# Talk:Gail Kim

This review is transcluded from Talk:Gail Kim/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Wizardman Operation Big Bear 17:26, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
I'll review this article tonight. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 17:26, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much! I haven't had a GA review in a while and my free time changes from day to day, so all issues I will try to take care of as soon as possible.--WillC 04:23, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
No problem. Here are the issues:

"She debuted in December 2000, wearing a mask and wrestling as "The Queen of the Cats" La Felina in the Southern Ontario-based Apocalypse Wrestling Federation and was eventually unmasked by Tracy Brooks in a "Mask versus Hair" match" too much of a run-on; split the sentences.
"there she successfully retain the title" retained.
"early-2010" I'm pretty sure that dash isn't needed.
'which was won by the later." latter
Just a couple things. Article will be put on hold and passed when the issues are fixed. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 14:47, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

All fixed hopefully. Thanks for the review!--WillC 18:29, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Looks good, so the article passes. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 01:03, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

The "assaults" mentioned in the article bring up a question:  How does Wikipedia distinguish between the (sorry, wrestling fans) obviously scripted events called "assaults" and actual real-world assaults?  There's no discussion of police and legal action re these "assaults," which tells me that the fiction of wrestling is being discussed as if it were reality.  Derrick Chapman 22:30, 25 August 2012 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Derrickchapman (talk • contribs)  

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Gail Kim's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "WWE":
From Samoa Joe: "Samoa Joe". WWE.
From Eve Torres: "Eve". World Wrestling Entertainment. Retrieved April 23, 2010.
From Heath Slater: "Heath Slater Bio". WWE.
From Rhino (wrestler): http://www.wwe.com/superstars/rhyno
From Daniel Bryan: "Daniel Bryan bio". WWE. Retrieved June 15, 2012.
From Kia Stevens: "WWE profile". WWE. Retrieved 4 May 2011.
From D-Von Dudley: "WWE.com gets extreme with D-Von Dudley". World Wrestling Entertainment. Retrieved 2014-05-27.
From Rosa Mendes: "Smackdown Results: Deliberating the dilemma". WWE. June 3, 2011. Retrieved June 8, 2011.
From Ken Shamrock: "Ken Shamrock". WWE. Retrieved 2015-07-27.
From WWE Diva: "Update: New 'Total Divas' cast members revealed!". WWE. October 20, 2014. Retrieved October 20, 2014.
From Bubba Ray Dudley: "Bubba Ray Dudley". WWE. Retrieved December 24, 2015.
From A.J. Styles: "AJ Styles". WWE. Retrieved 28 January 2016.
From Ladder match: "Inside WWE > Specialty Matches". WWE. Retrieved 2007-07-17.
From David Sahadi: "Kevin Dunn". World Wrestling Entertainment. Retrieved May 21, 2007.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 19:31, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Please stop changing the maneuver's type to "stomp facebreaker". The move is specifically called an "inverted stomp facebreaker" because it is done in a reversed fashion, as oppose to actually stomping on one's face, and this is well-documented. This also means stop changing the name of the move that's in between the hash tag and the vertical bar to this, as this is vandalism of the move's name tagged with the "professional wrestling throws" page. Thank you. AjaKongfan  —Preceding undated comment added 01:30, 10 October 2016 (UTC) 

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Gail Kim. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.gerweck.net/gailkiminterview.htm
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110629141708/http://www.wrestleview.com/viewnews.php?id=1262642978 to http://www.wrestleview.com/viewnews.php?id=1262642978
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110629141712/http://www.wrestleview.com/viewnews.php?id=1266731519 to http://www.wrestleview.com/viewnews.php?id=1266731519
Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.wrestleview.com/viewnews.php?id=1325229097
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:02, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Gail Kim. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121006084123/http://www.impactwrestling.com/roster/Wrestler-Roster/item/3071-Gail-Kim to http://www.impactwrestling.com/roster/Wrestler-Roster/item/3071-Gail-Kim
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:49, 10 October 2017 (UTC)


