Jump to content

Talk:The Ultimate Warrior

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Jmurdock21 (talk | contribs) at 15:50, 23 April 2014. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Past deletion of information

Two pieces of information that I feel were noteworthy have been removed from the page and should be re-inserted. Warrior was a student to become a chiropractor and was studying in Atlanta, Georgia. Also, the page was edited to omit the claim from Warrior where he states he left the company after Summerslam in 1992, rather than being fired. The page, as it is stated currently, makes it appear as though Warrior was fired despite possibly having a valid claim. This lack of information makes Vince McMahon's version of the story appear as fact. When in actuality, this story is disputed by Warrior.


ADDED: Warrior University was not started during Warrior's second WWF/E stint. It was not until around 1995-6 that Warrior University opened. 

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmurdock21 (talk • contribs) 21:10, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Different picture

Can we change the picture at the top of the page to a picture of him in his wrestling gear or at least put a picture of him in his gear somewhere on the page? It seems only logical considering thats the way almost everybody recognizes him. --71.36.128.104 (talk) 20:28, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not many will recognize him with current picture. It is also very unflattering. Here is a cc licemnsed pic Im sure would fare better to everyone: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ultimate_warrior.jpg

Controversial section

The material added to this talk-page refers to the Controversial remarks about Heath Ledger section which was added to the article recently. If such material is verifiable, (and there is a link, which my browser wouldn't take me to today) and causes no undue Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons problems, then it seems that it is suitable for addition to the article page. FWIW Newbyguesses - Talk 04:24, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've pulled it, as it fails Wikipedia's original research policy. It's unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material (in this case a blog) that has not been published by a reliable source. Warrior has made numerous blog entries over the years that express his opinions (as ridiculous as they may be), and while this particular entry has been convered in some fringe media, (which would probably not pass if scrutinized if looking to determine if these sources are reliable by Wikpedia standards), it's hardly encyclopedic and is given undue weight by it's recency. Are we going to create a section every time Warrior posts something in his self published blog about a celebrity? Perhaps a paragraph about his blog in general with a passing mention of individuals Warrior has discussed/insulted, which Heath Ledger mentioned amongst the many would be more appropriate - if sourced properly. --Quartet 20:53, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Warrior is constantly saying things in his blog that could be considered controversial - but how are Warriors opinions on various topics of the day encyclopedic? This is an encyclopedia, not a place for certain editors to pick and choose what they feel is notable from an individuals blog and tag it on to that same persons Wikipedia entry. Warriors last last blog entry questions why we celebrate Martin Luther King's birthday and claimed that King "plagiarized a great many speeches" and wet on to claim that "George Washington’s life and its story deserves the same, if not more, reverence than even the man called Jesus Christ and his story."[[1]]. Certainly MLK is a far more important historical figure than Ledger, but where is the entire section related to this entry or the statement about Jesus? Allstarecho what is your rationale behind adding[2] a discussion of just the post about Ledger? Are there any reliable sources that reported this? Because a casual Google search reveals stories by nothing more than Wrestling blogs and other "news" pieces by independent columnists. I'll assume good faith it's not a conflict of interest, but to someone who just came across this Wikipedia article it could appear that way. --Yankees76 (talk) 02:27, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just because his rants about MLK and Washington weren't in the section, doesn't mean to remove any other sections. It means, add them yourself if you feel they warrant inclusion, not just delete a whole section. Now, to address the concern, his notability makes everything he says and does come under a microscope. His comments about Ledger, and yes, MLK should definitely be included here. When a person has achieved that level of notability that a biography is acceptable, all known facts about the person have an equal chance of being represented. The person, short of pointing out libelous statements, has no special prerogative to exclude certain details. We do not allow this priviledge to Ann Coulter, we do not allow it to Jimmy Wales, we allow it to nobody. It is a red-herring argument that only issues *related* to notability are included. We include a biography based on notability, but once included, each statement does not need to pass notability to be included. As long as it's verifiable and sourced, it's fair game, especially in this situation. As for conflict of interest, I'm not sure where you're getting that from. I don't know the man personally, never met or spoken to him. I just know of him from his WWF days and only saw him wrestle in person once, against Andre the Giant in Jackson, Mississippi. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ echo 02:58, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have no intention of adding anything Warrior says in his blog to Wikipedia simply because I don't beleive the content of a self published blog is notable or even encyclopedic. As per WP:DUE an article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. Creating an entire subsection on Warriors reaction to the death of Heath Ledger makes it appear that this one blog entry received extensive coverage and is a significant event in Warriors biography - when in fact it was one blog post in many over a period of 8 or more years, many of which I'm sure contain similar statements about other individuals. I fail to see why you're giving this one blog entry the same weight as his, bodybuilding career for example, for which there is far more information from reliable sources available. As is noted above by Quartet, it may be Warriors blog itself that deserves the mention, not merely one blog entry plucked at random. --Yankees76 (talk) 03:43, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"his notability makes everything he says and does come under a microscope" is a flawed argument as Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and not an indiscriminate collection of information. There is no historical notability stemming from Warriors reaction to Heath Ledgers death, despite the notability of Warrior himself. Ledger's family did not react to this blog or make a statment about it. In fact no-one outside of a few Wrestling bloggers and independant columnists deemed it newsworthy at all. The article for Tom Cruise does not have a single mention of Cruise's reaction to Ledgers death, despite Cruise having a far stronger tie-in than Warrior.[3] And yet here we have an article where half of this individuals personal life section is taken up (with a header no less!!) by the synthesis of one blog entry made that discussed Heath Ledger that also contained yet another rant about Hulk Hogan? Undue weight is putting it lightly Yankees76! Now I'm not saying that this information should never be added to Wikipedia, but we're trying to create a biography of a living person here. I'm suggesting a re-write of the section as I mentioned above that discusses his blog in general, as these sorts of statements and "outbursts" seem to be the norm for Warrior, as pointed out by Yankees76 above. Literally this blog entry on Heath Ledger is deserving of a sentence in this section - if that. It could read something like this:
Warrior maintains a blog entitled "Warrior's Machete" where he discusses his personal life, his personal views on politics, sexuality, patriotism and his legacy as a wrestler, amongst other things. There have been numerous instances where Warrior has used the blog to attack?? members of his wrestling past(Vince McMahaon, Hulk Hogan) and celebrities who were newsworthy at the time of the blog (Heath Ledger, Saddam Hussein). He's even used the blog to post replies to letters from fans - both positive and negative.
Not the best copy, I know, but I just used it to get my point across. Thoughts??--Quartet 05:02, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good to me. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ echo 06:27, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hey fellas. I've taken a first stab at the new section. Feel free to tweak it, as it probably could be better. --Quartet 13:54, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bot report : Found duplicate references !

