Jump to content

Talk:Vince Russo

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Location of birth and where he was raised

[edit]

I don't know who the hell wrote this article, but vince russo was not born in brooklyn, nor was he raised there. He was raised in Long Island, New York a few blocks away from where fellow professional wrestling personality mick foley grew up. His "brooklyn" accent is entirely fake.-— Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.203.117.240 (talk) 18:52, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hogan incident

[edit]

Ive seen websites which say that the hogan incedent was staged. If so this is major breaking of the fourth wall.-— Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.180.61.179 (talk) 05:25, 29 December 2004 (UTC)[reply]

The truth is nobody knows. I've seen sites and articles that say: It was 100% staged, 100% real, and that it was a work shoot.
Hogan sued Time Warner for break of contract. I think it was definatly a shoot.
Hogan sued for defamation of character. The "laying down" of Jarrett was a work, but the comments afterwards were not cleared with Hogan, and that is where the lawsuit came into play. So it's really a little from column 'A' and a little from column 'B'.--193.113.48.11 12:50, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DOB?

[edit]

This article really needs Russo's date (or at least year) of birth. I realize how hard it can be with wrestling figures (as with actors) to get a "legit" DOB, but I hope that a major fan will really try.Rlquall 10:46, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)


Vince Russo actually stated on his website (that is no longer available) at ringofglory.com that Hogan and Vince Russo were in on the entire thing. However, he told Hogan to leave the arena afterwards. In addition, what exactly Russo stated may not have gone through with Hogan on the shoot afterwards. With the Internet blowing up afterwards, Hogan started to believe that he was screwed by Russo which later led him to file a "defamation of character" lawsuit, which he ended up losing.

Russo never hated Hogan, but he didn't call him back after that incident. The reason Hogan lost the lawsuit was because Russo never publically insulted Hogan outside of the ring and what happened during the Russo/Hogan incident at Bash At The Beach 2000 was all a work. Russo also stated that he never told Jeff Jarrett about it, so when Jeff entered the ring during the Hogan "match", Jeff wasn't "in" on the entire situation, while Hogan was.

A Mess

[edit]

This article is seriously disjointed and jumps all over the place as it explains the role Russo has played in the WCW and beyond. This really needs to be cleaned up. Eric42 00:13, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- I agree that this entire article is a mess and needs to be cleaned up. It's frequently edited by individuals who have a positive or negative opinion of him. Marty2Hotty (talk) 06:56, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One year anniversary does not make sense. After a year or on the first anniversary would be better.12:27, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Too much opinion

[edit]

Though I agree with the gist of most of this article, I disagree with some of the opinions that surface throughout the article. For example, I didn't find the Deadly Games tournament to be "a phenomenal show . . . that [has everything that] makes a story entertaining." I would say however, that it was the epitome of the "Crash TV" style developed in part by Vince Russo because of the many swerves. That's not to say that I thought the swerves were clever, I did not think them clever and I also thought the in ring story-telling suffered at the expense of the many plot twists (That's why I disagree with your "phenomenal" characterization).

I would also, generally disagree with your assessment of the Russo-era in WCW. In general, I thought Russo did a good job of bring life to company that couldn't come up with a new creative idea to save its life in the latter stages of Bischoff's nWo run. Though WCW never made a ratings resurgence, I don't believe Russo was responsible for the most damage. The credit for that goes to Bischoff, Hogan, Kevin Nash and Kevin Sullivan. I am personally of the opinion that Kevin Sullivan's post-Russo booking was what put the final nail in WCW's coffin.

I guess from an objective perspective, you can't really say Russo did a good job or a bad job creatively in WCW, but you can certainly say Russo's booking didn't win back the fans from WWE. Jamesrphillips 05:59, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Who are you speaking to exactly? Eric42 06:53, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I made the most recent edits, while I agree Russo didn't bring WCW back to glory, I do feel he made fundamental changes to Nitro to begin that process. But, as history notes, he only had 9 non-consecutive months as head booker. So I feel it should be noted that Russo at least attempted to kickstart WCW through the changes he made.

- The article is too opinionated and needs a neutral stance. You may use Russo's "Forgiven" book as a source, his new book that gets released in one month "Rope Opera" can be used as a source, web.archive.org's previous Russo entries from ringofglory.com or vincerussoforgiven.com will provide more on his stance. The use and analyzation of the ratings needs to be edited substantially to provide a neutral standpoint. I may try and clean a lot of this up later with credible less opinionated sources. Marty2Hotty (talk) 06:59, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Russo & WWE Return (2002)

[edit]

Hi all.

