Talk:WrestleMania III/Archive 1

Attendance

Ok, it's time for the silly childish editing war on this page to end. Clearly the actual attendance for this show is a matter of debate, and is, in my opinion at least, worthy of more mention then simple "although this number is sometimes disputed". The attendance of this show isn't "sometimes" disputed, it IS disputed, end of story. The two sides of the argument are those who side with the WWE's figure of 93,173, and those who side with Wrestling Journalist Dave Meltzer and the late Zane Bresloff, who was the actual promoter of the event. According to a story Meltzer has related numerous times, while he was researching information for an article he was writing on the history of the WWF for his Wrestling Observer Newsletter, he was allowed access to the WWF's official records, he did in fact discover that the financial figures for Wrestlemania 3 attributed the attendance as closer to 75,000, almost 20,000 less then the WWF's number. This fact was later corroborated by Bresloff, the promoter, who confirmed that 75,000 was the legitimate figure, and not the WWF's Kayfabe 93,173 number. When Meltzer questioned Vince Mcmahon on this, his reply was something along the lines of "We're in the entertainment business, and we have the creative license to do whatever we want, and the idea of a record attendance of 93,173 is much more exciting then 75,000".

Now can we please come to a consensus on this subject matter so we can at least include mention of this significant debate?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Spman (talk • contribs) 03:52, November 10, 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the figure is disputed, it was not 93,000, --81.129.79.177 15:15, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

The page is back to naming the attendance as 93,173. Why? Here's the bottom line: The event's promoter, Zane Bresloff, has PROVED that the attendance was actually 78,000 with 75,500 paid. He had written documentation, which he showed to Dave Meltzer. World Wrestling Entertainment (and many other forms of sports and entertainment) inflate attendance figures ALL the time. Why is this difficult for people to understand? For instance, WWE this year claimed that Survivor Series 2006 drew 17,893 (which, coincidentally, is what's claimed on Wikipedia as well), when in actuality, the number is 15,400. Again, taken straight from Dave Meltzer and the Wrestling Observer Newsletter. When people try to provide this information to folks visiting these pages, and people at Wikipedia make sure that they do not show up by editing them off, it gives Wikipedia a bad name. Please, end this childishness now. Can we please provide FACTS on these wrestling pages, instead of kayfabed numbers that do nobody any good? Thank you! (OMEGA919 22:52, 10 February 2007 (UTC))

Where did you get that 15,400 number for SS 06? Meltzer is wrong on many things, and I don't have much faith in him anymore. While i'm sure WWE did inflate the WMIII numbers a little, do you have any actual proof (other than Meltzer, who has made it clear that he is anti-WWE). TJ Spyke 23:02, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

It's 93,173. Stop treating Meltzer like the gospel and stop using insider terminology. You're not part of the business; you're an observer. Ever take the time to realize how stupid the word "kayfabe" sounds?!?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.96.220.195 (talk) 04:42, February 13, 2007 (UTC)

This is STUPID! The WWE says it's 93 thousand. The Official sources for the Pontiac Silverdome list the same number and site it as a record. On the other hand you got two bitter nut-jobs who claim things they can't prove.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.161.203.18 (talk) 16:24, February 19, 2007 (UTC)

Look, I found my source and cited it. Let's not turn this into an edit war. We can agree to disagree on this. Whether or not feel Dave Meltzer and his publication are is a reliable source, he's no less reliable then the WWE themselves who have much greater vested interest in propagating the 93,000 number then Meltzer does of citing the 75,000 number.Spman 02:51, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Again, it would have to be verified that Bresloff was the promoter, and maybe a copy of that fax. See admin comments below.-- bulletproof ^3:16 04:01, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

That's absolutely ridiculous. Where is the proof that the 93,000 number is correct? The fact that Dave Meltzer is an expert in his field and the outstanding authority on professional wrestling for the past 20+ years is more then enough proof. You guys who argue for the 93,000 number have no proof at all except for the word of the WWE and Vince McMahon which would not qualify as a reliable source. If those of us who argue for the 75,000 number have to come up with significant evidence to back up the claim, which we have, then those of you who argue for the 93,000 number should have to as well. In the mean time, both numbers should stay. Spman 04:16, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Just because Meltzer says something (without reliable proof) doesn't mean anything. The only reliable source says 93,000. There has not been any reliable proof that it is 78,000. TJ Spyke 04:20, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Please, preytell, what makes the source that says 93,000 any more reliable then the source that says 78,000? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Spman (talk • contribs) 04:27, 11 April 2007 (UTC).

The fact that WWE are the ones who held the event and thus have the ticket sales and attendance numbers while Meltzer can only rely on second hand accounts. TJ Spyke 04:31, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

But we're never going to see the WWE's account of ticket sales and attendance numbers, so how is that make the source accurate?