In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

  • "Flynn" :
    • {{ cite web | url = http://flynnfiles.com/blog/warrior/warrior2.htm | author = Flynn, L. | title = Interview with the Ultimate Warrior - Part 2 of 4 | publisher= FlynnFiles.com | accessdate=2008-05-18|date=2004-06-28}}
    • {{ cite web | url = http://flynnfiles.com/blog/warrior/warrior1.htm | author = Flynn, L. | title = Interview with the Ultimate Warrior - Part 1 of 4 | publisher= FlynnFiles.com | accessdate=2008-05-17|date=2004-06-28}}

DumZiBoT (talk) 16:42, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Below the Belt

I don't see anywhere in the given source that the plan was for Bret to face the Warrior at Royal Rumble '93. If it is there and I just can't see it, can someone tell me where in the source I can find it? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.194.167.208 (talk) 23:42, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Warrior (wrestler) → The Ultimate Warrior

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was

Resolved
--SRX 14:44, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gets rid of the quantifier, perhaps better known, too. RandySavageFTW (talk) 18:23, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Two points, first isn't his legal name "Warrior" and second he hasn't wrestled as Ultimate Warrior since 1996 (or 1998 I can't remember if WCW used UW, I doubt it). So I don't think a move would be needed. Darrenhusted (talk) 08:44, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, GCF. I was thinking of leaving out the "the," either was is fine. And Darren, it gets rid of the quantifier.. RandySavageFTW (talk) 09:36, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes you have to live with a quantifier, we can't change it to Warrior (which has been his name for fifteen years, and he only wrestled as Ultimate Warrior for nine), so Warrior (wrestler) is the next best option.Darrenhusted (talk) 09:56, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So Sting isn't better known as Steve Borden? RandySavageFTW (talk) 17:15, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Neutral - like someone said, he has done more work under the Warrior name, but is mostly known as Ultimate Warrior. I support moving it to remove quantifier but I oppose it because he is best known as Warrior, so I'm neutral.--SRX 21:23, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If Sting got to be moved to Steve Borden, then surely this should be moved. RandySavageFTW (talk) 22:09, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sting's page move has nothing to do with this one, Warrior has changed his name to Warrior, Sting's name is Steve Borden. He tours on the lecture circuit as Warrior. Darrenhusted (talk) 08:11, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When someone else asked for Sting's article to be changed to his non-notable ring name, Steve Borden, everyone supported, including you, because of the quantifier. Now when I ask for a change to a name way more than notable than Steve Borden, you oppose. So what if he changed his name to Warrior. RandySavageFTW (talk) 09:31, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because his legal name is Warrior, same as Steve Borden's legal name is Steve Borden. Warrior promotes himself now as Warrior and cannot wrestle as or use the name Ultimate Warrior in any context. If he lives for another fifty years he will be known as Warrior and on his death certificate it will say Warrior. His name is Warrior. Darrenhusted (talk) 09:57, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So there's a rule that says articles must be named their real name? RandySavageFTW (talk) 17:17, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well there is a rule that says to title a biographical article you should use the persons name. Govvy (talk) 18:12, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If so, then what's the point of WP:COMMONAME? Gavyn Sykes (talk) 18:17, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Common name is for if they are not well know by their real name, on UCN it gives examples of Tony Blair and Bill Clinton. Warrior was know in wrestling for nine years as Ultimate Warrior, but that is a trademarked character owned by WWE so he can't ever use that name again (and has been sued for trying to use it), his legal name is Warrior and so that is the easiest thing for the article to be known as, however as Warrior is also a common word then it needs a quantifier, as it stands because Jim Hellwig is a loon there is no compromise where we can call his article by a common name that does not cause problems. He hasn't wrestled as Ultimate Warrior in 12 years, he advertises himself as Warrior, the reason for keeping it where it is seems simple to me. Darrenhusted (talk) 08:14, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I still find it funny how you supported the Sting move to Steve Borden. He isn't known by Steve Borden at all, you just wanted rid of the quantifier. Now you like want the quantifier.. Also, this "rule" probally isn't even real. RandySavageFTW (talk) 09:43, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you not listening? Warrior is his real name, but because it is a common word it has to have the quantifier, Steve Borden is his real name, and because Sting is a common word this removes the need for a quantifier (and Sting is also a musician in The Police). I cannot support a move to Ultimate Warrior (a name the artist formerly know as Hellwig can never use) because he hasn't wrestled as it for 12 years, and he currently advertises himself as Warrior.
What you "find funny" has nothing to do with anything. The preference is for names without quantifiers, but if that is not possible then the next best option needs to be arrived at. In this case the current name is the best worst option, Warrior is not available and Brian James Hellwig is no longer his legal name. You asked for the move, I have given you my reasons, I suggest you read WP:UCN before proposing any more moves. Darrenhusted (talk) 15:34, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fine. Support when anyone else wants rid of quantifiers, but reject when I do. Warrior being his real name means nothing. Still laughing. RandySavageFTW (talk) 17:14, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

<sigh> This is just like the WWE ECW crap. @Darren, he is best known as Ultimate Warrior. So, it would be a good thing to move it. BUT, @Randy, Darren has a point. He only had the "Ultimate Warrior" name for 9 years. And, it's owned by WWE, AND he does all his work under "Warrior." AND, Warrior is his real name. AND, just because quantifiers have been gotten rid of before, doesn't mean we can get rid of all the quantifiers on WP. In short terms:
  • Support per WP:COMMONNAME
  • Oppose because he's had the name "Warrior" longer than "Ultimate Warrior."

Also, @both, he wrestled as Warrior in WCW.

