes, so I feel there's going to be a squabble over that now. I guess if pro wrestling is "athletic", then aren't wrestlers athletes? It's a bit misleading. I mean, to call it "athletic theatre" in the first place requires splitting hairs over what "athletic" means. Kurzon (talk) 19:22, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

@Czello: I removed the "athletic" adjective because it's a strange term, there is no genre of "athletic theatre" recognized in art studies. I don't know what it adds to the article. What are your thoughts? I agree the adjective is correct in the technical sense, but it's that it's an unconventional concept. Kurzon (talk) 17:16, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

The term at this point is very adequately sourced - ultimately wrestling is athletic. If your issue is with the phrase "athletic theatre", how about we change it to an athletic form of theatre? That way the term "athletic theatre" is avoided but the adjective is still present. — Czello ^(music) 17:43, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

I think of wrestlers as stuntmen. I never hear anybody describe stuntmen as athletic. Kurzon (talk) 17:57, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Well, it's very well sourced - and you even found some and agreed to it yourself. The fact that pro wrestling is athletic shouldn't really be in dispute. — Czello ^(music) 18:08, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

I have no objection to "athletic"--in fact, it seems rather obvious to me, and I don't really see the need for sourcing, besides the objections of one editor. Athletics, in the broad sense, seem to be at the heart of the performance. Drmies (talk) 18:13, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Since I am outvoted I will leave it in. Kurzon (talk) 18:36, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

adjective athletic even necessary? It feels superfluous ... huh?! How is "athletic" similar to "theatre" such that it is not worth a mention... Besides, there is no other kind of "athletic theater" out there ... well then that's exactly what makes pro wrestling special... why does it need to resemble anything else? starship.paint (exalt) 08:12, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

This whole article has become ridiculous

Mostly due to the fact of this editor "Kurzon" that has completely hijacked the article. It's very opinionated (adding the fact he prefers "authentic wrestling" over pro wrestling), too much fluff, irrelevant sections, using several words such as fake, authentic, etc, to diminish the medium. I'm surprised no Wiki admins have stepped in. It's clearly against Wikipedia's neutral point of view agenda. Everyone is aware of pro wrestling's scripted nature. Not every sentence needs to mention that, how other forms of wrestling are better, and comparing it to other forms. I'd like to hear people's thoughts on this. RedWater14 (talk) 14:58, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Not "the whole article", just my stuff, right? And what I write is factual. Also, it is still a work in progress, maybe I will lay off the fakery stuff a little. Kurzon (talk) 15:17, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

I was very surprised to learn that there had been additions like A professional wrestler is an actor and a stuntman but not an athlete, which appears to be a total (incorrect) opinion. — Czello ^(music) 15:20, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, that's total bullshit. Some professional wrestlers are actors, some are stuntmen, and some are athletes. Some are all three, some are none. Avoiding kayfabe is obviously paramount, and this article has long been in need of improvement. Overcorrecting seems to have ended us in this place, which at times is worse off from where we started.LM2000 (talk) 16:05, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Yeah.. Kurzon is prone to disregarding the input of other editors and taking their own opinions as fact. Back in April, Kurzon completely neglected the standard practice of coming to a general consensus on the talk page over a debated edit — opting to see their own opinion of the matter as the only one that mattered and executing edits prior to the conclusion of the talk page discussion. When asked why this was being done, I was informed by them that they know what they’re doing and they have conducted private research on the matter (which is not only not permitted in editing as per the standard set by Wikipedia, but they couldn’t even tell anyone what this “private research” consisted of.)

Anywayyy.. completely unrelated, but there is an article in need of some fine tuning and I think Kurzon would do a fantastic job:

Narcissistic personality disorder

cheers! 4theloveofallthings (talk) 10:40, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

I have reported Kurzon for their behavior over at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. 4theloveofallthings (talk) 10:55, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Is 4theloveofallthings another sock of RedWater14? I am getting a little weirded out at times by this. I am not perfect but you seriously weird me out with your hostility. Kurzon (talk) 13:15, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

You are absolutely right! You definitely are not perfect. 4theloveofallthings (talk) 19:59, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

And no. Feel free to check that.