In my first *ever* Wikipedia entry, I've added a section from the book "The Death of the Wrestling Federation" speculating that he intentionally sabotaged his own operation in WWE, as he basically wanted to move to TNA all along (and used McMahon simply to 'buy him out' of his WCW/Time Warner contract).

Bear in mind that the book is touted to have taken direct quotes from backstage WWE employees, and it certainly seems to make the source credible - even if Russo himself was lying when he told it to them.

The book also has similar quotes regarding other wrestlers etc., which had previously not been reported.


I don't know if the section I added was entirely relevant (although I think it is), as I notice that a section speculating that Stephanie McMahon was the reason he left, was removed over the past few weeks.

- The 'intentionally sabotaging' his WWE return was deleted by me because there are no credible sources to back that up. Just all hearsay. Instead, I put a few sentences using HIS perspective on what happened from an interview he did in 2002. This has been sourced. Hearsay and reports from WWE employees can be highly subjective third-party information as wrestling news sites are known to be all about. Stephanie McMahon being a reason why he left is irrelevant and Russo speaks about this on the same interview. I feel the section at this time has been cleaned up. Marty2Hotty (talk) 20:02, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Who is this?

[edit]

"Challenged Hugo Leon for the "Cheaaaaap" World Title Belt (2005)"

This was listed under the "Championships and accomplishments" section. First, I have to question just who is Hugo Leon and what orginazation was this for? A search on google for the "Cheaaaap" World title brought nothing so I am confused. Also, did he win? If not, what makes this a notable accomplishment? I am thinking about deleting this for now. Eric42 20:10, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, you're an idiot. Its vandalism, doofus. The fact that you wrote an entry on the talk page about the "Cheaaap" title is hiliariously sad.64.12.116.138 21:22, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm... You are sad. I am causal editor just attempting to keep facts straight. Eric42 01:08, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessarily hilarious - you get all kinds of wierd and wonderful title names now. Yes, I saw it as vandalism, but I have followed wrestling intently for a few years (although am now dissillusioned). You should not mock someone who probably doesn't know a whole lot about wrestling (or at least Russo) for making a mistake many would no doubt make. This is meant to be a welcoming encyclopedia... Tory88 (talk) 15:07, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- I agree that the vandalism cannot easily be known as vandalism for those that do not follow wrestling regularly. If someone is coming here to edit this article not knowing much about wrestling and is googling information to verify information, it can be challenging as wrestling is known for a lot of outlandish storylines and gimmicks. I would like to request a semi-protected article for this as it frequently is vandalized. Marty2Hotty (talk) 20:04, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

POV tag

[edit]

I added the POV tag because quite frankly, this page is a mess with false and unverifyed information. Most of it is just a vehicle for Russo hate, and no hate or love should be shown on the page.

Does this need protection?

[edit]

Checked the page just to note that there were a number of "additions" made that were basically just insults. How often is this happening? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Thekithless (talk • contribs) 22:28, 12 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

- I think it may need protection (again). Russo is a controversial figure in wrestling that evokes a lot of opinionated individuals Marty2Hotty (talk) 07:01, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Too much opinion

[edit]

'rediculous booking, bad storylines' saying that the Sting and Abyss storyline is rediculous, keyword 'rediculous'. Bias, and opinion. Remove them. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.152.170.176 (talk) 01:12, 26 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]


it shoudl be noted that the crowd was chanting fire russo dorning the last rites match.

If you can find a reliable source for that fact, maybe.--Nonpareility 00:25, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is the PPV itself not a reliable source?--193.113.48.11 12:52, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, see Wikipedia:Attribution/FAQ#Types_of_source_material. "Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy, or are authoritative in relation to the subject at hand". Most "Wrestling News" sites are not reliable, either.--Nonpareility 14:20, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is bullshit. All I gotta do is just take the info from some fansite. Do people actually check wikipedia websites? this is why wikipedia sucks. everyone and their mother knows that the fans chanted for russo to be fired.
Wrestling news sites are usually opinion yet some authors it seems like to state their opinions as fact.
Does anyone have any idea how the chant could be sourced? Surely there would be nothing else but a video, yet this can't be used? --SteelersFan UK06 19:36, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Find a reputable news site that mentions it. As mentioned, most "news" sites that would cover something like this are utter crap, but there must be some more reputable ones that have mentioned it..--Nonpareility 19:52, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's a crock of BS. That's like watching a live TV event where a sports player breaks his neck and the announcers say it as such, but it isn't considered fact until Sportscenter covers it. Wikipedia is an utter joke if you insist on this stupid rule holding up.75.66.232.217 23:17, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can clearly hear the chants on the PPV. If a football player audibly swore at a ref during a game, would this also need people to write about it?