--SAVIOR_SELF.777 02:48, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mind him opposing because Warrior hasn't used UW in like 12 years, but it's stupid how that's his reason, yet he changes Sting (wrestler) (a name that's been used for like ever) into Steve Borden (a name that hasn't been used in 49 years). RandySavageFTW (talk) 09:43, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You know, him has a name. And my reasons for opposing and supporting different moves do not have to all be the same, I can support one move to remove a quantifier and support one which adds a quantifier at the same time. I'm not sure what you think this process is, am I somehow wrong for supporting one move for one reason then opposing another move for the exact same reason? I didn't realise I was only allowed one thought and then I had to apply that to every single move. Sometimes and article is better under a real name, sometimes it isn't, sometimes it's best to remove a quantifier, sometimes it is not possible, sometimes I have never ever heard of a wrestler and so don't bother voting, is that wrong? As for Support when anyone else wants rid of quantifiers, but reject when I do, get over yourself. Most of these moves do not need to happen, that is why people oppose, not because you were the nominator. Darrenhusted (talk) 10:04, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That still didn't explain anything. WP:CNP says try to avoid using the quantifier. No rule says it must stay at his real name. If you're gonna reply with he hasn't used Ultimate Warrior in 12 years, then refer to what I said about you and Sting. Still don't understand how you supported a name that hasn't been used in 49 years. RandySavageFTW (talk) 17:21, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oddly enough, I can't find any mention of the word "quantifier" at the above link. And I've read itb before. It should be there... Gavyn Sykes (talk) 00:37, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@Randy, you know I have said my piece six different ways and all you keep doing is going on about Sting, and I have already addressed that. This move ain't going to happen, so leave it alone. Darrenhusted (talk) 08:05, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gavyn, I got the link wrong. NCP, not CNP.. here. Oh well, though. I give up. RandySavageFTW (talk) 17:23, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What Darren is saying is that Warrior shouldn't be moved to Ultimate Warrior because it is neither his commonname ("Warrior (wrestler)") nor his real name ("Warrior (wrestler)"). Either way, "Warrior (wrestler)" is the only/best option. On the other hand, "Sting (wrestler)" was moved to Steve Borden because out of the two options—commonname (Sting (wrestler)) and real name (Steve Borden)—one of them doesn't have the quantifier, so it is used. Warrior doesn't have a good option without the quantifier (as the above reasons that disqualify Ultimate Warrior from being his commonname). See the difference? Nikki311 22:36, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did this conversation ever go anywhere? I think it should be closed since it hasn't been modified since the 11th. SAVIOR_SELF.777 03:42, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It ended in mostly opposition.--SRX 14:44, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done--SRX 14:44, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

PHOTO

put in a photo there used to be one whoever took it away can you put it back!?!? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kalajan (talk • contribs) 20:10, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"With the win, Ultimate Warrior remains one of only 2 wrestlers ever, along with Kevin Nash (Diesel), to hold both the WWF Championship and Intercontinental championship at the same time." -Can we get a citation or a verification on this? I'm not aware of any such point in Kevin Nash/Diesel's career where this was the case (although he did simulaneously hold the Intercontinental Championship and World Tag Team Championship in August, 1994 and later the WWF Championship and the World Tag Team Championship in September, 1995). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.53.176.235 (talk) 07:59, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

self destruction

why isnt it in the article that vince said on the dvd the self destruction of the ultimat warrior the warrior held a gun to his head during the pay dispute lol seems kinda note worthey —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.150.195.240 (talk) 02:37, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

-dude, don't take that comment so literally. The "gun in Vince's head" was only a figure of speech. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.145.224.60 (talk) 13:30, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Christmas comic book not a comic book

I'm fairly certain it's clear that it was published as a poster/pinup book. There is no text except the inside cover prose. I have a scan available if desired for proof. I also dispute it being valuable since this was a dollar bin book at VF condition. --Contributions/208.255.118.242 (talk) 19:58, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alleged death

I know its referenced on Warrior' website, and was a huge rumor during his main WWF stint. He had supposedly OD'ed on steroids, and a new person took over as the Ultimate Warrior. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chadmd23 (talk • contribs) 08:03, 20 October 2009 (UTC) You are right, that is what happened and now the next new person is taking over. 76.236.121.35 (talk) 05:49, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

His Bodybuilding Career

It says he moved to California, and became a bodybuilder after he saw Robby Robertson.

When was that ? What year did he officially become a professional bodybuilder ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.104.108.6 (talk) 18:57, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ultimate warrior.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Ultimate warrior.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale as of 10 September 2011

What should I do?

Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 09:51, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Online

I think it's worth mentioning that Warrior has been speaking out about the WWE, as well as wrestlers Hulk Hogan and Kevin Nash, online in videos on YouTube and possibly elsewhere. It's significant enough. I don't know why that hasn't been added already because he's been doing this for a few years now. And it's in par with Wikipedia's standards because the proof is in the videos, as he literally talks about some of the things you don't get to see behind the cameras, like Hulk's drug use and Nash's "two-faced" personality. --Matt723star (talk) 19:10, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Was in the article previously and removed as being unencyclopedic and not really notable. Yankees76 Talk 13:36, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm surprised, I figured that to be significant because it deals with how he feels about the company he worked for and is most known for. --Matt723star (talk) 18:07, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was moved. --BDD (talk) 18:05, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Warrior (wrestler) → The Ultimate Warrior – This is the name Hellwig used for the majority of his televised appearances. This is the name used to refer to Hellwig in DVD releases and video games in which he is featured. This will allow far more direct linking. McPhail (talk) 23:38, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What's the point of "Ultimate Warrior (wrestler)"? Nothing is at "Ultimate Warrior" now, and "Ultimate Warrior" allows for direct linking. just [.[The Ultimate Warrior].] instead of [.[Ultimate Warrior (wrestler)|The Ultimate Warrior].] Starship.paint (talk) 06:41, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Prefer The Ultimate Warrior. WWE can style it how they want now, but "The" was undeniably there in the years Warrior was active and relevant. Hence, the common name. Has McPhail so quickly changed his stance on rewriting history? InedibleHulk (talk) 17:32, August 10, 2013 (UTC)
Also still the way the twit tweets. And what he calls himself in this recent WWE ad. Also, in the single most important thing he's ever done. Now that I look, also on WWE.com. Not in the heading, but in the bio (and videos, of course). InedibleHulk (talk) 17:36, August 10, 2013 (UTC)
Just one more thing (I think): "With or without the facepaint, I am The Ultimate Warrior!". As Lionel Hutz would say, "Case closed." InedibleHulk (talk) 18:23, August 10, 2013 (UTC)
I don't think it's a hugely important distinction, but I've changed the request to "The Ultimate Warrior". McPhail (talk) 20:03, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. It does seem like a big deal to me (as you may have noticed). The three words just naturally roll together, in my head. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:18, August 10, 2013 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Date of Death

Most of the article says 8th of April 2014, but last line of first paragraph says 9th. So 8th or 9th? 112.199.230.157 (talk) 04:26, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Officials tell TMZ ... Warrior collapsed outside an Arizona hotel at 5:50 PM on April 8th ... while walking to his car with his wife." As this is a developing story, and TMZ has been wrong when it comes to breaking deaths in the past, more should be confirmed as time goes on. What a shocking death. RIP.LM2000 (talk) 05:18, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Time of collapse

There's a sentence in the section about his death that currently reads, "According to reports, Warrior collapsed at 5:50 p.m. (PDT) while walking to his car with his wife in Arizona outside of their hotel." Arizona is in the Mountain time zone but most of Arizona (this includes the location of the hotel or motel) doesn't use daylight saving time. Therefore, if a time zone is included with a local time, it should be MST (though now, with the Pacific time zone using daylight saving time, it coincides with PDT). The cited source, a Pro Wrestling Torch article, states, "around 5:50 p.m. (8:50 p.m. EST [sic])" so adding "(PDT)" to this Wikipedia article is original research. The Pro Wrestling Torch article itself cites a TMZ article, which also gives the time as 5:50 PM without noting the time zone. (Why not just use the TMZ article as the cited source here?) --anon.71.183.139.60 (talk) 06:10, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use picture