Someone wrote on my talk page about the Theater/Theatre edit debate and reminded me of it and upon re-reading it I noticed this section and couldn’t help but find your edits yet again lacking consensus and general tact.

That is my personal opinion. You take care now. 4theloveofallthings (talk) 20:03, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

I looked up the definition of "athletics" and it requires competition. I figured that pro wrestlers are really stuntmen. Also, I still remember lots of editors trying to define wrestling as "sporting theater" or "athletic entertainment" so I threw in that line to remind everyone why those definitions are bullshit

Also, I don't like the accusation that I am "hijacking" this article. I am simply the only editor in a long time to do serious work on it. If I committed a few excesses, you're welcome to comment on them. Kurzon (talk) 16:45, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

The definition I've found for athlete is a person who is proficient in sports and other forms of physical exercise. which is accurate. Regardless, for us to say they're not athletes would need very strong sourcing. — Czello ^(music) 17:05, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Pro wrestling is not a sport because it is not competition. It simulates combat, which makes pro wrestlers akin to movie stuntmen. And "exercise" doesn't mean sport, otherwise dancers would be athletes too. Kurzon (talk) 17:38, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

That is irrelevant to other major issues. Like how you keep bringing up the term "professional" has some form of "misnomer" that the medium is called professional wrestling and other forms of wrestling are not. The term doesn't come from skill level, but whether you were paid. Pro wrestlers were always paid for their matches, whereas amateurs were not, that's why it's called pro wrestling. It has zero to do with skills or abilities. Also there are many wrestling matchtypes with armed combat, so the whole medium doesn't represent unarmed combat, as you state in the first line. I don't think the term "mock combat" is the best way to represent the medium, as "mockery" can be interpreted as not a flattering way to represent wrestling. The part of kayfabe is brought up in the lead, the rest of the article shouldn't then need to constantly bring up its scripted nature. It's like if in the Avengers movie article or an aricle about the Harry Potter play I kept saying "... did this but it's fake as in authentic..." ... it's not consistent.

I understand it can be complicated as there is nothing like pro wrestling in the world. It's both sport and entertainment, and often the line is blurred so you can't completely compare it to full theater productions or any sport. Honestly, if you keep up the charade, I will bring in Wikipedia admins on this page. This article has unfortunately always been a mess but it's only gotten worse. And it's unfortunate as pro wrestling has a long, rich, and WELL documented history so I don't know how it hasn't been properly documented as other sports, narratives, or other wrestling articles. It should be locked from editing from non verified/non extended accounts as well possibly, to prevent this kind of editing. RedWater14 (talk) 18:05, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Read the section above for understanding. I believe this article is in serious trouble and needs attention as soon as possible. Thank you. RedWater14 (talk) 18:12, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Read the definition again: it says "and other forms of physical exercise". — Czello ^(music) 20:29, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Sport

1. an athletic activity requiring skill or physical prowess and often of a competitive nature, as racing, baseball, tennis, golf, bowling, wrestling, boxing, hunting, fishing, etc.

— Sport Definition - Dictionary.com

Czello, did someone forget to tell Kurzon that being a Wikipedia editor doesn’t include “rewrite the dictionary” in the job description? Haha. 4theloveofallthings (talk) 00:55, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Amateur wrestling and real wrestling are effectively synonyms in America because real wrestling is not played in a professional context. I explained this in a section you deleted. It's not the "professional" part that bugs me, it's the "wrestling" part. A lot of pro "wrestlers" don't even know how to do real wrestling, Hulk Hogan being a case in point. Kurzon (talk) 18:38, 16 June 2023 (UTC) RedWater14 is not being constructive. I'm the first editor in ages who is attempting to improve this article, and RedWater14 does nothing but revert my edits instead of collaborating on them. Would he rather I vanish and let this article rot for some more years? Let me have a go at it, there's nothing wrong with mistakes along the way. Wikipedia is a perpetual work-in-progress. Kurzon (talk) 18:41, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