Yes, it would have to be written about by a reliable source to be included, though I wonder if such an incident (or indeed this one) would be notable enough to even mention. In fact, one of the guidelines of notability is whether any reliable source has mentioned it.--Nonpareility 03:43, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why does it have to be verified when 99% of Wikipedia doesn't have things that are verified. If more than three sources mention something, it doesn't have to verified.
It's an official Wikipedia policy. If you disagree with the policy, you're free to go try to change it.--Nonpareility 16:24, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've just added the recent criticism and unhappiness coming out of the TNA locker room to this and the links to the anti-Russo Myspace page which is getting more and more popular by the second.--User:Rgp1 15:26, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While your reference does show that an anti-Russo Myspace page exists, that really doesn't mean anything. I could go create a Myspace page that says Russo's the greatest, but that doesn't mean I could say "Because of Russo's brilliant writing, pro-Russo Myspace pages have been created in the hope of drawing enough publicity to give him more power in booking TNA shows".--Nonpareility 15:37, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand what you're saying mate but this is basically a snowball affect - wrestler unrest, fans chanting at the pay-per-view and now a movement (and I say a movement because that is exactly what it is, people bombarding TNA office with emails) on Myspace. Everyone knows how hated Russo is, I can't stand him, his ideas are very strange.--User:Rgp1 22: 54 27 March (UTC)

Russo does'nt book the shows as much as the fans think he does. They don't know a lick, and there all living in the past, their opinions and fat petitions are meaningless and futile, as their voices will not be (and deservedly at that) heard.

I hav'nt had a problem with Russo since he came back, and I liked a great deal of things he did in WCW (New Blood, Booker T's title reigns, Scott Steiner getting airtime to cut shoots, and Jarret's multiple title reigns). Unfortunatly, his other ideas were so overbearingly negative, objectivity has been thrown out of the window

Dr. R.KZ. 17:23 April 26th 2007 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly agree. For example, this sentence: "One of the ideas included the idea of putting the now vacated WCW Title on the shoot fighter Tank Abbott, a former UFC fighter but an erstwhile talentless wrestler." I personally agree with it, but it is pure opinion and not encyclopeic in the least... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.73.242.50 (talk) 19:32, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources

[edit]

There's a lot of info on here, and I'm sure most of it's true, but almost none of it has any sources (reliable or otherwise) attached. At the moment I don't really care whether the sources are reliable - as long as a source is presented as news and not opinion. We'll sort out the reliable vs. not reliable thing afterwards.--Nonpareility 15:49, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you should take a look at Russo's book, and listen to the many interviews he has done with various wrestling journalists.


Why does it say that Russo did not get to write any of the early TNA shows when Jerry Jarrett said in his book that Russo wrote nearly all of them? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Misawaloveme (talk • contribs) 17:31, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Peer Review

[edit]

Klichka asked for Vince Russo to be peer reviewed just over a week ago, here are suggestions that were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Neldav 17:30, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Inaccuracies

[edit]

Whoever wrote that Vince Russo brought the ratings up in WCW is quite mistaken. There is a lot of evidence that shows that Russo caused the ratings to drop, and that Vince McMahon was actually the one who oveersaw Russo's work in the WWF; McMahon was the one, therefore, who caused the Raw ratings to increase, not Russo. Kevin j 16:59, September 15, 2007 (UTC)


