Talk:WWE Backlash/Archive 1

2007?

Where was it confirmed where Backlash 2007 would take place? Please people, it is 13 months away, can we hold off on this. Jman5 06:23, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

• The WWE has confirmed all PPV dates and locations until Backlash 2007. Adamaniac 16:52, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

God's First Match

This should be interesting - I wonder how God's finisher works? Adamaniac 17:33, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I have changed "Shawn Michaels & God" to "Shawn Michaels "& God" " as you can't really take that match anouncement seriously on this site. Though I do think the idea is great!!! Matt

Wouldn't it be awesome (and controversial) to have a guy dressed like God actually help? By the way, "Matt", why do you sign your posts like that? Why don't you use four tildes? 70.111.220.145 22:34, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Because I have no idea what they are lol.. and no it wouldn't be 'awesome' to have someone dressed as God come down and help HBK... but yeah it would be controversial but only because it's such a dumb idea... even WCW wouldn't have been dumb enough to do that! Oh and for those IWC members who are calling HBK a hypocrite because he said he would never compromise his faith in an angle and yet he's participating in this one: This angle isn't compromising his beliefs at all!!!! If anything it's supporting them... (lastly, Kurt Angle saying he 'would want to make Jesus tap out' at NYR also wasn't a compromise for HBK as he was only making a point about the fans loving him no matter what awful things he said... Only retards and members of the IWC would think he was meaning those things he said...) Matt

Maybe JBL "the Wrestling God" will come out. I wonder if Christians will order the PPV just to see God? Maybe a viewing party at a church. Perry 01:48, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

2004 Attendence

13,00? Thats bs i have the dvd and i can clearly hear J.R. say "over 20,00 on hand for Backlash".User:Killswitch Engage

cleanup needed

The list in this article is totally haphazard. It should get a disambiguation page for some of it, and the rest should be canned, due to irrelevance or red links of arbitrary wording. Amber388 18:24, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Is this the right title for this?

I was expecting another article entirely when I linked this article from Gconf-editor. Maybe its time to set up a disambiguation page? Krik 23:49, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

There should also be mention of the films named Backlash. There are at least two

Backlash 2002 - Jeff Hardy v Brock Lesnar

The article states that the match was stopped after Jeff had taken the F5 three times. This is incorrect. The match was stopped after three powerbombs, not F5s as is written in the text. --HDC7777 13:15, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Looks like you are right [1]. TJ Spyke 01:32, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

poster

User:TOHASBO deleted an image and wrote: "Do not add poster until confirmed by wwe.com". I don't know anything about this article, but I converted that message into a comment that is seen only in the wikitext. --Coppertwig 00:52, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

this is the 2007 poster link: http://www.warned.net/WWEBacklash2007PPVPoster.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.50.132.71 (talk • contribs)

Is warned.net a WWE site? No, it's just another rumor site. TJ Spyke 06:23, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

The poster looks petty legit though I don't know much about identifying fake posters. Is that Edge in the fake? Killswitch Engage 05:35, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

It looks like Edge. There is just no proof that it is real. We have seen good fakes, last year there was a very real looking poster for One Night Stand that ended up being fake. TJ Spyke 05:37, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

How in the living hell can you call the thing fake. Does it look fake????

Image:Backlash07.jpg Davnel03 16:57, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

For one thing, yes, it does look fake, considering there's nothing at all about copyrights or anything like that. And, considering this did not come from WWE.com, we will regard it as fake until it does appear on WWE.com. Anakinjmt 19:36, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Has the poster been authenticated, cuase it shouldn't be on the page till it is. Killswitch Engage 23:25, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Just how solid is the source where the poster was taken from? Answer me that, and I won't take it out. Anakinjmt 18:01, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

It's on the In Demand website (which is far more reliable than a rumor site like warned.net or PWMania): [2]. Whether that is the final one or not, who knows. TJ Spyke 01:03, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Punjabi Prison Match

I have a source thats given me information about a match at backlash 2007. It will be Kane VS. The great Khali in a Punjabi Prison Match. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.96.123.70 (talk • contribs) 00:43, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, right. Your "source" was probably reading some BS rumor on a rumor site. No RUMORED matches, and such insertions will be reverted as vandalism, I am sick of people ignoring the warnings on the page. TJ Spyke 00:49, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Edge as champion?