What you just said just perfect illustrates my point. It's your opinion and you have a bias to it. It has been called pro wrestling since it's inception and Wikipedia is based on factual, neutral and sourced evidence, not what you think about a subject. Many people don't like soccer and even call that a "fake sport." People even claim that the UFC is rigged and scripted. Does that change the fact of it's nature? No. You've just clearly stated your bias. I will be showing the admins this, thank you. RedWater14 (talk) 19:17, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

• Admins do not settle content disputes. If you have a grievance with another users' behavior, that may be brought to WP:ANI(though be aware your own behavior will be examined as well) Content disputes should be resolved with discussion, or if that fails, dispute resolution processes. 331dot (talk) 19:22, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

  Yes, I have a filed a dispute in the appropriate place now. Thank you. RedWater14 (talk) 19:23, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

What the heck is "athletic theater" anyway? Kurzon (talk) 19:27, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Oh, and to repeat this again, "mock combat" doesn't mean a mockery of combat, it means fake but without intention to deceive. When I was in school they made us do mock exams to prepare us for the real thing.Kurzon (talk) 20:47, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Don't make any more revisions, we'll wait for an admin decision. RedWater14 (talk) 22:00, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Admin decision on what? That I am a prick? Building consensus is our job as editors, not the admins, and you don't want to engage with me on this Talk Page, nor constructively help out with my edits. Kurzon (talk) 21:23, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with me doing more work while we wait for the bureaucracy to respond. Kurzon (talk) 09:06, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

I also think I should explain what I'm doing with the article, now that other people are paying attention. The From sport to performance art describes why pro wrestlers went from being legit prizefighters to exhibition fighters, and how the public, the press, and the law reacted to it. The Style section describes how pro wrestling's "style" of fighting went from catch-as-catch-can wrestling to the modern theatrical form. The Cartels section describes the rise and evolution of the promotion cartels and why they eventually collapsed in the face of McMahon's WWE. Kurzon (talk) 13:26, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Theatre vs Theater Spelling

Oknazevad brought up a good point when revising my edit on Theatre regarding the spelling of the word ‘theatre’/‘theater’ and I wanted to make a section here in case anyone had any input. The short description of the article uses the spelling ‘theatre’ yet the article used the spelling ‘theater’. I switched the article spelling to be ‘theatre’ and cited my beliefs regarding the spelling, however as Oknazevad brought to my attention when reverting my Theatre edit, there are reliable publications that use the two interchangeably. So spelling preference to the side, I kept the spelling ‘theatre’ in the article for uniformity as it was not matching the spelling that was used in the short description. If anyone has any opinions on this, or strongly believes that the short description should be changed to ‘theater’ instead — please! Share your thoughts.

Thank you! 4theloveofallthings (talk) 05:41, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

I prefer "theater" Kurzon (talk) 07:12, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Per MOS:COMMONALITY, the most common spelling should be used, which according to MOS:S is "theatre" — Czello ^(music) 08:15, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm indifferent about the spelling, as it doesn't actually make a difference either way. There was a mention that the words have different meanings, but it's actally a British vs. American English thing. Both words refer to the art form and the location. There should be consistency, using either -er for both or -re for both. GaryColemanFan (talk) 15:32, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

I agree that consistency is all that truly matters at the end of the day. But so long as the debate seems to have some heat behind it, figured might as well just decide on one. I’m personally gonna have to agree with Czello and say that it remain ‘Theatre’ - 4theloveofallthings (talk) 21:38, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

The population of the US is more than that of Canada, New Zealand, Australia, UK, and Ireland combined. Therefore "theater" is the most common spelling by number of people using that spelling. Kurzon (talk) 18:13, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

I don't think we go off population, we go off number of regions as laid out at MOS:S. This logic would mean we always use American spellings, which we don't. — Czello ^(music) 10:07, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

I couldn’t agree more with this right here. Absolutely. I found the population argument to be weak justification but it seems as though despite the ongoing discussion, Kurzon took the liberty of changing the spelling in the article and short description to ‘theater’ anyway.