Oh I agree with you that ratings didn't come up with Russo in WCW, but to say McMahon had the ideas you have to be out of your mind. The problem with Russo is he needs a filter on them, that's what McMahon was and he kept a lot of the bad ideas off the screen. Problem in WCW was his leaving and coming back and being given total control. With no control he let all his ideas out of the bag and that's what caused fans to leave. And to further prove the point go do some research on what Vince's ideas have done to WWF. Steamboat anyone? Or what about Bastion Booger? In fact I would say that when McMahon is left on his own, he is his own worst enemy. 71.224.110.27 03:50, 16 November 2007 (UTC) As a matter of fact it was Vince Russo who was resonsible for the defining storylines of the Attitude Era, storylines such as the Undertaker and Kane saga, DX, the creation of the Mr. McMahon character and of course the Austin/McMahon feud. He wrote the shows later along with Ed Ferrara , with 'some' over seeing of the work by McMahon. Probably should watch the Ultimate Insiders DVD with Wade Keller which reveals actions and happenings closer to the truth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.141.64.148 (talk) 19:23, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Russo and Ferrara were part of a team with Terry Taylor and Jim Cornette which was overseen by McMahon.And the Undetaker/Kane (who burnder down the funeral home?) was the most confusing, poorly written garbage he has ever come up with. And thats a high bar. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Misawaloveme (talk • contribs) 22:31, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Where's WCW?

[edit]

Where is the WCW section? The article completely skips over it!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.105.84.19 (talk) 04:20, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fire Russo!

[edit]

I think there needs to be if not a section, then a subsection on every instance where TNA fans chant "Fire Russo!" or where Russo-fied booking blows up in TNA's face, such as hiring Pacman Jones (did nothing for ratings), hiring Andrew "Test" Martin (gone after one episode), hiring Junior Fatu (gone after two episodes), the ridiculous amount of gimmick matches ([insert random noun] on a pole match!), and other instances of totally nonsensical booking. Not out of biasedness, but just to report just how much TNA is suffering, especially in its ratings drops or stagnation, due to Russo-fied booking —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.87.105.8 (talk) 12:43, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Fire Russo is something that happened during the Destination X 2007 PPV. The chants came about during the "Last Rites" match with Sting and Abyss. Fans felt Russo was responsible for all the gimmick matches when it was reported that Russo may not have had a heavy hand in a lot of it at TNA. If something like this were to be added in a criticism section in TNA, we may have to find a way to put it in if we feel that it is relevant. Currently, there is a blurb on Russo being re-signed with TNA since September 2006 and nothing really specific about his role in the company has been added. Marty2Hotty (talk) 20:08, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2010 Cleanup of the page

[edit]

- There is way too much opinion on this wikipedia page. It drastically needs to be cleaned up. Marty2Hotty (talk) 06:50, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- Substantially cleaned up the article, adding references, removing bias. I will need to re-read Russo's book "Forgiven" to add more from his perspective rather than biased third-party information. For now, the article is substantially better than it was a few weeks ago. Marty2Hotty (talk) 07:17, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Views on women and false claims

[edit]

Since Wikipedia prides itself on accuracy and full disclosure of pertinent facts, this article should have something in it about Russo's view that women cannot be leaders "because of the fact that they came from the man's rib", something he said publicly, on his own podcast, and subsequently defended in a YouShoot interview. It should also mention that many in the industry find the claim that he is responsible for 90's WWE boom period highly questionable. 92.239.2.16 (talk) 07:29, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Vince Russo. 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:

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) 01:34, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Vince Russo. 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:

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) 04:11, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vince Russo’s involvement with Devotion Championship Wrestling

[edit]

I believe Vince Russo currently works for Devotion Championship Wrestling, based in Salt Lake City, Utah. I’m unable to find an article that makes such an announcement. I am able to find Facebook posts about it, including this video:

https://www.facebook.com/Devotionchampionshipwrestling/videos/231011654729767/?extid=uFGE1zarobkt7Exp

Note: Vince does refer to Devotion Championship Wrestling as “Devotional Championship Wrestling” in this video, which is an error on his part. Redertainment (talk) 13:51, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Detailing reasons of recent edits to page

[edit]

This article was in great need of a large-scale clean-up due to factors such as the previously stated "Too much opinion", in addition to numerous cases of incredibly one-sided and factually untrue/off-topic information added to spin a negative agenda against the figure. This article on several occasions has (very predictably) become negatively biased due to the person in question being a known controversial figure within his industry. Which is why it was in dire need of a highly overdue clean-up to include a far more neutral point of view, as well as the removal of completely non-relevant or factually untrue and disproven statements.

Examples:

- The following quote objectively makes no sense:

"How can a person who has a 15-year history of failure still keep a job?"