### Gail Kim
Article (edit | visual edit | history) ·  Article talk (edit | history) ·  Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
 Result: Kept Assault no longer in article and no other instances of in universe examples highlighted. Note I removed a poor sentence from the lead here.[1] AIRcorn (talk) 04:59, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
The "assaults" mentioned in the article bring up a question: How does Wikipedia distinguish between the (sorry, wrestling fans) obviously scripted events called "assaults" and actual real-world assaults? There's no discussion of police and legal action re these "assaults," which tells me that the fiction of wrestling is being discussed as if it were reality. (this is an old comment posted in 2012 to Talk:Gail_Kim#Untitled, without reply)
In addition, is it a good idea to describe outcomes of scripted play as winning? "where she won the WWE Women's Championship in her first match" For me it seems like writing in Ian McKellen article "was fighting against Christopher Lee during War of the Ring" (instead of something like "He achieved worldwide fame for his notable film roles, which include Magneto in the X-Men films and Gandalf in The Lord of the Rings") 
Note, this nomination was triggered by nominating traslation of this article to our equivalent to GA - https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Propozycje_do_Dobrych_Artyku%C5%82%C3%B3w/Gail_Kim Unfortunately I have extremely limited knowledge about acting so I am not qualified to fix this.
AFAIK the "assault" thing may be also a WP:BLP issue
Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 09:27, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