Apparently there are no free use pictures of Warrior on Commons. Since he has left us (RIP) we can use a fair use picture instead. We should prioritize getting a fair use picture of him while he was still wrestling. starship.paint "YES!" 06:16, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here's some from Flickr that we should be able to get without issue. I feel like I've seen the top one on here before... LM2000 (talk) 06:22, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The first one? Seems like Tony2Times asked for permission to use it on Wikipedia. But the picture's not very good. Warrior looks like a toy, his face is not shown clearly.
Obviously, the second one's copyright is owned by WWE. starship.paint "YES!" 06:30, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, no - purely because someone has died does not mean you can immediately use a non-free image. There are undoubtedly free images available out there (there will have been thousands of photos taken during bouts, etc. that are on the net), it's just a question of finding them. Black Kite (talk) 17:00, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • And since the flickr picture is actually free, there is a free one available. Poor quality doesn't mean that you can use a fair use one in its place. --kelapstick(bainuu) 19:51, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • The "free" flickr image was deleted a few times on commons so I don' think it should be uploaded again..the person probably doesn't own the rights to it..not everyone on flickr actually own the rights to images they claim to own..I have done my search, there isn't any free image available yet..--Stemoc (talk) 00:43, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Great point Stemoc. I can confirm that, I tried to upload the "free file" and I got this message. So apparently, there aren't any free images on Flickr.
        • I'm trying to use the Free Image Search Tool but I'm getting some Fatal error: Call to undefined function db_get_articles_in_category() in /data/project/fist/public_html/fist.php on line 425. If FIST doesn't turn up anything, could the fair use picture be used, Black Kite? starship.paint "YES!" 06:31, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • I searched for "Ultimate Warrior" with FIST. As of this post, there are no free use pictures on... WikiTravel, GIMP-SAVVY, Geograph UK, Geograph DE, Geograph Channel-islands. Freemages turns up two false alarms. Everystockphoto turns up many false alarms. Google Picasa turns up two false alarms of toys. Ipernity is broken. Other languages and Commons turn up nothing. starship.paint "YES!" 00:54, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • We have exactly two options for Flickr free use: Option 1 where Ultimate Warrior's arm covers half of his face. Option 2 where it's taken from afar and the ring rope covers half of his face. starship.paint "YES!" 00:58, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I don't think I saw the picture here, I think I saw it on TvTrax's Youtube account. From what I've seen they only use fair use pictures, so if they can do it I'm not sure why we can't. The same Flikr user who uploaded that picture uploaded this picture of Miss Elizabeth, which we use on her article, the Elizabeth picture appears in the same Flickr folder as the Warrior one. Special thanks to whoever uploaded the pics from this weeks Raw. Obviously those will have great historical importance in the future.LM2000 (talk) 20:20, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've started an undeletion discussion on Commons for the best quality Flickr photograph. Please chime in here.LM2000 (talk) 21:05, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Listing his death on the Main Page

Would anyone support this if I proposed this at Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates? I need someone more familiar to justify that he was "a very important figure in his or her field."

  • ABC News: Pro Wrestling Legend ... one of professional wrestling’s biggest superstars
  • Reuters: one of U.S. professional wrestling's most celebrated athletes ... days after being inducted into the World Wrestling Entertainment Inc Hall of Fame
  • FOX Sports: earned a global following
  • USA Today: one of the biggest stars of the 1990s
  • New York Post: Legendary wrestler ... a longtime star of the sport

starship.paint "YES!" 06:57, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I support this. He was one of the many people instrumental in the wrestling boom of the 80s. CRRaysHead90 | #RaysUp 07:20, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I went ahead and did it, see Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates#RD: The Ultimate Warrior. @LM2000: I hope you are not working on it right now. @CRRaysHead90: please voice your opinion there. starship.paint "YES!" 07:27, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On the page for this, it has been requested that the "citation needed" and "refimprove" should be dealt with. Does that really need to be there? At its basest level, the purpose of "citation needed" is to issue a formal challenge to a claim, without deleting that claim. So this is my honest question about it: is there a legitimate challenge, or is this classified as common knowledge in this field? Is this necessary? — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 08:06, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I "fixed" the Nu-Wrestling Evolution (2008) section and added sources. It was too detailed and was only about one match. I also tried to tackle his theme songs, but only found sources for the WWE and NWE theme songs. There might not be much info online for WCCW (1980s) and WCW (1998), I could not really find it. The 1996 section has also been repaired... about 50%.
  • Could other WP:PW editors more familiar with Ultimate Warrior comment on the rest? starship.paint "YES!" 14:47, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Whew. Still not perfect, I'll see how many of these CN tags I can knock down later, but it has been posted to the main page. Glad we could get this done for one of the biggest stars in the history of the industry. I'm still in shock.LM2000 (talk) 18:34, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 10 April 2014

When The Ultimate Warrior died, he collapsed out of nowhere walking to his car with his wife. I request that the cause of death will be put as Sudden Cardiac Arrest, as it is how athletes (such as he) suddenly collapse and die. Actster (talk) 00:44, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Without a citation, absolutely not! That would be original research. --Malerooster (talk) 00:49, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not done:: until a cause of death has been announced by the authorities, it is speculation. NiciVampireHeart 00:53, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Tons of wrestlers have regular heart attacks (also only a guess). Remember, "The phrase sudden cardiac death is a public health concept incorporating the features of natural, rapid, and unexpected. It does not specifically refer to the mechanism or cause of death." InedibleHulk (talk) 01:03, April 11, 2014 (UTC)