I have now been reverted twice for my edit so I can’t really do much about that I suppose. I just found it to be in bad taste. 4theloveofallthings (talk) 13:23, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

The problem with regions is that you can cut up the world into any arbitrary number of regions. Like, how about we divide the UK into Wales and Scotland and England and Northern Ireland? Three additional regions right there. And then we can cut the US into fifty states.

Also, this article is about an American art form. Kurzon (talk) 13:59, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Pro wrestling is not exclusively American nor the domain of it. America has its own form, this is about a broader subject. Ultimately MOS:S details the regional varieties of English that Wikipedia has in its MOS, where "Theatre" is the most common. — Czello ^(music) 14:01, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Where in the rules does it say we must go by number of regions? Kurzon (talk) 16:38, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Where does it say we go by population? Also given that the US uses both "theater" and "theatre", with no specific breakdown on how much of the population accepts the former, I can't see why we would go for "theater". It's disproportionately American-centric. — Czello ^(music) 18:29, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

And even still, despite it not being exclusively American, the origin really are irrelevant anyway. The origin of the subject should not affect how the article is written. Otherwise, why aren’t articles in English Wikipedia about Mandarin not written in Mandarin? Why are articles about the Eiffel Tower not written in French? 4theloveofallthings (talk) 20:18, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

A tradition of combining wrestling and showmanship may originate in the early 1800s in Western Europe, Britain and Ireland, when showmen presented wrestlers under names such as ""Herculean" Flower" and "Edward, the steel eater", "Gustave d'Avignon, the bone wrecker", or "Bonnet, the ox of the low Alps" and would wrestle one another and challenge members of the public to attempt to knock them down or wrestle them for money.


The modern style of professional wrestling, popularized by the United States and United Kingdom during the late 19th century, is called the catch-as-catch can style. Originally thought of as unorthodox and more lax in style, catch wrestling differs from Greco-Roman in its allowed grapples; Greco-Roman strictly prohibits grabbing below the waist, while catch wrestling allows holds above and below the waist, including leg grips. Both catch wrestling and Greco-Roman were popular, and fully competitive, amateur and professional sports. But, from the late 19th century onwards, a sub-section of catch wrestling changed slowly into the choreographed sport entertainment now known as "professional wrestling", recognized as much for its theatrical antics and entertainment as wrestling ability.

— History of professional wrestling #Origin

4theloveofallthings (talk) 20:14, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm doing my own research into professional wrestling and it seems that pro wrestling is a quintessentially American invention, so American spelling feels more appropriate. And I've already pointed out that population is a more appropriate measure of "commonality" than region because you can subdivide regions into any arbitrary number of smaller regions. I think more people in the world use the spelling "theater" than "theatre". Kurzon (talk) 20:19, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Would you share your findings that brought you to this conclusion? I’d be curious to read what made you come to the conclusion that professional wrestling is a quintessentially American invention. Also, again, it’s the English Wikipedia not American Wikipedia. It makes no sense to do that based on what you have concluded in your own private research. Would that not go against the nature of Wikipedia entirely? 4theloveofallthings (talk) 20:22, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

@4theloveofallthings: The book I'm studying is Ringside by Prof. Scott Beekman, which as far as a I can tell is the only history book on pro wrestling written by an academic. He writes that theatrical wrestling developed in America after the civil war, when wrestlers discovered that they could make their matches more entertaining if they rigged them. Beekman makes no mention of British wrestling except to trace the origins of catch wrestling. Catch wrestling may have been invented in Britain and Ireland, but it was the Americans who turned it into theatre. Kurzon (talk) 08:03, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

None of that matters. The controlling aspect is WP:RETAIN. We don't change the variety of English used without justification like strong national ties. There are no such ties here. Whether or not professional wrestling as a performance art originated in the US is irrelevant, as it's practiced worldwide.