What are you talking about? We have WWE's info, it's on the page. TJ Spyke 04:40, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm talking about specific Information, not just WWE propagandaSpman 04:44, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

"the word of the WWE and Vince McMahon" ...ahem ahem AND the Silverdome Officials AND every major media outlet in the state of Michigan AND every single entertainment news site in the country that isn't run by a guy who runs a board for a living, and for the past 20+ years has been crusading around the internet to contradict what everyone else says, like Meltzer.-- bulletproof ^3:16 04:31, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

But would it not be in the best interest of the Vince McMahon to inflate the attendence to make himself and his business seem more popular and lucrative then it really is? All the other media was just quoting the same BS number Vince came up with. Just because Baghdad Bob says that the army of Iraq is defeating the Americans in all the major battles doesn't make it true, and the same holds true for wrestling attendence. Spman 04:37, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

And we should trust the BS number of Meltzer? A guy who has an obvious bias against WWE and has for years? TJ Spyke 04:40, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how it's any less reliable then the BS number of Vince Mcmahon.Spman 04:44, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

You can't speculate on what Vince might have done. Assuming what you think could have happened, what you think might have happened, and what you think most likely happened, did in fact happen is nothing more than speculating and theorizing and that is the most unencyclopedic thing you can possibly do here.-- bulletproof ^3:16 04:50, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

No, but if you have significant evidence from reliable sources that contradict the conventional wisdom, which we do, then it should be noted. This an encyclopedia, not corporate propaganda.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Spman (talk • contribs) 04:52, April 11, 2007 (UTC)

Nor is it a place to add nonsense with a guy as bias as Meltzer as your ONLY source.-- bulletproof ^3:16 04:54, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, so now we're going to get into bias, huh? Yeah, that's a great reason to use the WWE source, they definitely wouldn't be biased at all.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Spman (talk • contribs) 04:58, April 11, 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm... Pro Wrestling events held by Meltzer? "0" Hmmm... Pro Wrestling events held by WWE? ....-- bulletproof ^3:16 05:01, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that's gonna help your cause. Admit it, you guys are running out of arguments. I guess we'll all just have to live with the fact that Wikipedia is run by an an elitist group of bullies who refuse to concede to contradictory facts.Spman 05:05, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

What I meant by that is that Meltzer has absolutely no access to info such as the ticket count that WWE does have, nor does he have any knowledge about the venue to know what production settings could do to change the capacity of the stadium. Why? Because he has never done anything as difficult as producing his own live show. The only thing he's ever done is sit on his ass, and write a bogus newsletter hoping that people like you will buy into his crap. -- bulletproof ^3:16 05:23, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Bogus Newsletter? What the hell? DO you have any idea what you're talking about? The Wrestling Observer isn't just some hack cut and paste job like you see on the Internet. Meltzer has been writing about Wrestling for over 25 years now and is respected in the industry on a number of different levels. During the McMahon Steroid Trial, media outlets actually looked to him for accurate reports. He also runs the only legitimate and respected Pro Wrestling Hall of Fame in the business, and is a very influential figure. Just look towards Eric Bichoff and Mick Foleys book for starters if you have any doubt. Please, before you open your mouth, at least become informed, I mean you do have an Internet connection, right?Spman 05:50, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

And you do know repeating the same pathetic arguments while insulting other editors isn't going to put Meltzer's BS number on the article, right?-- bulletproof ^3:16 06:12, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Please, what explain to me, what reason do you have to believe that the WWE number is any more accurate then Meltzer's. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spman (talk • contribs) 13:51, April 11, 2007 (UTC)

Since you apparently think Meltzer is a god, you won't listen. WWE has access to these records directly, Meltzer at best has hearsay from a third party. TJ Spyke 21:16, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

But that's where you are wrong. He was given complete access to all of the companies financial records back in 2001 when he was writing his article on the history of the WWF. Spman 22:44, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Another unsourced claim. I'm starting to think you either work for Meltzer or you are Meltzer considering how much you are shilling for him and unwilling to admit that he can be wrong. TJ Spyke 22:56, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Every wrestling company in North America gave Meltzer access to confidential records just so he could write (for his own profit) about WWF? Does this include WCW (who were owned by the biggest media company in the USA) and ECW (who never kept financial records)? Also do you have any proof of this? ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 23:08, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

This isn't for smark propaganda either. -- The Hybrid 04:54, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I've read an awful lot about how great Dave Meltzer is on this page. Have any of his advocates yet come up any proof of a number discrepancy other than "It must be true because Meltzer said so in an article he wrote once"? Geez, I've yet to see proof that Meltzer himself said it, let alone whether it's true or not! ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 21:40, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I've read the debate here, and believe that the appropriate Wiki guidelines for resolving it lie in WP:V, which states that "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." It's certainly my understanding that as a wrestling historian, Meltzer is considered to have such a reputation, whereas WP:RS states that "The websites, print media, and other publications of political parties, companies, organizations and religious groups should be treated with caution." Even if we accept the claim that Meltzer is a biased reporter, it's clear that WWE press releases (the only two primary sources for this data) also fail NPOV. WP:NPOV states that "content must be written... representing fairly and without bias all significant views". I'd suggest that as a compromise both the 93,000 and 78,000 figures be given equal weight within the article.Cyberinsekt 11:31, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

There's no source that Meltzer has said that figure. Also, are you trying to say that Meltzer is a primary source? Unless Meltzer works for WWE, he is not a primary source. TJ Spyke 21:47, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

He was trying to say that Meltzer is a reliable, third party source. It says that primary sources should be treated with caution, and we do treat the WWE with caution. It is just that no one else, not Meltzer, not anyone has any way of knowing how many people were there but the WWE, so they are the only reliable source for this figure. Meltzer hasn't revealed his informant for the figure, assuming that he has one, so we don't know how reliable the informant is. Does the informant have a way of knowing himself? Did he lie and say that he does, so Meltzer would believe him? Does the informant have anything to gain by falsely contradicting the WWE? There are too many undefined variables for us to say that Meltzer is a reliable source for this figure. -- The Hybrid 23:21, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Attendance Issue Revisited

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)

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)

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)

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).