It is factually documented that Russo ceased writing for wrestling in 2012, within that 15 year timeframe he was factually the head writer for TNA Wrestling when they achieved their highest ratings in company history, which still stands to this day. The exact same documented fact is true for his time at the WWF, this is already mentioned in other sections within the article. Leaving this quote being both objectively false and clearly added by someone with a personal negative agenda to include it within the page. Additionally, similar negative statements cannot be found on any similar figure's WP pages even when the same statement would be far more accurate and logical to include it. Case in point: Paul Heyman was factually the head writer of a company that went out of business, yet despite several figures within the wrestling history being quoted that Heyman was the direct cause of this, none such comments are mentioned within his WP page. Conclusion: If a figure who has a *factually proven* case of large-scale failure doesn't have any mention of that on their WP Page, how does it make the slightest sense to include a similar statement on the page of a figure who had a majority of successes within the same industry and role? The answer: It doesn't. At all.

- Other sourced quotes are the result of either factually disproven hearsay or, as already mentioned, highly one-sided/agenda-driven/non-relevant information.

"a magazine writer that thought he was a wrestling expert that never had a good idea in his life." (completely opinion based and not grounded in any facts whatsoever given his record-breaking success at both the WWF and TNA. I.E. no logical relevancy to be included)

Tony Khan's quotes regarding WCW are entirely unfounded (Russo factually grew the television ratings at WCW before choosing to leave after his contract was breached, the ratings subsequently declined when a new head writer replaced him, followed by Russo being asked to return in order to improve the ratings after the high level of damage to the viewership had already been carried out in his absence). The inclusion of this quote is in even more incoherent as the person in question (Khan) has achieved substantially lower and continuously declining ratings within the same role as head writer of a wrestling company.

- Conclusion

I have decisively showcased that the above quotes are not grounded in any type of actual logic whatsoever. The Legacy section now contains an entirely neutral point of view of both positive and negative information relating to the figure. As well as the section now including only actual truthful information, as opposed to the several incredibly biased, incoherent and factually untrue statements that were previously added and which should have logically been removed immediately after. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 51.241.0.169 (talk) 12:33, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've restored most of the relevant content with some quote trimming and rewording. You're gonna have to have better claims than just saying quotes are "factually disproven hearsay". You're welcome to back up these counterclaims with other sources and include them in the article.RF23 (talk) 20:36, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The quotes you reverted are objectively troll-worthy, in addition to being completely off-topic for a Wikipedia "Legacy" section.
List even just 3 examples of non-wrestler figures within the wrestling industry who have similarly worded inclusions on their page that are anywhere close to that level of laughably biased negativity and completely unfounded "he said, she said" style wording found on Russo's page. Until that's proven the previous quotes are inarguably biased troll edits. 51.241.0.169 (talk) 21:07, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There's lots of "legacy" sections that include positive and negative views (Bill Goldberg, Ric Flair, Paul Heyman to name a few). You state the quotes are "objectively troll worthy" and "off-topic" without any reasoning to back that up. For example, I don't see how Jerry Jarrett saying he regrets hiring Russo is troll-worthy or off-topic. I'm gonna page User:LM2000 who's done a lot of work on this page to get some more opinions.RF23 (talk) 21:36, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I never said Jerry Jarrett simply speaking negatively about Russo is considered troll-worthy. The troll-worthy part comes from the actual quote I already listed above which laughably stated "man who was head writer for two companies during most successful era ever has also somehow apparently had 15 years of failure".
The completely unfounded nature of the quotes are the issue here, which is why i'm trying to clean-up the page since I have actual truthful knowledge of the quotes and topics in question, as opposed to the original quotes that were ignorantly given to or directly said by so-called "journalists" who have a factually and repeatedly proven bias to certain figures in wrestling. The perfect case in point? The Reynolds and Alvarez quotes about Russo and Bischoff comes from a book that largely talks about what the two of them did while working at WCW......and yet neither Russo or Bischoff was ever once interviewed for the book. I.E. it was completely unfounded 3rd hand/5th hand gossip-level hearsay. *This* is the factually documented type of things i'm talking about. Looking at it completely unbiasedly, do you genuinely think that's an unreasonable request to attempt?
For the record, I think the re-wording of the Jarrett quote is fine and should stay, as should certain others. All the previously removed quotes do not need to be blanked again, certain ones may benefit from a slight re-wording, but certain others like the Alvarez book stuff needs to be removed entirely as it's completely National Enquirer "I just saw Elvis at Wal-Mart" levels of made-up nonsense. So can we work to an overall logical and neutral consensus here? 51.241.0.169 (talk) 22:10, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You make some good points about the Reynolds-Alverez part, especially with the previous sentence pretty much noting the same thing I don't think that part is needed anymore.