And the claim that the "-re" and "-er" spellings have different meanings in American English (the art form and the venue, respectively) is incorrect. It's a sadly increasing misconception among young Americans (they must be getting misinformed in schools) but it's plainly not true. Fun fact, of the 41 Tony Award-eligible Broadway venues, 38 of them use the "theatre" spelling in their name. Only 2 use "theater" and Studio 54 doesn't use the word at all. Oh, and the country's largest cinema chain is AMC Theatres. No live performance there at all.

All this is to say, the -er spelling is getting put back, because it was the existing variety and needs to be retained. oknazevad (talk) 12:06, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

But by you just saying that the National tie holds no value, you only strengthened the argument to keep it as ‘re’. I already agreed with you (as stated in my initial post in this discussion) that the use of it regarding different meanings of the word is irrelevant to the discussion. All that was relevant was the fact that the short description used ‘re’ and the article used ‘er’. Given it was a debated topic, I appropriately started a discussion about it here on the talk page and Czello was the only one to bring logic to the discussion based on the terms set by Wikipedia regarding regional usage. I apologize for my candid statement right here, but I feel like this slipped into an ego match and the inability to admit that my edit was appropriate and warranted.

That being said, I am done debating the topic. You can do as you please. I just don’t think it does much to respect the spirit of Wikipedia.

Regards 4theloveofallthings (talk) 04:15, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Ego fight? Wow, you think our sense of self-worth hinges on something so petty? Kurzon (talk) 06:55, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

No. I couldn’t possibly know that, as I do not know you. I said it felt as though that was what was happening — as I am fairly new to editing on Wikipedia. I should have perhaps not used that wording, as the last thing I intend to do is start an argument. I apologize. 4theloveofallthings (talk) 08:53, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

The point is the article body already used the -er spelling, and has since long before short descriptions were introduced, so that should be left in. The short description was the one that was incorrect in using the -re spelling. oknazevad (talk) 03:26, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

I do want to point out on my departure however that it does not sit well with me that the purpose of starting a discussion about the topic was to come to a consensus — yet when the opinions were split 50/50 on the issue — for whatever reason — you declared your opinion more valid than mine and Czello’s.

As stated before, I think it was pretty distasteful and goes against the spirit of Wikipedia.. however, what is my opinion anyway when matched against the valor of yours, oh mighty Oknazevad? /LH

LOL.

Take it easy. 4theloveofallthings (talk) 10:24, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Because Wikipedia-wide guidelines should be followed unless there is a particularly good reason to ignore them. Especially when the whole point of the WP:ENGVAR guideline is to prevent needlessly long discussions on every article talk page exactly like this one. It's not me being "mighty", it's me being experienced and informed. I've just been here a very long time. Possibly longer than you've been alive; registered my username 19 years ago in August and was already using the site before registering. (I feel old.) oknazevad (talk) 12:05, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

The point is the article body already used the -er spelling, and has since long before short descriptions were introduced, so that should be left in. The short description was the one that was incorrect in using the -re spelling.

   -Oknazevad

Hrmmm…
I searched at length for this point you seem to have just clarified beautifully right there but failed to locate it. Perhaps I’m just a misinformed young American.

That makes total sense to me. Case closed.

You have a good day now!

Best, 4theloveofallthings (talk) 10:06, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Honestly I am OK with "theatre" but I don't want us to go with that based on unsound arguments. Kurzon (talk) 12:42, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Kurzon, Oknazevad, Czello:

Not to open an old wound.. but..

American Ballet Theatre

American Broadcasting-Paramount Theatres

American Film Theatre

American Airlines Theatre (great examples of how 'Theatre' the art form and 'Theater' is the place.)

American Theatre Wing

Long Wharf Theatre

Queens Theatre in the Park

CIBC Theatre

History of theatre 4theloveofallthings (talk) 09:21, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

While I do prefer "theatre" for the reasons I illustrated previously, Oknazevad is correct that the relevant policy is WP:RETAIN (not one I agree with as I find it to be somewhat arbitrary, but hey). — Czello ^(music) 13:21, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

"Theatre" and "theater" are both acceptable spellings. Just leave it alone. oknazevad (talk) 15:34, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

It’s Kurzon and the reverting of all edits to this article as if it were theirs that irks me most.