I agree with this very much. I've also been seriously annoyed by all the mentions of wrestlers as "competitors" as well, they're not, they're performers. "Won the title for the first time" should be replaced with "held the title for the first time". Wrestlers much like actors can recieve real awards and acomplishments for their performances, but the titles and tournaments should not be described as some of them. If it was up to me there would be a split in the accomplishment section that diferencitated between so called "kayfabe" wins and genuine victories.★Trekker (talk) 09:42, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
I see no problems. A lot of articles are written just like this, like CM Punk or Shelton Benjamin. Also, every sources includes "she won" not "the bookers gave her the title". About the assaults, we say "legit".  --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 16:43, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
I don't like it. It seems like some nonsense. These are real people portraying characters or personas, not necessarily the characters themselves. Which by the way generally shouldn't be describe with "in universe" terms either.★Trekker (talk) 18:39, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
I agree that the word "assault" should not be used since these pre-planned and choreographed show business stunts are not actual criminal activity. "Assault" should only be used when a person has been convicted of assault in a court of law. It is not Wikipedia's role to maintain the illusions of professional wrestling, or to describe wrestlers from an "in universe" perspective. If other articles share the same problems, those articles should be changed as well. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 22:56, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
A quick google search returns the definition of assault as "make a physical attack on" which goes entirely along with what is actually being described. So far the comments left show a bit of a lack of understanding of what professional wrestling even is. There is this weird idea of what has been promoted entirely by World Wrestling Entertainment. That is a marketing scheme produced by that organization that is in no way the entirety of the wrestling industry. Outside of WWE, companies take more of a physical approach with the song and dance. They promote the individuals exactly as competitors. New Japan Pro Wrestling and Ring of Honor are more focused on treating the wrestlers as competitors, the victories exactly as a sports victory, etc. Is it pre-planned? Yes. Is it choreographed? Not always. Throughout wrestling history there are countless matches that never had a single spot planned. Sometimes they don't even have a planned finish. Such cases as Ric Flair defending the NWA World Heavyweight Championship outside of the states. With the finish not being the finish planned. Then comes the Montreal Screwjob which is an instance where the planned finish didn't occur but instead something entirely different happened. But overall, the issue with the word assault is hollow. What is happening is a wrestler is coming out an either hitting someone with a chair, slamming someone to the ground, through a table, or some other physical action. Which falls entirely in line with the definition of the word. Your perceived view regarding the definition isn't the definition. I must remind that the definition doesn't say anything about criminal activity. That is actually moreso criminal and tort law, which has its own list of definitions. I could give you the code for the Decennial Digest in order for you to be more familiar with that area. Now as for the competitor issue, may I remind that professional wrestling started as legitimate contests with actual competitors and that the individuals who are cited as "performers" (despite that being a WWE marketing scheme) sometimes are legitimately competing for better standing in the company, on the card, and with the audience and the primary point of a match is to actually appear as competitors and not as performers. Most wrestlers are closer to athletes than actors. In fact, several of them compete across a number of sports such as weight lifting, MMA, boxing, Olympic and Amateur wrestling, etc. The issue here is this talk of in universe which if anyone was familiar with the project would know that we went for years working on that exact issue. To the point that we had hundreds and yes I mean hundreds of discussions on the project page, on talk pages, in GA reviews, FA reviews, peer reviews, etc. that included project members, non-members, and administrators across the vast expanse that is Wikipedia. I helped write this very article with another editor who was very seasoned and knew exactly what they were doing with trying to not have this article be in universe from the very beginning. So far, I don't see any legitimate grievance other than not liking the word assault and competitor be used exactly as they are designed.--WillC 07:33, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
The word "Assault" isn't something you usually see in Pro Wrestling, unless someone is being charged with Assault, or it's the name of a move, show or gimmick. However, in the context of the article, it says that "(The Bellas) caught Bryan kissing Kim backstage, they assaulted Kim, starting a feud with her". The source says: "After the break, Brie and Nikki are still fighting over Bryan in the back. They enter his locker room only to find him making out with Gail Kim. He tells the twins that Gail is his girl and they have been together for six months. Gail tells the twins Daniel felt sorry for them since they haven't had anything to do since there are no more guest stars. Nikki calls Kim an afterthought, and Kim slaps her. Chaos ensues, and officials quickly run in to restore order." Which actually suggests that they may have verbally assaulted Kim, but this could be re-written to be more accurate. The next instance of the word is the next sentence, where it says "On January 30 at the Royal Rumble, the Bella Twins once again assaulted Kim" The source says: "(Bryan) is cut off when the Bellas interrupt and they want to apologize for Monday. After some backhanded compliments toward Bryan and Gail Kim, all heck breaks loose. Officials finally regain some sense of decorum." I'm ok with this being referred to as an assault. The word can be used to mean a backstage attack; but it's usually referred to as something else (say, attack, or beat down).  The final use of the word is with "On March 10 at Lockdown, Kim unsuccessfully challenged Sky for her Knockouts Championship, after being assaulted by referee Taryn Terrell, who Kim slapped during the match." - You could say this is also fine, Taryn Terrell did attack Kim (Which would be assault had it not been in character), with a slap.  For those uneducated as to the inner workings of professional wrestling, there are other ways to describe something as being "real", to it being "staged". The words "legit" and "kayfabe" are used, as are "shoot" and "work". I'm not a fan of the word Assualt in professional wrestling, but it does get used especially by fans and people who write up results, to mean an attack, or one-sided attack. Hope this helps Lee Vilenski(talk) 09:01, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
In the end most of this does not change the fact that a lot of wrestlers articles are seemingly written in an "in universe" perspective.★Trekker (talk) 18:58, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
" Also, every sources includes "she won" not "the bookers gave her the title"" - I would expect sources maintaining Kayfabe to be with "an apparent conflict of interest" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Questionable_sources Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 20:32, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
Sadly, covering wrestling as if it was an actual sport is all too common, even if it's common knowledge to pretty much everyone that it's 100% staged.★Trekker (talk) 23:56, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
