Talk:WrestleMania III/Archive 1

message: I have first hand email correspondance with Dave Meltzer regarding the Zane Bresloff figures. How can I use this as evidence or proof to mention the disputed figures?
This is the paragraph I want to include and I have verified this information with Dave Meltzer...
The attendance figure of 93,173 is widely disputed thanks in part to pro wrestling journalist Dave Meltzer. Meltzer reportedly had conversations with WrestleMania III promotor Zane Bresloff in which Bresloff provided Meltzer with a faxed copy of the attendance statements from the Silverdome itself. According to Meltzer the actual attendance was roughly 78,000 with 75,500 paid. Although the attendance figures differed, the gate figures reported were accurate.
Please advise. - JimmyTrump79 22:59, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That would be considered original research. A reliable site would have to publish it. Also, it would have to be verified that Bresloff was the promoter, and maybe a copy of that fax. TJ Spyke 23:01, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed - as described, it can't be included, period. See no original research, or have a look at reliable sources for some suggestions on what sources would make it acceptable. | Mr. Darcy talk 03:34, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Anything coming from Meltzer can't be onsidered reliable since he's vehmently anti-McMahon! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.96.220.195 (talk) 00:31, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

text: By that logic, anything coming from McMahon can't be considered reliable since he's vehmently pro-McMahon. (152.21.32.160 01:23, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

text: What's absurd is people wanting to add unreliable info. What proof does Meltzer add (IF he ever said that, which would need to be sourced as well). TJ Spyke 07:31, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What is undoubted is that the attendance figure is disputed (e.g. this discussion) so surely it doesn't do any harm to acknowledge that. For example I, (without reading the talkpage, a fact I'm regretting as I type) added a trivia note with two references from FightingSpirit and PWInsider (both of whom charge subs and more newssite than fansite). Nothing breaching Wikipedia policies about that. Suriel1981 05:28, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The intro of the article already acknowledges that the attendance record is disputed. The attendance number that Meltzer thinks it really was varies all the time. Some times he says it was actually 80,000 and sometimes he says it was 70,000. The number people think it actually was is OR and quite frankly really not notable.-- bulletproof 3:16 05:39, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe that in fact Meltzer is consistant, rather it is second-hand repetition of his story which varies significantly. However, The Hybrid's logic has convinced me so I'm dropping out at this point. Suriel1981 06:10, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Meltzer has been consistent with the number. He has always said, since he discovered the number, that it was actually 78,000 with 75,500 paid. 66.26.95.34 22:02, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I hadn't really thought of it that way. However they do claim a record which maybe could nudge a disputed attendance into the fields of notability? I don't know, I guess it's fairly trivial in the greater scheme of things. Suriel1981 05:45, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The record will be broken when a higher number of tickets are sold to another event. It won't necessarily be broken by the number of people showing up. Since all of the attendance recordings are kept in the same manner, this is a legitimate record. -- The Hybrid 05:55, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Again, it would have to be verified that Bresloff was the promoter, and maybe a copy of that fax. See admin comments above.-- bulletproof 3:16 23:33, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Mike Mooneyham newspaper column noting that Bresloff promoted the show. --David Bixenspan 03:50, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Meltzer provides no proof of his claim. Yes, we should trust the unsourced claim of someone with a bias torwards WWE and who's main source of income is a rumor/"news" letter. TJ Spyke 23:08, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What's his bias against WWE?  Are L.A. Times reporters (Meltzer is one) considered unreliable now? He's also the mainstream media's go-to guy for wrestling.  He wrote for The National (newspaper) and Sports Illustrated. He's had 2 books published. He worked for WWE as a consultant. He's not just some guy who writes about wrestling. He is THE source for wrestling news. --David Bixenspan 15:58, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: He may freelance for LA Times, but doesn't work for them. He provides no proof for his WM3 claim, nor is there even a source for him saying that. As for the bias, that is something you can see just by looking at his opinions over the last ~8 years, although that is not the issue here. TJ Spyke 21:43, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Scandal sells, ask any tabloid newspaper editor (see Freddie Starr Ate My Hamster). None of the pro-Meltzer camp have provided any proof whatsoever that Meltzer even made that claim (let alone what he thinks the attendance is and where he got the 'information'). This is time to Put Up or Shut Up. This whole page is full of an argument in which one side has done absolutely nothing to back up their opinions. Blunt but true. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹Speak 23:19, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Proof that he's made the claim. Can we at least say it's disputed as being 78,000, then?  I have zero problem with that middle ground.  --David Bixenspan 21:08, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

text: It already says in the third paragraph that the figure is disputed. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹Speak 21:04, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow, this is one of the WP:LAMEest edit wars I've ever seen. Why don't you all just mention that the attendance is disputed, and write a short section explaining why? east.718 22:37, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It already is mentioned that the number is disputed, and I thought we had resolved this issue already until a couple of IPs decided to change it for no reason. TJ Spyke 22:49, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

text: We have a third party source, meaning that it cited a site other than the WWE or Meltzer, saying that the number is disputed. Using a source that isn't one of the two passes WP:NPOV better, so your research will probably be pointless, in all honesty. The Hybrid 18:51, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Attendance Issue Revisited 

message: As you may be aware, the new "Championship Edition" DVD features an "updated" logo for WrestleMania III. I'm wondering if this newer logo should be incorporated on this page somehow. Kyle C Haight 03:49, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The whole point of these articles are to use the original logos. That's why we try to avoided using the edited versions of the scratch logo (like how WWE has replica belts from the Attitude era use the WWE logo instead of WWF logo. The only reason it should be used if it's the same logo but a better resolution. TJ Spyke 04:34, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Championship Edition DVD 

message: Look, we're never going to solve this problem about the accurate attendance figure. Both sides have their arguments, but neither wants to concede. I think we've pretty much covered the first three steps outlined in Wikipedia:Resolving disputes. If we truely can't come to an agreement, then I think that would make this article a strong candidate for Arbitration as outlined in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration. Anyone else agree?Spman 04:44, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem was solved. You're the only one who doesn't agree. The arbitrators will never take this case. -- The Hybrid 04:45, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hybrid is right. The issue was solved months ago, the Meltzer number is not considered reliable since he offers no proof. TJ Spyke 05:13, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you knew anything at all, he is reliable enough for his word to be proof enough just the same as Vince McMahon's Spman 05:54, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am familiar with Meltzer. He is not reliable to just take his word, especially since he offers no actual proof. TJ Spyke 06:05, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I would like clarification if the 90000 figure has ever been announced as a "paid attendance" figure or simply an "attendance" figure. There is a significant difference between the two. –– Lid(Talk) 11:12, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think WWE just announced it as a new in-door attendance record, not specifying. TJ Spyke 21:16, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for Arbitration