At wrestlemania edge will win money in the bank and cash it in later after michaels wins. This could be why edge is on the backlash poster. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.210.99.4 (talk • contribs)

Or it could be that he is one of the top stars on Raw. ~~User:Wrestlinglover420~~

Yeahhh Edge sure did win that MITB match just before Michaels' stunning victory. Bah GAWD what a slobberknocker Kiiiing! Suriel1981 03:40, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Don't forget the technical showcase Kane/Khali put on Batista ending Undertakers streak in 30 seconds. :) TJ Spyke 03:47, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Triple Treat match?

someone put there that it will be cena vs michaels vs ortan at backlash with edge as the ref. it doesn't say anything about this on wwe.com is it true? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 210.50.133.180 (talk) 09:57, 4 April 2007 (UTC).

Part of the problem with PPV articles is that some people will put up matches which haven't yet been created (usually because they've read speculation on a fansite or forum). WikiProject Professional wrestling's policy is that unless a match has been confirmed on WWE television OR www.WWE.com then we do not add it to the article.

I apologise for the confusion, we try to delete unofficial information as speedily as possible but sometimes it evades us for a short period of time. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak_Sign 13:31, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

lock it noW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

lock the page now because vandalism will go throooooooooooo the roof because of up coming raw's, sd's and ecw's 60.225.114.108 07:43, 5 April 2007 (UTC) J.T/

Well I am all for it, WP says that protection can not be used as a preventive measure (so the page has to be vandalized). TJ Spyke 08:12, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Seeing as the page was just recently unprotected (after over a month of protection) and seeing as there's been relatively little vandalism since the unprotection, I'd rather not protect it just yet. I do have the article watchlisted and will protect if the vandalism does go "throooooooooooo the roof"; alternatively you can also request protection. AmiDaniel (talk) 09:35, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Kennedy/Finlay

not an announced match so i have deleted it. this page needs to be locked so this doesnt happen again Cradle666 16:47, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

3 brands?

why are all three brands listed in the 07 ppv?isnt it just RAW?Spongemaster0 21:49, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

WWE announced a couple of weeks ago that all of their PPV's will now feature every brand (so there are no more brand exclusive PPV's). TJ Spyke 21:51, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

oh ok thanksSpongemaster0`

Match Order

It is stated in the code of the article that WP:PW's policy is to place matches in the order they are announced until such time as the PPV has taken place. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 06:10, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Fatal Four-Way?

I thought the ECW Title Match was announced as being Four-Way, can anyone confirm or deny it?

MDowdal 13:25, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

WWE.com has it as a 3-on-1 Handicap match here. The way McMahon said it made it sound like a 4-way dance to me too. Bmg916^Speak_Sign 14:17, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Vince must have mispoke on RAW because he did say Lashley vs. Umaga vs. Shane vs. Vince (meaning Fatal Four-Way). TJ Spyke 22:33, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

backlash 06

in 2006 wasnt there matt strikers classroom shouldnt that be added. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 60.225.112.217 (talk) 04:28, 11 April 2007 (UTC).