3,202 editors have edited this article.

and 45% of the article’s content is written by Kurzon

as noted below, when edits are being barred and reverted on the basis of things like “a sport is required to be competitive” and yet the literal dictionary begs to differ… it makes you question how much of this article is just made up of Kurzon’s own opinions. I mean look no further than above when their own personal research that they couldn’t even reference was used as a source.

When the article that this is taking place on is the most important in it’s WikiProject and the article is visited by a gigantic amount of traffic, I think it would be a bit absurd not to question Kurzon’s actions like seems to be the go-to approach to his disregard for the standards of Wikipedia.

So I agree with the person below this section. This article is ridiculous.

All the best! 4theloveofallthings (talk) 23:12, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

And because I dared call attention to it, I was baselessly accused of sock puppetry. It’s not only distributive behavior, it’s harmful behavior. 4theloveofallthings (talk) 23:16, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

“Conceit”

I found the following fragment potentially confusing: conceit being that the performers are competitive wrestlers. I would suggest that “conceit” is replaced by a more common, simple term. starship.paint (exalt) 16:06, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

@Starship.paint, you're on Wikipedia, so you know you can tweak and edit articles if something doesn't make sense or to make it sound better. If "conceit" is not the proper word, change it. A fundamental is to "be bold." Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 21:42, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Essay?

@GaryColemanFan: How is this article too opinionated? Point out the problematic bits. Kurzon (talk) 10:10, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

It's already been explained to you numerous times, but you dismiss everyone's concerns. Your WP:OWNership of the article is problematic, as you have turned it into a screed instead of an article. GaryColemanFan (talk) 02:06, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Not helpful. Kurzon (talk) 03:21, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

@Kurzon, sounds like you're against constructive feedback. Saying "not helpful" is standoffish. You don't need to be defensive. You asked and he answered, IF you don't like what people say in response, don't ask. Plus, all articles are not about what you think. They are WP:NPOV. You know this. It's one of the fundamentals of Wikipedia. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 21:47, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

So what exactly is this, then?

[6]
Would particularly like a reply from Kurzon given the direction of recent edits. Romomusicfan (talk) 12:38, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Catch wrestling. We have a separate article on it. MrOllie (talk) 12:44, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

But it's in a ring just like pro wrestling with three count pinfalls and submissions and all the same rules as pro wrestling (at least old school Euro pro, what with the rounds) and of course Billy Robinson was a professional wrestler, through and through, Wigan shooter though he was.

I think there should be some acknowledgement in the article that it is at least possible to do pro-style wrestling as a legit sport.

Perhaps with a mention of this tournament and the rules Robinson Karl Gotch drew up for such competition as reprinted in Johnathan Snowden's book "Shooters The Toughest Men in Pro Wrestling" Jake Shannon"s book"Say Uncle! Catch-as-Catch-Can" ECW Press 2011, p201(source alert! ) Romomusicfan (talk) 12:51, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Apologies, wrong book cited. Corrected as per above with full cite details.Romomusicfan (talk) 19:20, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Catch wrestling is a real sport. Professional wrestling is not a sport, it's theater. In fact, I think "professional wrestling" should be called "theatrical wrestling" instead, but the fans love kayfabe too much. Your arguments are specious. I do not understand why so many people insist on defending pro wrestling as a sport. There's nothing wrong with it being theater. Our job as Wikipedia editors is to tell the truth. Kurzon (talk) 13:25, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Professional wrestling is named as such because typically it's easier/more common to make a profession in the scripted version of wrestling than in amateur/catch/Olympic wrestling, where wrestlers perform less regularly, in less profitable environments, to a much smaller audience. It's not because of kayfabe, as the vast majority of fans are aware of its scripted nature. — Czello ^(music) 19:29, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