Death Reactions

Sourcing Twitter and Facebook for reactions to a death is not a done thing. This is an encyclopaedia, not a tabloid newspaper. Media coverage of his death has been widespread, including quality newspapers such as The Guardian and The Independent in the UK, so I think this could be discussed, but random wrestlers Tweeting about it? Nah. There's literally zero precedent for it having checked Wiki pages of the likes of Mae Young, Randy Savage, Viscera, and Doink, who have all died in recent years during the height of popularity of Twitter. RealDealBillMcNeal (talk) 20:57, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have much of an opinion on whether or not the reaction section should stay, but I don't think that the tabloid argument works here. It was sourced to TMZ, which was replaced with Sports Illustrated. I've found other reliable sources covering the tweets, ranging from: USA Today, E!, Fox Sports, Des Moines Register, and The Miami Herald. We aren't running a tabloid, but I don't think any of those reliable sources are either.LM2000 (talk) 21:10, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)I tend to agree with the original poster. A lot of people react to big new stories like this, so to hand pick a few and include their tweets in an encyclopedia article doesn't seem necessary. Gloss • talk 21:11, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
See, I disagree with that notion. Especially when you consider the time frame at which he died. Inducted to the HOF Sunday and announcing his new multi-year ambassadors contract for WWE, appearing at WrestleMania and on Raw on Sunday and Monday respectively, and then dying suddenly on Tuesday. The guy had a big impact on the wrestling business both in the 80s and right before his death. The reactions help properly relay it. CRRaysHead90 | #RaysUp 21:18, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So why highlight Tweets by 2 or 3 wrestlers, rather than focus on the issue of it gaining widespread media reporting? If those stories include the Tweets, you could just add that the wrestlers reacted along with linking to the source(s), rather than quoting the entire Tweet. RealDealBillMcNeal (talk) 21:37, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Then sway me, propose a new statement to replace it. CRRaysHead90 | #RaysUp 21:44, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sway you? Sway me me that Tweets should be included in encyclopaedia! I've literally just told you how it should be. RealDealBillMcNeal (talk) 21:51, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Let me get this straight, you say that you have an idea for a compromise, but you won't write out the idea for consideration? CRRaysHead90 | #RaysUp 21:55, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The statements don't need to be replaced, if the consensus is to have them removed. It simply doesn't work like that. Gloss • talk 22:06, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I already did include it. Twice. I recommend you read the comments I have left. And yes, the word-for-word quoting of Tweets should be removed because, as I am now explaining for at least the 5th time, this is an encyclopaedia, not a tabloid newspaper. Tweets are not encyclopaedia content and are not a reliable source. RealDealBillMcNeal (talk) 22:12, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Gloss - He proposed a change and then didn't follow through with a suggestion on what should replace that, that is what I'm asking for. An example of what his proposal entails. @Bill - Twitter was not used as a source but as the content itself. And yes Twitter can be a reliable source, just depends on who the tweets belong to and what they're being used to source. As for repeating yourself, you've repeated yourself 4 times, now 5, that you don't want the reaction. I get that. But two replies ago you proposed an idea that keeps the reactions there but does away with the direct quotes. I asked for an example of that, and you have yet to provide it. Rather you turned back to your original argument and ignored my request. CRRaysHead90 | #RaysUp 22:36, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think the problem is in sourcing Twitter directly, rather than a "mainstream news" source. A collection of reactions, like these fighters or other celebrities, may be the more "encyclopedic" option. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:52, April 11, 2014 (UTC)
That's the things though, they're sourced to Sports Illustrated. Not Twitter directly. CRRaysHead90 | #RaysUp 02:01, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So they are. Maybe he'd just like it vaguer. Like "Various guys said #RIP." But it looks fine to me. Follows the Rule of Three, and three notable enemies making peace is worth full quotes. I'm absolutely against what happens when someone like Chavez or Mandela dies, and editors insist on repeating the same thing from every single leader (with bullet and flag icon). Even with A-list Hollywooders. This isn't that. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:23, April 11, 2014 (UTC)
  • I see the Sports Illustrated source has special mention for Vince / Snake / Hulk. So I'm running with that. Have edited to follow the source, and added more sources.
  • Given that Warrior had bad relations with the rest of the wrestling industry (and it is in the Sports Illustrated source) I think it's fine to note that he has patched up relations with at least some of them. Support the current paragraph to be included in the article. starship.paint "YES!" 08:22, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I support the new paragraph as well. How does @RealDealBillMcNeal feel, since he is the reason we're discussing this. CRRaysHead90 | #RaysUp 17:27, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As I've already said, using Twitter comments is not encyclopaedia and has zero precedent. RealDealBillMcNeal (talk) 18:48, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
They're in Death of Nelson Mandela and Patrice O'Neal. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:02, April 11, 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Well, here's the thing about precedent. Everything was unprecedented at one point or another, there's a first for everything. Hell, Wikipedia itself is unprecedented. And being an encyclopedia on the internet, it would be stupid of us not to evolve with technology. The accounts the comments were retrieved from were verified, meaning official, meaning it's really them that said them. And they're sourced to a reliable source in Sports Illustrated. As for whether it is encyclopedic, well I believe it is and so does Hulk and Paint. It gives the reader an idea of the impact his sudden death had on his colleagues. CRRaysHead90 | #RaysUp 19:06, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Although I didn't have much of an opinion at the start of this, I do think it should stay as it is now. The added background on why the tweets were important, given the potshots these guys used to throw around, make the difference.LM2000 (talk) 20:15, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

image

The image on the page says its the last photo of him from April 7, but the photo was taken at Wrestlemania on April 6, so it should be two days before his death.--Mjs1991 (talk) 13:23, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that at first too. He is wearing the same three-piece suit that he wore during Raw though. It looks like the jacket is a different color because of the lighting, but I don't think it is.LM2000 (talk) 18:30, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In any case, we now have three of the gray-haired suit version. Hardly representative of the tassled, painted, jacked guy who became famous. Can someone else work on that? InedibleHulk (talk) 23:00, April 12, 2014 (UTC)
Starship and I are working on it. There's a pretty good one on Flickr that's free, but it has been deleted in the past for dubious reasons. I've made a case to have it undeleted, so here's that if you're interested.LM2000 (talk) 23:25, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Looking better already, thanks. But yeah, still room for improvement. I think if we're going to argue fair use, we should do it on a clearer picture than that (which already seems rather free). A few of these scaled-down pics would be good. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:02, April 13, 2014 (UTC)
I think you're confusing fair use with free content in your undeletion. Free content needs no argument or justification. Fair use is only for copyrighted stuff. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:10, April 13, 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure if we'll be able to argue for a fair use pic since free (thank you for pointing out my bone-headed mistake) pictures do exist. If someone wants to take up the task of attempting to get one then I'm with you in spirit.LM2000 (talk) 01:30, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I may need three more souls, because this article is about Jim Hellwig, Rock, The Dingo Warrior and The Ultimate Warrior. They look quite different, and it's educationally valuable to show how. Definitely beats adding 4,000 words. Remember, it's not just free pictures that need to exist, but free equivalent pictures. A zoomed out, blurry or 93% armed Warrior doesn't equal a decent shot. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:24, April 13, 2014 (UTC)

Obviously a key moment here. Good place to start. Any objections to this one before I run with it? InedibleHulk (talk) 06:33, April 13, 2014 (UTC)