Stuff like that usually isn't listed in minor PPV's. TJ Spyke 04:29, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Just a thought

hey dont you reckon you should make one page for all the ppv's of the year for eg all the 2007 ppv's are on 1 page all 2006 on another i think it would look neater and look more appealing. this also gives more information of feuds from other ppvs leading up to the current one and you now something easier and different. 60.225.113.176 02:17, 13 April 2007 (UTC)oJa

I kinda like that idea.Freebird Jackson 20:26, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I can't say I agree, but if you want to discuss this point, you'd be better off doing so at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling than here. Jeff Silvers 21:20, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I think the current system is best (organized by event). If someone does want to look at all the PPVs in a year, there is the PPV chronology (where it has the previous event and the next event). TJ Spyke 03:06, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Randy Orton's Suspension

About That Fatal Four Way match up for the WWE Championship...is Randy Orton still competing? he got suspended for Unprofessional Conduct and people say that he's not going to Backlash...J.C. 17:36, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

According to WWE.com, he's still listed in the Fatal Four Way. So as of now, yes.68.165.90.178 19:21, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

He didn't get "suspended" (at least according to wwe.com, which just says "WWE has taken action against Randy Orton for unprofessional conduct."). Besides, he still competed on TV last summer when he was "suspended" (he just couldn't compete on house shows and lost the pay he would have gotten for them). TJ Spyke 06:51, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

2007 Backlash

for the 3 on 1 handicap match, shouldnt it be Lashley V.S. Umaga & The McMahons? After all on Television, thats how its portrayed and The Mcmahons have their own stable page.

Yea I guess so but put in parentheses next to it Vince and Shane so people will know their individual pages. Derrty2033 00:58, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

"The McMahons" isn't their official name, and it isn't what WWE is calling them in the match ads (on TV or WWE.com). TJ Spyke 06:54, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

2007 WWE Title Match

WWE.com says it's a 4-way match. Not a Fatal-4-Way. So, this could mean it is elimination style. Shouldn't it be reflected in the article that it's a 4-Way Match. GamerZX101 21:04, 11 April 2007 (UTC) contribs) 11:15, 11 April 2007 (UTC).

That's a good point. I've altered the wording to reflect that. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 13:34, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Even if it's elimination, wouldn't it just be a Fatal 4-way Elimination match? Anakinjmt 15:25, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

They have different definitions according to our Match Type article. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 15:26, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

And yet, WM 2000 states the main event as a Fatal 4-way elimination match. If the match at Backlash is the same thing, shouldn't it be called Fatal 4-way elimination match? Anakinjmt 15:34, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

According to our definitions List of professional wrestling match types#Multi-competitor match variations the term "Fatal 4-way" on it's own refers to a non-elimination match. There's also the issue that WWE themselves say it's a "4-way" match which I think we should go by at this time. The main issue was the link on the page directed specifically to non-elimation style which hasn't yet been cpnfirmed. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 15:44, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, it makes sense just to call it a Fatal 4-way for now. What I'm saying is, if it ends up being elimination, wouldn't we just call it a Fatal 4-way Elimination Match? Anakinjmt 18:08, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I reckon so ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 18:17, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

"Fatal Four Way" is the official WWE name for a four person match, see here, like "Triple Threat" is used instead of calling it a 3-way match. Armageddon 2004 and last year's No Mercy had Fatal Four Way matches. --Maestro25 19:26, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

No, its the official name for a 4-Way match with the first man who scores a pinfall or submission is declared the winner. A 4-Man elimination match is 100% different. GamerZX101 21:04, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

It's the same thing. The only difference is that an elimination match has "Elimination" at the end. "Fatal Four-Way match" and "Fatal Four-Way Elimination match" are the correct terms (why is everyone here writing 4-way instead of four-way?). TJ Spyke 21:09, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Hey, Gamer is the one that first said Fatal 4-way. Besides, it's fewer character to type. Anakinjmt 21:16, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Also I'm feeling lazy and can't be arsed to type "four" on the discussion page. Ahh crap, I've just noticed I linked the match to "non-elimination" anyway, negating the point of my doing it. Isn't there an internal link for "matches with 4 people that may or may not be elimination"? ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 21:59, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Usually when they say four-way, they mean the regular fatal four-way. If they change the match later, we can change the link at the time. TJ Spyke 22:08, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Yup. They would probably have made a big deal on the show if it was going to be elimination. Ah well, it seemed like a good idea! ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 22:16, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Well if it is an elimination match then WWE calls it Four Corners Elimination match i guess?! If it is a fatal 4 way then it's first pin fall/submission takes it all.--Friver 07:41, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