If it is feasible to have catch wrestling competition with all the rules and trappings of professional wrestling, then professional- style wrestling is at least a potential legitimate sport. I would propose an acknowledgement of this in the text along these lines:

It is nonetheless feasible to have catch wrestling competition with all the rules and trappings of professional wrestling (roped elevated quadrilateral ring, submission and three count pinfall as equal goals, etc). A rules system for such competition was devised by professional wrestling champion and catch wrestling coach Karl Gotch for fellow catch wrestler Jake Shannon's "King of Catch" tournaments and similar rules were employed for a 2018 tournament in memory of another professional wrestling champion and catch wrestling coach Billy Robinson.

I think this would help address the neutrality concerns flagged in the banner on the article and some of the concerns raised by users above.Romomusicfan (talk) 19:44, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

This is a different thing. If you want to add more material about modern competition at Catch wrestling that would be helpful, but this article is the wrong place. MrOllie (talk) 19:50, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

If it is still physically possible - and has been attempted by qualified persons - in this day and age to hold a pro wrestling Shoot then it has relevance to the article. Romomusicfan (talk) 19:56, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Shoots are so rare in pro wrestling as to be insignificant. Furthermore, in many states pro wrestling is legally defined as non-sport. And when I watch pro wrestling, I see them pull stunts that could only happen if the wrestlers cooperate.

Saying that it can be attempted as a shoot is like saying that a movie gunfight could in theory be done for real. Technically true, hot relevant. Kurzon (talk) 04:31, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

So what is the difference - if any? - between Jacobs-Hammer (2018 - clip posted at the top of this thread) and old time pro wrestling public shooting matches such as, say, Gotch-Hackenshmidt I (1908), Stecher-Caddock II (1920) or even Wladek Zbyszko-Fred Grubmier (circa 1920s)? Romomusicfan (talk) 08:01, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Glossary of professional wrestling terms

Almost all of the links to that article don't automatically go to the specific term. 143.44.196.159 (talk) 10:54, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Notable People

Is it just me or some other people but i think rey mysterio should be in this catorgory anyone else agree? 206.168.50.221 (talk) 18:45, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

scripted athletic exhibition

scripted athletic exhibition is better and desribes it better so dont change it until you comment here with why it should be changed then change it then ill see it so i determine if i should revert it or not Tupac Shakur Thug Life 4Life (talk) 22:59, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Please see the other plentiful discussions around this wording above — Czello ^(music) 23:03, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

i see it but i personally dont agree if we could sit and talk on this subject you could tell me why theater describes it better then scripted athletic exhibition (i will not change it until we are done talking if i change it at all Tupac Shakur Thug Life 4Life (talk) 23:20, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

and now im only gonna change it to get your attention in about 5 mins but im only gonna do it to get your attention no disrespect Tupac Shakur Thug Life 4Life (talk) 23:23, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Making the same change will not work. You need to get people to agree, here on the talk page. Repeating the same edits will just get you blocked. MrOllie (talk) 23:25, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

ok but can we still talk on why theater is better wording to describe pro wrestling then scripted athletic exhibition any one can reply Tupac Shakur Thug Life 4Life (talk) 23:27, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

It's supported by reliable sourcing, which is how Wikipedia works. We don't form wording on our own opinion, but on what other sources say. Also I'd advise you not to change it to get people's attention, it's considered disruptive — Czello ^(music) 23:37, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

im sorry i just started and i really wanna know why theatre is better wording then scripted athletic exhibition im sorry ive only made 10 edits im sorry im depressed and i just wanna end it im sorry im stupid im sorry im an idiot im sorry. Tupac Shakur Thug Life 4Life (talk) 23:43, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

It's fine. I'd just advise you to read WP:RS and WP:CONSENSUS. We've arrived at the current wording after long discussions around what the sources say, which is athletic theatre. — Czello ^(music) 23:59, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

ok ill leave it Tupac Shakur Thug Life 4Life (talk) 00:17, 18 November 2023 (UTC)