Yes, because the lifting of human beings, the flying across rings, the falling onto concrete, etc. is all done with CGI and wires. The people in the audience are from the matrix. Everything is 100% staged. Nothing is real and everything is permitted. This needs to be closed because it is obvious the only reason this was brought up was because of individuals who have no idea what they are talking about and obvious did absolutely zero research. They just don't like that words are being used inline with their actual definition. So far this has went as "A: I don't like it." "B: Well let me show you how that doesn't matter." "A: I still don't like it." "B: That doesn't matter because of facts and evidence." Present an actual issue. It is written in universe. Because we used the word assault to mean exactly what it does? Still waiting on something substantial.--WillC 06:48, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
I have no idea whatsoever what you just wrote was meant to accomplish or what you even want. Do you agree with any of the points in here or are you just complaining about something? Wikipedia rejects the use of "in universe" writing so that shit can't stay.★Trekker (talk) 00:18, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
In-Universe is one thing Wikipedia pushes against; however, due to the unique nature of professional wrestling, it's hard to miss. If you were being totally anal; every championship win on every topic should read 'X was awarded this championship', rather than won; however external media also says that they won, and keeps kayfabe; so we should be going with what the sources say. Lee Vilenski(talk) 15:35, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
I would prefer to be totally anal, honestly.★Trekker (talk) 23:26, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
Pro wrestling is most definitely not an exception to the rule that Wikipedia does not allow "in universe" prose writing, and every trace of that should be removed from every pro wrestling article. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 23:54, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
I've long supported removing in-universe material. There does come a point where we end up overdoing this though and the end result is just as insulting to readers as trying to pass off the fictional material as totally legitimate. Here's a New York Times article on Jinder Mahal's rise. It's written like our articles should be because it makes it clear where the lines between kayfabe and reality are. But it still uses phrases like "[Mahal] won the championship at a pay-per-view in May called Backlash" and "Mahal will fight a rising star named Shinsuke Nakamura." Everyone who reads this article, even those who never heard of professional wrestling before, can tell Mahal and Nakamura aren't going to "fight" Fraser and Ali style. I don't think, even in the world of wrestling lingo, that there's a word for "choreographed fight" and repeatedly stating that every match is pre-determined is counter productive. The article also gives some background on the process Mahal went through to "win" his championship. In the past I've compared it to winning any other award; bookers ultimately select a champion to represent their company.LM2000 (talk) 09:47, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
In that case, we shouldn't even use their ring names as the title. This article includes Jinder Mahal as a character performed by Mr Dhesi. As you said, the article includes words like "won" or "fight", so it's a blur line. To me, is nearly imposible since the huge amount of articles and a lot of FA and GA. Also, 90% of the sources writes in-universe. Should we include in every match "the match is scripted"? Turn "Kim held the title for four weeks, successfully defending it once against Molly Holly, before losing it to Holly on the July 28 episode of Raw" into "Gail Kim held the title for four weeks. She had a scripted fight against Molly, but the bookers decided Kim had a sucsefull defende. However, the bookers take her title on July 28 episode of RAW, giving to Holly in a scripted match"? --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 17:59, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
If The New York Times (which isn't exactly WrestleZone) is writing about wrestling in an entirely out of universe style and still using words like "fight" and "won" then so should we. The examples you gave above are exactly counter productive wording I was talking about. For the record, I don't have any major issue with the way Gail Kim is written.LM2000 (talk) 19:09, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
We should follow rules and guidelines. The New York Times may be a reliable source but it's not an encyclopedia. The authors choice to use wrestling terminology because it's simpler shouldn't affect what we do.★Trekker (talk) 19:31, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
Not really sure what you mean with the naming, considering how often articles have to be moved because a new company decides they want to rename the performer maybe simply using their real names more often would be better, but not always. Their different characters that a wrestler portrays are "personas" much like a performance artist or rapper can have several personas that they embody from time to time. Sometimes specific personas in wrestling have be used by more than one performer. If we look at it from a purely non-inuniverse perspective it can be like a comic book character transfering from superhero identity to another, which happens often in DC Comics. Naming should be done based on what the readers would be most likely to search for, in other words the "common name". I don't have a problem with getting a bit more creative with the descriptions of how the titles are transfered. Your proposed alternative is deliberately forced. Pro wrestling is not too special to be exempt from being held within wikipeida guidlines. Just because news articles choose to use wrestling lingo because it's easier or flows quicker in the text doens't mean we should.★Trekker (talk) 19:31, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
Encyclopedia Britannica's entry on Dwayne Johnson talks about him "capturing" championships, and even "losing" one to John Cena in a "bout". At the end of the day, we have to report what the sources say, and from what I can tell all of them use terminology like this. As described in WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, we just follow what they say and we don't lead the charge. Inventing new ways to describe things would be WP:OR. When there's background information on the booking decisions on championship wins (as in Verne Gagne's Brittanica page), we should include it. Otherwise, saying Kim won the belt in her debut, lost it less than a month later, and was gone from the company a little over a year later tells us everything we need to know about her tenure.LM2000 (talk) 10:10, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
If you say so, it's obvious that I'm being outnumbered by now. I'm giving up on this shitshow. How emberesing that so many supposedly relibale sources indulge in such piss poor writing.★Trekker (talk) 22:28, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
So I'm just going to point out once again. Editor A will show that the article has achieved at passing the guidelines posed by the in universe policy in a reasonable fashion that sources even attest too. Editor B will whine that it is in universe and never provide a single source of reference for their claim. And we repeat and repeat because someone is ignorant to how wrestling articles are even written or to the history of how the articles are written. And this discussion just keeps going and going and going with no good end result. Lets make it simple. A national publication that is designed to be written to garner the largest audience possible is writing their articles in the exact same fashion as we do. The articles thus passes the in universe policy. We have proof we are writing the articles to fit all readers. This thing needs to be closed. I'm going to put in a request at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure for closure because the only legitimate grievance is the in universe issue and that was just legitimately fixed and addressed. I may not be an uninvolved editor, but someone else needs to be involved in this farce.--WillC 07:05, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