It's definitely going to be non-elimination - see WWE.com 3 Count [3] stating that the first fall wins. Holypeanut 16:09, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

DEUCE AND DOMINO

Where does it say this match is happening? WWE.com hasn't mentioned it, and although i can see what you mean through the Power 25.Its hasn't become a 'official' match. So whats the deal. Who screwed up? Us or them?

• thats the reason why i removed it. i thought these pages go by 'official announcing'. seeing as results shouldnt be put on these pages until it has happened or is put on wwe.com, i dont think this match should be added until its on wwe.com Cradle666 10:39, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Only place it says anything about it is on the Power 25. So i think it should still be removed because it is back up. If it was on the page for Backlash then i could understand that. But it is not. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.80.187.222 (talk) 16:44, 29 April 2007 (UTC).

The match is on wwe.com, it's official. Removing it will be considered vandalism from this point on since a source is provided. TJ Spyke 19:16, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Where on WWE.com has it been announced?? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ryd2603 (talk • contribs) 20:45, 29 April 2007 (UTC).

Click on the link provided next to the match. That's why I put the source there. TJ Spyke 22:02, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, so much for this. Besides, where exactly on the P25 were you looking? The only hint I saw was "Can London and Kendrick reclaim their titles?" That's it. Doesn't say "at Backlash", just "can they do it." P25 doesn't count as being announced. Anakinjmt 01:34, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

It did say that, they must have changed it a few hours ago. Also, yes it does count as being announced (for future reference). TJ Spyke 01:47, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I would say not, since it changed. Not to mention, it was never added to the official PPV page. But, w/e. Anakinjmt 01:52, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

It does count. What probably happened is that they planned on doing the match but realized they wouldn't have enough time for the match. TJ Spyke 01:54, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

However, take into consideration that there wasn't a news article announcing the match, wasn't announced on TV, and didn't show up on the PPV web page. And, the P25 is done by The Academy of Wrestling Arts & Sciences, which is not an official source for matches. Yes, it was on WWE.com, but considering the only hint of it was on the P25, which isn't done by official WWE.com reporters, the argument at best for it being a reliable sources is fairly shaky. Not that it matters, just some things to think about. I'm not saying they were never planning on doing the match; I'm just saying as far as verifiability, it's pretty shaky ground. I hope you can at least agree on that. Again, I don't really care, as it's not going to happen, just trying to give you some things to think about. Anakinjmt 02:07, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

You do realize that "The Academy of Wrestling Arts & Sciences" isn't actually real? It's something wwe.com uses to make the rankings sound more impressive. I agree that it's all a moot point now since the match isn't happening, so it could have just been scrapped. TJ Spyke 02:09, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Even if that's the case, it's still pretty shaky ground. Anakinjmt 11:41, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Historic PPV?

Is this not the first WWE PPV ever to have a title belt on the line in every single match? 12.41.14.138

Probably (at least the televise matches, Carlito/Nitro had no title), not worth noting though. TJ Spyke 20:46, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

do they aways have linked pay per views now..

so the brands all have the same pay-per views to share? that would be great. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.212.163.43 (talk) 18:31, 1 May 2007 (UTC).