Run, just run with it. The one LM2000 is trying to undelete just doesn't show the face well enough for me. starship.paint "YES!" 06:42, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Good luck, any decent image of him in his prime would do the article wonders.LM2000 (talk) 06:51, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry, Starship. I also plan on getting a good one of his painted face. That symbol was near half the gimmick. Essential illustration. Like Kamala's belly. But by run, I mean I'll probably do it tomorrow. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:20, April 13, 2014 (UTC)
Would this picture including a WrestleMania poster of Warrior be allowed if I can persuade the uploader to change it to "free use"? starship.paint "YES!" 02:46, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Probably be alright, since it's a public display. But where do you plan on using it, and why? InedibleHulk (talk) 04:57, April 14, 2014 (UTC)
If you can't get a fair use pic of his page, we can contemplate using that. Where to insert it? Anywhere in the WWF sections, I guess. starship.paint "YES!" 05:33, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking a picture like that would work best in the infobox. Instantly sums up the the whole essence: the snarl, symbol, colours, tassels and steroids. The current infobox one would be better replacing one in the Return section. How he looked for two days after 18 years off is educational, but not so representative of the whole topic. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:27, April 14, 2014 (UTC)
How does this one grab you? The belt and the crazy were also big parts, and since its the kind of promo picture WWF used for signings (decades ago), it's easy to argue they won't mind it going public. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:37, April 14, 2014 (UTC)
OK, it's at [[File:Hogan passes torch.jpg]]. I uploaded it as an image from a TV show, which apparently translates to "screenshot". Not exactly true, but hopefully not a problem. I get the feeling I might have forgotten to dot some i's and cross some t's, but we'll see. Someone else want to put it in the WWF Champion section? InedibleHulk (talk) 04:57, April 14, 2014 (UTC)
Unsure if my caption is good enough... starship.paint "YES!" 05:44, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It was terrible! Just kidding. Made a couple minor fixes, but I like "endorse". Good choice for jargony torch-passing. Thanks. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:22, April 14, 2014 (UTC)

part two

Can we switch main pic (or at least put it somewhere below) to this cc licensed pic? http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ultimate_warrior.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jerickson11235 (talk • contribs) 06:43, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Quite frankly I have zero confidence that that picture is a CC licensed picture. starship.paint "YES!" 08:55, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that is a clear copyright violation. I love that the "source" is "Own work", which I seriously doubt. We already have enough images where this is no longer an issue anyways. STATic message me! 17:16, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We should certainly use the image (or similar). Like I say above, it captures seven key aspects to (maybe) one for the current. But yeah, that licensing is bogus. Needs a fair use exemption. I'm getting there, just slowly. That's how I roll. Feel free to beat me to it. Just make sure you have an answer for all ten of these conditions. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:07, April 19, 2014 (UTC)

The ULTIMATE WARRIOR SLIM JIM COMMERCIAL

I started to post that The Warrior was the first WWE star to appear in a Slim Jims ad but I haven't yet found a source. All I have is a memory of his ad premiering before those featuring the 'Macho Man' Randy Savage. I seem to remember Savage's appearing after the Warrior's departure from the WWE so I assumed at the time that it was the reason for Savage's use in the commercials. Savage was in an Ad for a Rubik's game in the mid-80s but I am nearly 100% certain he didn't do one for the Slim Jims product until after Warrior did his.MARK VENTURE (talk) 19:05, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I remember seeing those. Here's a source, "some have forgotten that Warrior was the original pitch man for Slim Jim in the '90s, before Randy "Macho Man" Savage assumed the role."LM2000 (talk) 20:18, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I remember, too. I also still hear Lord Alfred Hayes' voice everytime someone mentions Castrol GTX. The Rubik's cube doesn't ring a bell. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:26, April 12, 2014 (UTC)

Randy Savage wasn't promoting a Rubik's Cube, but a new product the maker of the Cube was selling. It was sort of a Rubik's Chain kind of thing. I remember that in the commercial, Savage did his typical turn and point move and exclaimed "I'm gonna get you, Rubik!" The then-new game didn't catch on because I never saw it again-- the commercial or the game.MARK VENTURE (talk) 01:46, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I want it, whatever it is. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:28, April 13, 2014 (UTC)
Here it is. Video, anyway. Almost as good. Now I get why I don't remember it. Wasn't alive yet. Still want it. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:30, April 13, 2014 (UTC)
Or wait. That's not 1980. Savage wasn't Macho yet. Copyright 1986. I started watching late that year, but nope, still no bell. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:36, April 13, 2014 (UTC)

"Massive heart attack"

I haven't found a source that said "massive heart attack" which didn't lead back to TMZ. Are we allowed to cite TMZ for this? I thought Wikipedia doesn't look highly upon TMZ. But New York Post, Fox News and Toronto Sun have seen fit to report that. starship.paint "YES!" 13:11, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

TMZ's alright, when they've got their real reporter hat on. If they're implying Miley Cyrus is dating an actual goat with an old photo from a petting zoo and a question marked headline, it's not OK for Wikipedia to answer that question as fact. But here, there's no "Did Cyberbullying Kill Warrior?", just straight-up what the coroner said. Do you have any reason to doubt it? Seems pretty logical. An old-school ice bullet instead, perhaps? InedibleHulk (talk) 02:49, April 18, 2014 (UTC)
I noticed we had the cause as "heart disease". That's an underlying cause, not an immediate one. You can technically say it both ways, but one is more precise. It's like, if I push you out a window, did I kill you? Did the fall? Did the landing?
So there are no contradictions going on here in the media, if that was wondered. If not, carry on. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:38, April 18, 2014 (UTC)

