Talk:Professional wrestling

First phrase

"Professional wrestling, often referred to as pro wrestling, or simply, wrestling"

This is completely unnecessary. We don't need to list all the short forms. It's obvious to anyone who spea,s English. Kurzon (talk) 19:30, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

Use of “cartels” to describe territories/promotions

Is this truly a neutral term? Or would a less criminalized term be more appropriate? I’ve rarely ever seen the term printed outside of discussions of large scale narcotics distribution operations and never in reference to wrestling promotions, despite 40+ years of watching and reading about it SlapAyoda (talk) 09:05, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

Just like in this article, the term cartel is widely used in academic publications to refer to anticompetitive amalgamations. In the context of professional wrestling, the term likewise ascribed a similar meaning. See, for example:

• Griffiths, John (2015-01-02). "All the world's a stage: transnationalism and adaptation in professional wrestling style c . 1930–45". Social History. 40 (1): 38–57. doi:10.1080/03071022.2014.991156. ISSN 0307-1022. They increasingly acted as a cartel (or combine) by the mid-1920s, in order to exclude wrestlers who would not comply with their desire to create 'champions' and 'contenders'. Such cartels broke apart in the early 1930s due to double-crossing on the part of wrestlers, to be replaced by new ones by the mid-1930s.[emphasis added]
• Walsh, Shannon L., ed. (2020). Sporting performances: politics in play. Abingdon, Oxon New York, NY: Routledge. ISBN 978-0-429-56018-7. [Wrestling leagues are] cartels, where the entry and exit of new clubs is rigidly controlled.[emphasis added]

— BillHPike (talk, contribs) 20:01, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

Neutral language

Czello has strange standards for neutral language. I don't think there is much difference in connotation between "faked" and "staged". 23:06, 17 January 2026 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kurzon (talk • contribs)

"Fake" is more subjective and has often been considered a contentious word in the industry given how much (such as athleticism, skill, injuries, and even feuds) is real. Staged is more accurate and less emotive; I do not see the issue with favouring this. — Czello ^(music) 00:28, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

In many cases, "predetermined" is more precise than "staged", but for this diff [1], I agree with Czello's verbiage. — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 23:26, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

Kurzon has a clear bias against pro wrestling. while I agree to include the staged nature of pro wrestling (or scripted), Kurzon tries to include pejorative terms like fake or calling the sport true wrestling or authentic, despite we should use legit or competetive, which is neutral. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 22:56, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

Wrestling is fake

I am baffled by editors who think I am disrespectful by calling pro wrestling "fake". It is a matter of fact that professional wrestling is not true wrestling. Certainly not if true wrestling is a sport. It is legally defined as a non-sport in several US states, and admitted to by many wrestlers and promoters. And professional wrestlers are famously thick skinned. If pro wrestlers were ever sensitive about being called "fakers", it was only because they were afraid the fans would desert them if they confessed. That's no longer the case, so now the wrestlers don't give a shit. It's all in good fun.

I've heard people say that the performance in pro wrestling is real in the sense that wrestlers get hurt. That's an annoying response that dodges the matter at hand. Yes, pro wrestling on TV is not CGI and not done with puppets. But it is not true wrestling any more than the stunts in an action movie are true.Kurzon (talk) 20:39, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

Czello rightly pointed out above that "fake" is a contentious word also seen as disrespectful to those in the industry (such as David Schultz, Jim Cornette, Paul Heyman ect.) I'd also argue it's unencyclopedic and is watered down, where as "staged" and "pre-determined" are far better as they're true, they're encyclopedic, not outwardly offensive to the business, and isn't too watered down for this article. This isn't Simple Wikipedia, we can use big words. Lemonademan22 (talk) 22:25, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

We don't work for the professional wrestling industry. Our commitment should be to the truth. Kurzon (talk) 22:42, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

No one is saying we work for the pro wrestling industry. You can convey the truth better than you are; see my comment below. — Czello ^(music) 22:44, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