Yes, there are no more brand exclusive PPV's. TJ Spyke 21:04, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Incorrect Time

the batista vs undertaker match was indeed 20.30 but there was also 54 miliseconds that you did not include that makes the match 20.31 in length —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.50.133.224 (talk • contribs)

The Undertaker

just a thought, should it be mentioned the undertaker injured his arm in the match, thus resulting in him to possibly be out for 8 months, or should we wait untill he is definatly out??? Cradle666 16:00, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

That injury hasn't been confirmed yet, so yeah we should wait. TJ Spyke 22:34, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

BACKLASH 2007 made History(there shuld be a TRIVIA PAGE 4 IT)

baacklash 2007

had the most title matches is the first time the u.s titile is defended at a backlash ppv the backlash wit the most title matches first ppv with all titile matches

shuldnt there be a trivia page for this and if u can add more...PLEZE RESPONDNosaints4life 01:22, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Trivia sections are usually not added to multi-PPV pages like this (at least until the PPV is done and no more will happen). TJ Spyke 01:25, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Backlash 07 Uni-brand

Okay, so why isn't uni-brand notable? "Starting with Backlash® on April 29, WWE fans will see all their favorite Superstars on every pay-per-view. This is a change from 2005 and 2006, when only four of WWE’s 16 pay-per-views featured talent from more than one WWE brand." Direct quote. So if it wasn't the first like both I and the WWE say, what was it? Remember, more useful information is better.Projectmayhem44 04:02, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it was the first considering that the announcement was before WM, but I made a note of it anyways (at the top of the page). TJ Spyke 04:10, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Alright, compromise, even though I'm not quite sure why you don't think it was the first or why you keep including WM, which was one of the four that was always multi brand. WWE themselves said (I believe on more than one occasion) that uni-brand pay-per-views ended on April 29th. Announcement date does not matter, its when it goes into effect. Projectmayhem44 04:14, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I know what WWE said, but i'm just saying that technically it wasn't the first PPV after they stopped doing brand-exclusive PPVs. TJ Spyke 04:19, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

But it sounds like you mean WM23, which is before brand-exclusive ended. You could announce the iPhone, but that doesn't mean its even finished on its announcement date. If you don't mean WM, I'd like to know which.Projectmayhem44 04:22, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

'07 Main Event Finish

There are some IPs adding the circumstances under which Cena pinned Orton (that being falling on him after being superkicked). I recall a previous consensus that it wasn't notable. I know we never note things like after-match happenings and the exact match finishes as they happen often enough. This circumstance seems different to me. It's not often a match ends with the winner kayfabe unconscious. Anyone reading this article will have no clue as to the specifics. I believe (and this is just my opinion) that in this case, it's notable. Gavyn Sykes 22:29, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

There's been other case where somebody did a move and another wrestler got the pin. I still think there isn't anything worth noting here. TJ Spyke 23:39, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

All the more reason to expand the articles ala December to Dismember (2006) so we can just say what happened without having to argue over squeezing the finish into one line of text. Mshake3 23:41, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

What "compromise"?

How is the current version a compromise? It was already agreed months ago to just mention the spear, so how is going back to this version a compromise? If no one objects, I will change it back to the agreed version in a couple of hours. TJ Spyke 01:30, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

It has more complete information, first of all. Secondly, there was a minor edit war going on (cough) over the sweet chin music portion of the finish, so forming this new bullet seemed like the appropriate thing to do. I don't see any possible way to say that it shouldn't be this way. The fact that it was agreed "months ago" even drives home my point, as consensus can change, and the fact that there was an edit war over this shows that it probably did. The Hybrid 02:25, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Part of the reason we had the old one was because we just list the finishing move, which was Edge's Spear. It's also more concise. Fine, whatever. TJ Spyke 02:34, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, you do have to admit that this had a very complex finish, as both wrestlers involved in the finish were hit with finishers rather than just one. If you don't like this and want to discuss it, then feel free. This is meant to be a compromise, not something that's forced on the people who edit this article. Cheers, The Hybrid 02:37, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I do admit that this was not a normal ending (I just don't want this to lead to people adding the last 3 or 4 moves to a match ending rather than the current format). As long as that doesn't happen, I can accept this. TJ Spyke 02:45, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

That shouldn't be a problem, as in almost any other situation the last 3-4 moves would count as cruft. Peace, The Hybrid 02:47, 28 September 2007 (UTC)