Deletion of steroid mention in death section

Please remove the unnecessary part about steroids being involved in the death because they affected his heart. Heart disease related events are the number 1 killer of humans worldwide. Atherosclerosic calcified plaques were the cause of his death.. triggering the heart attack per the autopsy report. The reference to steroids is pure nonsense, and does not need to be mentioned at all. Thank you for reading. BreaK82 (talk) 03:55, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • @BreaK82: Nowhere does it say steroids were involved in the death. It was only stated that steroids can affect the heart, and Warrior himself admitted he took steroids. Regarding Atherosclerosic calcified plaques - could you provide a reliable source? starship.paint "YES!" 04:38, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Why is the effect of steroids on the human heart found in Warrior's Death information? Is it found in Michael Jackson's? Of course not! Reason why it is there is because whomever originally put it there wanted to suggest that steroids may have possibly been the underlying cause of Warrior's heart attack. Seeing how there is no official information stating that steroids had ANYTHING to do with Warrior's death, that information should be considered speculative and removed. If you want to include information about Warrior's steroid use, it should be included somewhere in his bodybuilding or wrestling biography. If you want to list the effects of steroids on the human body, that information needs to be listed on the wiki page for anabolic steroids. There is no reason why Warrior's information about his death should contain the effects of steroids on the human body.--Jmurdock21 (talk) 20:49, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am deleting the sentence, "He was admittedly a heavy user of steroids during his professional wrestling career; since the heart is a muscle, steroids can affect its condition." If we are going to mention Warrior's steroid use, it should be done somewhere in his biography. Placing that information in the same area as his death information is leading readers to believe that steroids played a part in his death....and while it is possible that is true, there is no way to prove that and that sentence is nothing more than speculation. The second part of the sentence that reads "since the heart is a muscle, steroids can affect its condition" reads like a childish autonomous response to anyone who disagrees that Warrior's death had anything to do with steroids. There is no point in turning Warrior's death into a crusade against steroids. --Jmurdock21 (talk) 17:20, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why leave the part about his family history then? Isn't that just as speculative?LM2000 (talk) 19:59, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Because his family history isn't speculative. That is fact. It is true that Warrior took steroids...but to say it played a part in his death is pure speculation... and steroids do have an effect on the human heart, but this is not a steroid page, this is a page about Warrior. Warrior claims he last took steroids in 1991-1992. We don't have anything to back that up other than Warrior's words, but we do have a coroner stating that the cause of death was natural and a result of heart failure. Nowhere in the autopsy report is the word "Steroids" mentioned. So to suggest that Warrior died from supplements used over 20 years ago is a far reach at best. --Jmurdock21 (talk) 20:43, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The source isn't an autopsy report. James Caldwell of Pro Wrestling Torch is reporting that Warrior used steroids heavily throughout his wrestling career -- which even you concede has a negative impact on the heart -- and that Warrior was genetically inclined to have heart disease. Caldwell uses more text on the steroid part than the family history part. It's wrong to compare Warrior's death section to Michael Jackson's. Curt Hennig, Jerry Tuite, Rick Rude, and Davey Boy Smith do mention steroids in their death sections.LM2000 (talk) 21:26, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This article has nothing to do with Rick Rude or Davey Boy Smith. As I recall, Rick Rude was training for a comeback and was taking GHB at THE TIME of hos death. Davey Boy Smith was abusing HGH and anabolic steroids at the time of his death. As far as I know, James Caldwell is not am MD, a DO, nor does he have a PhD in nutrition, physiology, biology or genetics. As far as I can tell, he is a beat writer for an internet wrestling column and is no more qualified to discuss the the long term effects of anabolic steroids than you or I. Warrior has an official autopsy report that can be obtained online. Nowhere is steroids mentioned. To even list steroids in his death section is implicating that steroids played a role in his death. This is not tmz or a news gossip site. You do not know that steroids had any role whatsoever in his death. They MIGHT have. But our job is not to speculate. You are free to list that Warrior was a steroid user and you are free to go to a dianabol page and list all of the long term effects on the human body. But until you can find a doctor report or some other medical report that states that Warrior's death was a result of steroids, then any mention of steroids does not belong in Warrior's death column. Once again, wikipedia is not a news gossip site. --Jmurdock21 (talk) 00:24, 22 April 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.22.93.66 (talk) [reply]
The Pro Wrestling Torch is a reliable source, especially on professional wrestling matters. Have another reliable source: The Independent regarding Warrior's death: Anabolic steroid abuse in athletes has been linked to a range of adverse health conditions, including cardiovascular disease. Regular misuse also increases the chances of cardiac arrest... I will stress again that we said that steroids can affect the heart. Nowhere does it say that steroids 100% caused the death. It is relevant because Warrior was an admittedly heavy steroid user, simple as that. Restored, with additional disclaimer to make it clear. starship.paint "YES!" 05:36, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Pro Wrestling Torch is a source regarding professional wrestling, not about forensics, nor about how steroids affect the human body. What effect anabolic steroids have on the human body belongs on the profile of anabolic steroids. Ultimate Warrior's wiki page is not a page where someone should or would go to find out about information about anabolic steroids, whether it affects the human heart, etc. I have no problem with listing Warrior's past steroid usage. But once again, it is MISLEADING to put any information under the death banner because any information about steroids and it's affects on the human body is an indirect suggestion that steroids contributed to his death. As I previously mentioned, from what I can tell, no one at Pro Wrestling Torch is an expert on physiology or anabolic steroids. Until you can show me any reliable source (from a CERTIFIED MEDICAL PROFESSIONAL, not a beat writer or a gossip columnist) that states that he examined Warrior's heart and body and that steroids possibly played a role in his death, then any mentioned of steroids should be removed from the death section. As of now, the page reads, "anabolic steroids can have an effect on the human heart." That information has NO RELEVANCE WHATSOEVER in Warrior's death section. You say that the article is fixed because it says, "it is unclear whether or not steroids played a role." If that is the case, then why is it mentioned at all? It's possible a number of issues resulted in his death. High blood pressure may have played a role, the stress of the weekend may have played a role. Warrior said several times that he rarely slept more than a few hours a night....perhaps sleep deprivation had a negative impact on his health? WE DO NOT KNOW. Each one of those items I listed is much more likely to have played a role in his death, but we aren't mentioning those items because there is no point in SPECULATING.Here are the facts, Warrior was a steroid user....list that information somewhere in his wrestling bio or his bodybuilding bio or even in his legacy. We know Warrior suffered a heart attack, we also know that Warrior had a family history of heart failure. The connection between his heart attack and his family history is fact and a direct link and is relevant to his death. Listing the harmful effects of steroids and saying "it might've had something to do with it" is not encyclopedic. Encyclopedias state fact. Warrior was a steroid user 20 years ago, at this point there is no indication whatsoever that steroids had anything to do with his death. I am removing any mention of steroids from his death section and will continue to do so until someone can show or list a legitimate medical professional or someone who is an expert who can definitely say that steroids played a role in Warrior's death.