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))

This is absurd. Reasonably, one could cite the actual Observer issue where Dave first discovered this truth (and it is true), or at least a issue. Every hardcore wrestling fan knows WWE embellishes and records pro wrestling history to its liking. Meltzer a few other guys give the best account of the real history of pro wrestling. The fact that people are arguing in favor of the stupid 93,000 figure is almost laughable. Why don't you just take the word of WWE and every other promotion and ignore the people who cover the business. It'd be like writing a biography of Pac Man Jones and only including information obtained from non-media sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.194.24.129 (talk) 07:09, March 3, 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

This does not need to be mentioned, as this is not unusual. The number of tickets sold will always be the number reported by the company as the number in attendance, no matter what the sport is. As not all of those people will show up, the number will always be lower. When something is always the case, it is never unusual or notable. -- The Hybrid 05:35, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

So pretty much: WWE say it is and so did the Silverdome so it stands as a record and putting "recorded" or "reputed" before the attendance is irrelevant because we gotta go by the standards of the business concerned. That's cool with me. Suriel1981 06:06, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

1. Meltzer has always claimed the attendance was 78,000.

2. Meltzer co-wrote a book that gives this figure, which I will use as a source when I change the attendance.

3. Meltzer is the most respected independent source on professional wrestling. He has appeared on shows like "Donahue" during the steroid scandal of the early 90's, and was interviewed by A&E for their documentary on professional wrestling.

MackyMackn 23:24, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

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)

Mike Mooneyham newspaper column noting that Bresloff promoted the show. --David Bixenspan 03:50, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I find it funny that Dave Meltzer, the most reputable wrestling journalist in the world, is not considered a reliable source for attendance figues but Vince McMahon is. It would be like believeing every single thing the Bush administration has said about the war in Iraq and ignoring any media reports to the contrary. I guess no one ever claimed Wikipedia was run by intellectuals, but this is just ridiculous. 216.135.5.138 15:45, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 23:19, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

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)

"One of the primary reasons that WCW house show business was so hot at the time was due to the awesome work of Zane Bresloff. Bresloff not only promoted WCW events, he was also the man behind the promotion of WrestleMania III, for which the WWF claimed to have jammed 93,000 fans into the Pontiac Silverdome. Years later, Bresloff himself would admit that the number was realistically 78,000."

That was a direct quote from page 100 of "The Death of WCW," by R.D. Reynolds & Bryan Alvarez. --pud--05/22/07-- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.182.147.126 (talk) 10:55, May 22, 2007 (UTC)

It already says in the third paragraph that the figure is disputed. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 21:04, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

I understand why the article isn't using 78,000 as fact. However, I'm not sure what's so egregious about elaborating on WHY the attendance is disputed. What's the difference between "The number is sometimes disputed", and "The number has been disputed as being 78,000 (with 75,700 paid), which is the number wrestling journalist Dave Meltzer claims is what is on the official documents from event promoter Zane Bresloff." I think at least elaborating on the disputed number is a nice way of finding middle ground, giving as much information of the event as you can, and not telling people outright that it's 78,000. Just saying "It's sometimes disputed, but anyway..." accomplishes NOTHING. (24.211.252.101 15:53, 29 July 2007 (UTC))

As for proof of Dave using the 78,000 number, here is word-for-word what he wrote in the April 9, 2007 issue of the Observer:

"It [WrestleMania 23] was the third largest crowd in company history, trailing WrestleMania III in Pontiac, MI, in 1987, which did 78,000; and the legitimate record holder of 79,127 (announced as 80,335) for Wembley Stadium in London, England, for the 1992 SummerSlam event headlined by Bret Hart vs. Davey Boy Smith for the IC title."

"The two largest [paid attendances] in company history were Wembley at 78,927 and WrestleMania III at 75,700."

If you want proof of that, back issues are available at wretlingobserver.com for a small fee. And I'm certain that I have an issue somewhere where he specifically mentions Zane Bresloff (June 30, 2003 issue for sure). I'll gladly post a quote there, if you can tell me if my research means anything. If you're going to blow it off as "Dave is unreliable and anti-WWE", though, then nevermind. (24.211.252.101 16:13, 29 July 2007 (UTC))

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)

Championship Edition DVD

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)

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)

Request for Arbitration

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

I think WWE just announced it as a new in-door attendance record, not specifying. TJ Spyke 21:16, 11 April 2007 (UTC)