For rewording the other quotes I have this idea:


>Gene Okerlund claimed in 2004 that Russo's ideas were successful in the WWF because Vince McMahon was able to filter them, while Ric Flair doubted Russo's WWF influence during their time together in WCW,[1] later blaming Russo for the disorganization of WCW.[2] Eric Bischoff has said that Russo was hired at WCW by overstating his influence in WWF, which Bischoff called "fraudulent."[3] Wrestling promoters Tony Khan and Jody Hamilton have criticized Russo's role in the downfall of WCW,[4][5] and TNA co-founder Jerry Jarrett expressed regret at the decision of bringing Russo in.[5]

.RF23 (talk) 23:45, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Carapola, Stuart (May 4, 2011). "A Detailed Look At The WWE Monday Night War DVD, Part 3: WCW Drops A Bischoff and Gains a Russo, Foley Wins the World Title, The Fingerpoke of Doom, The Mass Exodus from WCW To the WWF Begins, and More". PWInsider.com. Retrieved June 6, 2016.
  2. ^ Carapola, Stuart (May 4, 2011). "A Detailed Look At The WWE Monday Night War DVD, Part 3: WCW Drops A Bischoff and Gains a Russo, Foley Wins the World Title, The Fingerpoke of Doom, The Mass Exodus from WCW To the WWF Begins, and More". PWInsider.com. Retrieved June 6, 2016.
  3. ^ "Torch Talk Daily with Eric Bischoff: Bischoff calls "b.s." on how Vince Russo got hired in WCW". PWTorch.com. January 26, 2010. Retrieved June 6, 2016.
  4. ^ "Tony Khan Slams Vince Russo For Making WCW '10 Times Worse'". June 23, 2021. Retrieved August 10, 2021.
  5. ^ a b Mooneyham, Mike (August 21, 2011). "Mike Mooneyham: Hogan, TNA running out of steam?". The Post and Currier. Retrieved June 2, 2016.
So I think 99% of that is perfectly fine, all verified quotes from each figure with no troll-like wording to push any type of majority-negative spin.
Minor note: the whole "McMahon was Russo's filter" thing is and always was a complete myth that's been confirmed by both Russo himself on a podcast with Chris Jericho, as well as when just looking at it from a simple logic perspective (I.E. why would Vince McMahon pay Russo roughly $500,000 a year to be his head writer, plus occasionally give him $10,000 to $20,000 bonus checks for keeping up the good work, if every week Russo wrote the entire show followed by McMahon having to tear it all up or edit the vast majority of it because Russo's ideas were so terrible? It just doesn't add up). Though since that quote is linked to the Flair and Bischoff quotes that follow it, I assume that it would be a bridge too far to remove all of them. If that is in fact the case then swap out the "able to filter them" with "able to control them" and i'd say it's ready to be re-added as you laid out. 51.241.0.169 (talk) 00:29, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see anything wrong with the current version by Ringerfan23. While I don't think there was ever any "troll-like wording" and the quotes were reliably sourced and from notable figures in the industry, it's good to trim these things from time to time. These wrestling legacy sections tend to become quote farms and I've had to trim this one back a few times a year. Removing quotes entirely and simply summarizing should be encouraged more often.
I would be against removing the Okerlund claim though because it is a perfect example of a reliably sourced claim from a prominent industry figure. If the claim is disputed, or simply a "myth", then it would be better to find a reliable source that could counter it. The claim is obviously a popular one, if Russo himself addressed it on a podcast years later.LM2000 (talk) 06:58, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I agree with those sentiments. There is no direct YouTube style link for the Russo-Jericho podcast discussing the filter rumor as it seems to be exclusive to Apple Podcasts. If a more streamlined link can be found as a sourced reference i'd say it would be worthy of being added to the Okerlund quotes paragraph.
Many thanks for both overseeing and cleaning up the page on a regular basis, as well as assisting with this recent set of edits which I believe to be a vast improvement and long-needed change to a far more accurately worded and far more objectively neutral overall state. 51.241.0.169 (talk) 12:34, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Vince_Russo&oldid=1231472265"