--Jmurdock21 (talk) 17:18, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I also fail to see how the article you listed qualifies adding steroids to Warrior's death section. The article states that Warrior's death was natural and proceeds to say there were "rumors regarding Warrior's death." Those rumors existed because Nancy Grace falsely claimed several wrestlers died due to drugs and steroids and she also caught a huge wave of negative backlash for her sensationalism. While the article does go on to talk about steroids, athletes and steroids, etc, I still fail to see how that article qualifies the mention of steroids regarding Ultimate Warrior's death. That information seems like it would be listed under the Steroids in Sports page. Once again, I will say that any mention of steroids in Warrior's death section is an indirect suggestion that they played a role in his death. Saying "but we don't know for sure if it did" doesn't fix the article. That simply means that the information is speculative and speculative information doesn't belong.--Jmurdock21 (talk) 17:34, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You had a problem with one reliable source, Starship was kind enough to fetch you another one, and you just ignore that one. Caldwell's is good enough alone. As a professional wrestling reporter he has seen enough of these guys drop dead suddenly, dying with "enlarged hearts" to know there's a link here. It's no more speculative than saying family history might have been the culprit. I'm all or nothing on the issue, leave family history, leave steroids. Your arguments on how this information belongs in a separate article -- something like anabolic steroids perhaps -- doesn't make a lick of sense. Wouldn't that mean that the speculated genetic link belongs in Genes? Do not keep reverting without consensus as that will be seen as edit warring and you could receive a block.LM2000 (talk) 20:22, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well we obviously have a different opinion as to what constitutes a reliable source. A pro wrestling reporter who "has seen enough of these guys drop dead" is one NOT a reliable source. Do you believe for a minute he would be allowed to testify in court as an expert witness?? Of course he wouldn't. Did Warrior die of steroids? No. Did his father and grandfather die of heart failure? Yes. One is fact, one is speculation from a journalist who is no more qualified on the subject than you or I. I'm arguing the factual statement go in and the speculative statement be left out. The writers of those articles are allowed to speculate the cause of Warrior's death, (but you notice they were VERY careful not to directly say steroids played a part. Arnold Schwarzeneggar had heart surgery several years ago, and Schwarzeneggar successfully sued a doctor who went on record saying that steroids were the reason for Arnold's heart problems when it turned out to have no direct link to steroids.) I am not "edit warring," I am removing speculative misleading information that does not have a reliable source, something that is clearly prohibited. You could receive a block for continually posting prohibited (and potentially libelous) statements. I'm quite positive Wikipedia would not consider a pro wrestling journalist a credible source regarding the medical profile of anabolic steroids and their long term impact on the human body. Despite the fact they meet your criteria of "they seen several guys drop dead," none of the authors of the articles you reference would be an acceptable source in any academic research or legal opinion. STICK WITH THE FACTS. Yes, steroids have an effect on the heart. But this is not a steroid page. There's no reason to list facts regarding steroids. --Jmurdock21 (talk) 22:47, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think that your disagreement with me is a further disagreement with Wikipedia policies, notably WP:RS, WP:BRD, WP:EW. The journalists from the articles listed may or may not be experts in the medical field, but they are very familiar with studies in that field conducted by experts. I very well doubt that the majority of the reporters covering Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 have a background in aviation but that doesn't stop their reports from falling under the WP:RS umbrella.
Of course journalists aren't aviation experts, but you can damn well bet that any respectable journalist interviews people from traffic control, other pilots, and any witnesses before they report. Being a journalist allows people to report, and unless they were a direct witness to an event, no journalist would ever be deemed a credible witness in court. I do not see either reporting quoting an MD or credible expert. It would be a completely different ball game if one of the articles read like this..."Dr. Mauro DiPasquale is a long time physician and bodybuilder who was once the head of WWE's wellness policy. DiPasquale claims that he is aware of Ultimate Warrior's previous steroid use and has seen several bodybuilders from that era suffer the effects from their steroid use. "It's quite possible that steroid use may have caused an enlargement of (Warrior's) heart. Steroids were popular during that era and many users are just now discovering the long term effects of their steroid use.""
If you insist on putting misleading information on Warrior's death section, my next step will be to notify wikipedia that irrelevant and misleading information is being posted, as well as an email to Dana Warrior and Warrior's legal team. I can't imagine his family wants a discussion of steroids in Warrior's death section, especially when the two subjects have no relation to each other. If Warrior were alive, he would've already squashed a matter like this. Unfortunately, even after his death, people are still trying to paint a misleading portrait of a man. Plain and simple, steroids had NOTHING to do with his death. Therefore, any mention of steroids DOES NOT BELONG in his death section. Not one person has listed one good reason why steroid information such as "the muscle is a heart, steroids can make the heart bigger" belongs in his death section. Those articles say plain as day that there is no evidence of steroids contributing to his death, so WHY MENTION IT AT ALL? You can list that Warrior was a steroid user, that is fact. But IT DOES NOT belong in his death section, because his death has NOTHING to do with steroids. You are mentioning a topic that HAS NOTHING TO DO with the banner. It is irrelevant and misleading.--Jmurdock21 (talk) 15:35, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I cleaned up the section about the Warrior controversy on the Nancy Grace article. Would you be opposed to an amended version going into this article that mentions her? Something like: "On April 10 Nancy Grace discussed Warrior's death on her HLN show, claiming that "rumors of steroid and drug use are swirling" in regards to his death. While Warrior was admittedly a heavy user of steroids during his professional wrestling career; since the heart is a muscle, steroids can affect its condition; Warrior's autopsy concluded that he had died of natural causes with neither drugs nor alcohol in his system at his time of death and steroids were not directly listed as a cause of death." This did end up becoming a notable episode, so I think it should be mentioned. LM2000 (talk) 06:45, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Jmurdock21 have you actually read the updated article? ... steroids can affect its condition; however, Warrior's autopsy did not directly list steroids as a cause of death. Clear as day - we are not reporting that steroids directly caused his death. An expert in professional wrestling is an reliable source on professional wrestlers. But I don't think Nancy Grace doesn't need to be inserted into this article. 09:27, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
LM2000 yes I have, and the question that no one has yet to answer is WHY are we talking about steroids in Warrior's death section. Warrior's autopsy did not DIRECTLY? list steroids as a cause of death. So did it indirectly list steroids as a cause of death? NO! There is no mention from any medical expert that relates Warrior's death and steroids. I would settle for this, "Warrior was an admitted user of anabolic steroids during his bodybuilding and wrestling career. However, Warrior's death was ruled a natural death and no link was discovered between Warrior's death and anabolic steroids." That is a factual statement. 'Warrior's autopsy did not directly list steroids as a cause of death' That is not acceptable. That is poor writing and it is misleading. Warrior's autopsy report did not DIRECTLY NOR INDIRECTLY list steroids as a cause of death. There was NO LINK WHATSOEVER between the two. So if you must mention steroids, list the facts. But I still don't understand why we are mentioning something that didn't effect his death? We could sit here and say "Warrior was a previous user of pain killers (a true statement...I have a pdf copy of one of Warrior's drug tests from 1992, though as far as I know, he never abused them,) but his autopsy did not show a direct link between his death and pain killers." "Warrior suffered a bicep tear in 2013 (Another true statement) but there is no evidence to show that the injury had any effect on Warrior's death"......and we could go on and on and on. So why are we mentioning steroids? Steroids had just as much to do with his death (as far as any one of us know), as Vitamin C deficiency. So if we're going to mention all of Warrior's past activities and whether or not they may have contributed to his death.....why stop at steroids? --Jmurdock21 (talk) 15:50, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, Nancy Grace has been inserted far enough into this encyclopedia. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:31, April 23, 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Ultimate_Warrior&oldid=605470022"