I don't have to provide a single goddamn fucking source because it's blatantly obvious for anyone litterate with eyes and a functioning brain and I'm going by wikipedia own freaking guidelines, which apparently the wrestling project seems to think they're above becuase all wrestling journmalism is lazy and behind the times and because it would take to much effort to fix. I'm done with this insessant nowhere disscussion. There's hundreds of IPs and new editors all the time who come by regularly to complain about this shit, they don't get why it says "won" or some shit like that (tip it's becuse it shouldn't say that). I'm amazed a single wrestling article has been allowed to pass "good" standard by anone from outside the project.★Trekker (talk) 22:28, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
There is an WP:INUNIVERSE guideline, and we should follow it to the best of our ability. Actual policies like WP:RS and WP:OR are more important though and when all RS (even those beyond industry specific, including New York Times and Encyclopedia Brittanica) are using a certain style then we need to follow their lead. The chief complaint here was use of the word "assault", which could have been misconstrued as a legal issue. "Assault" no longer appears in the article so it is best that we close this now.LM2000 (talk) 01:48, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
So I'm going to point out the obvious here. Trekker just outright stated he doesn't have to prove the article fails a policy because he doesn't like it. We now have proof this whole thing is a farce. Simply put, Trekker doesn't like wrestling being given any respect. Does an individual win a championship? Yeah, they do. Just like a person wins a scholarship for writing an article. They were chosen for a position by a group of people over other people. They won something. Just Trekker is upset it wasn't a physical contest, instead it is a popularity contest. No, they didn't just pass good standards. They've passed featured standards. I have 2 that passed featured standards myself. I have several that were featured on the main page of the entire website. I bet that really annoys you Trekker.--WillC 08:03, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
- I am unsure as to who exactly instigated the good assessment review for this article, so tagging @*Treker:, and Mateusz Konieczny. Is there any update on this review? Should this be re-assessed again, failed, passed or similar? GA reviews are not generally arguments as above, and there has been no update in 3 months. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 10:35, 12 March 2018 (UTC)