You're not dropping the stick here. You start these threads, abandon them, then start them again later when you're reverted for the same edits you're always reverted for by multiple editors. So, let me simply reiterate what I said above in the last thread (as this didn't need a new one): "Fake" is more subjective and has often been considered a contentious word in the industry given how much (such as athleticism, skill, injuries, and even feuds) is real. Staged is more accurate and less emotive; I do not see the issue with favouring this. — Czello ^(music) 22:29, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

(Redacted) Kurzon (talk) 19:09, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

WP:ANI#Kurzon not dropping the stick — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 19:48, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

I'll add onto this that you have long been on a crusade to add words like fake, deceitful, dishonest, boring, any many more adjectives in Wikivoice. When several different editors keep your edits, but tweak the wording to be a bit more encyopedic or neutral, you kick up a fuss and edit war. Why do that when you could just accept the improved wording? You do not WP:OWN this article. This is a collaborative project, which means you have to accept people are going to improve your writing. — Czello ^(music) 22:43, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

As pointed months ago, Kurzon has a clear bias against wrestling. A topic ban would be the best.--HHH Pedrigree (talk) 22:54, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

I have a bias to the truth and I cannot accurately describe the history of wrestling without using the word " fakery". You insult me. Kurzon (talk) 02:31, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

Isn't itthe truth that wrestling is "staged" and is a better and more encyclopepdic word than "fake"? Lemonademan22 (talk) 03:47, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

Please see WP:Verifiability, not truth. — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 04:01, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

If you can't write about a topic without using emotive language then your writing skills need improvement. — Czello ^(music) 07:03, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

As Kurzon alludes, knowledge of the "fake" nature of pro wrestling is a key topic in the sociological analysis. I've added some verbiage on this topic, but I feel that this aspect only needs brief reference in the lead. — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 23:59, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

It's disingenuous to history because the integrity of professional wrestling was a hugely sensitive issue that defined the industry. You had wrestlers and promoters lying under oath. The wrestlers were terrified that the fans would abandon them if they confessed to faking it, and in the early 20th century, this fear seemed to be valid. The New York government forced promoters to bill their matches as exhibitions because it is not illegal to rig an exhibition match, yet exhibition matches are not necessarily rigged - this nuance allowed promoters to get away with rigging whole giving them some plausible deniability. Vince McMahon admitted in sealed testimony that pro wrestling is fake sport so that he could avoid sport taxes. Shit, the word kayfabe is thought to mean "be fake" spoken backwards. I cannot honestly and accurately describe the history of pro wrestling without using the word "fake". That is what your concerns with respect will cost the article. Kurzon (talk) 00:17, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

Numerous scholarly sources advance the above line of reasoning, and I doubt anyone objects to summarizing such scholarship in this article. Instead, we are objecting to the non-encyclopedic WP:TONE, particularly when writing in Wikipedia's voice.

If you want to expand on this topic, I would encourage you to WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV from the sociological literature. I've tried to provide a good starting point with this edit. — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 00:57, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

I'm kind of glad I was too busy with off-wiki things to participate in this discussion yesterday. But I think you have received good advice from others here. We are not here to "right all wrongs", advance our personal opinion on what the truth is, or cast aspersions on subjects. We are here to write neutral, verifiable descriptions of subjects per wiki policies/guidelines. Editors who cannot hold to that tend to not stick around for long (some of those get community bans, hint). Calling professional wrestling "fake" or "not true" is far from neutral. On top of that, it's middle-schooler-speak, not formal encyclopedic prose. Wikipedians need to stay above the fray and check their biases at the entry door, and while here, respect that other Wikipedians are going to improve their work. Wikipedia is a collaborative work by design. Stefen 𝕋ower ^{Huddle • Handiwerk} 19:57, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

Update: Kurzon has been indef-blocked. Regular editors of this article may want to go over content he recently added to ensure it uses formal language, is not based on personal opinion, and that it reflects WP:RS. Stefen 𝕋ower ^{Huddle • Handiwerk} 22:29, 6 March 2026 (UTC)