Talk:CM Punk/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Disregarding ROH

To those trying to negate Punk's ROH World title reign, please stop. Punk is a 3 Time World Champ, no matter what WWE says. ROH has earned their status and it is no ones place to change history according to their own POV. --DanteAgusta (talk) 22:36, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

ROH didn't earn anything. There really is no such thing as a world title in wrestling since there is no governing body. Promotions are free to call their title anything they want. TJ Spyke 22:41, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

That is a good point to. LOL --DanteAgusta (talk) 22:49, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. ROH says it's a world title, it's a world title. Most indy promotions don't seem to use that terminology. They simply call it their heavyweight title. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 00:55, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

It's not a world title. It's not defended overseas and is not recognized by WWE, therefore it's not a world title. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a CM Punk fanpage. He is recognized as a two-time World Champion by WWE, and has held only two titles which are officially "world" titles, being defended overseas. I can name my belt buckle a world title - it still doesn't meet the requirements of an officially sanctioned world championship. The mention of ROH title remains in the next sentence. No doubt this point will be negated by CM Punk fanboys - after all, this article is clearly for the benefit of hyperbolic fanboys with their own agenda, not for the benefit of newcomers who want to learn about CM Punk and his NOTABLE achievements. Beef jerky66 (talk) 03:50, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

So now the ECW title is an "official" world title. What is the ROH title the new ECW title now?^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 04:46, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Your post made me laugh very hard. Not only is it POV, it is titally incorrect in so many ways. --DanteAgusta (talk) 04:28, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Who says it's not a world title? WWE has no authority to decide that. Nor does PWI. ROH says it's a world title, so it is. And this articles is a Featured Article. It's one of the best wrestling articles on Wikipedia. Perhaps ROH is less notable than WWE. But there are sources to back up his appearances there and in all the other feds he's been in. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 04:34, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

OK fanboys, you win. Best to rig the article to your liking, than provide a coherent article for newcomers. Beef jerky66 (talk) 04:47, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Beef Jerky66, this is where you are proven wrong. WWE has no power over the wrestling world. Whatever they say, means less than shit. Because they have their opinion and most of the stuff they say it wrong and try to make people follow them blindly, hell Flair is not a 16 time world champion, he is a 22. They have no power over anyother promotion's opinion and do not give world status to any title other than the ones they control. The ROH Title has been defended in England, Germany, Italy, etc. Go to their website and look at their history. They keep a list of defenses per champion. The first time the ROH Title was defended outside of the US was May 17, 2003 when Samoa Joe, the then reigning ROH Champion, defeated The Zebra Kid at a joint event with the British promotion Frontier Wrestling Alliance. The event was was called Frontiers of Honor. You may want to do a little research before speaking. CM Punk is a three time world champion, with the first being the ROH Championship. He won that belt after Samoa Joe defended the belt outside of the US. You were just proven wrong, and I'm happy to give you more sources to prove it has been defended outside of the US.--WillC 04:49, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Lets try to have a profound discussion this time please? No comments about Fanboys and PWI. (Unless the situation calls for it)^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 04:57, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

No, shut up fanboy mark! No, I agree John, lets all be civil here and have a real discussion.--WillC 05:06, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

The World title debate has gone on for years. Not only here but on countless message boards and chat rooms. Even in locker rooms everywhere this is a subject. Who can claim World title status, well, if a promoter wants to call his belt the World title, yet he only runs shows in Nowheresville then he can. Fans debate this, as fans of the genre of entertainment, we can choose for ourselves who we think it a World champ. But for an Encyclopedia, it then it should be the proper names and facts. That is the real world answer. If ya want the "wrestling" world answer, then we gonna be here a while. --DanteAgusta (talk) 05:11, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

It can be argued that the ROH World title counts as a world title, I'd say you vould compare it to TNA when they had the NWA title in place. Do you consider AJ Styles and Abyss a world champion from those reigns? If so then you have to deem the ROH World Title as a World Championship.

The ECW title on the other hand doesn't count as a world championship. When Johnny Nitro (John Morrison) won the belt back in 2007 they stopped referring to it as the ECW World Championship and only as the ECW Championship. CM Punk won the belt from John Morrison and it was still called the ECW Championship, not the ECW World Championship. It should be changed to two-time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JWC126 (talk • contribs) 13:40, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

In the same regrad should we remove the WWE Championship from being a world title? It doesn't have world in its name. How about all WWE Tag Team Champions? Plus WWE said Matt Hardy became a World Champion at Unforgiven last year by winning the ECW Championship, that means they still think it is a world title.--WillC 23:00, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

But the WWE Championship (and ECW Championship) are still recognised as world titles, (even though they don't have "world" in their name), so it's irrevelant if you remove the WWE and ECW Championship from being world titles. Save Us.Y2J 21:41, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

This would be a good rule. If the promotion is notable enough to have a page on Wikipedia, then their titles should be called what the promotion calls it. That would make the most sense. --DanteAgusta (talk) 04:39, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

It's the WORLD Wrestling Entertainment Championship. By it's name it's a world title, by the ECW Championship's name, it's not a world title. --JWC126 (talk) 22:54, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Now you are just reaching for something. The ECW Championship is still a world title, period. TJ Spyke 21:57, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Under that same thought then the NWA World Championship was not a world championship while in WCW and in TNA. Also the WCW World Title was not a world title while in WWF. However PWI said they were all times. Inconsistencies here. In the end it doesn't matter which promotion a title is in, if it has been defended world wide and is considered a world championship then it is a world championship.--WillC 22:00, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

From that logic, you must consider the WWE Intercontinental and TNA X-Division titles as World titles. The ECW Championship is not a world title, it's not named as such and it isn't promoted as such. (talk) 22:54, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

BS. First, WWE does promote the ECW Championship as a world title (after Matt Hardy won the title their website had an article where they said Matt had finally achieved his goal of winning a world title). The Intercontinental and X Division titles have never been promoted as world titles. TJ Spyke 22:33, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I disagree TJ on the X Title. The ECW Title is promoted as a world title and even more recent than Unforgiven. Prior to WrestleMania, WWE promoted Cage to win MITB saying he has yet to win a world heavyweight title (MotherF***ing BullS***). They say he could win it and cash it in on one of WWE's world titles. They said he could cash it in on the ECW Title. They also said he failed at becoming a world champion on ECW against Swagger. Again stating the title is considered a world championship, just does not get much push because Vince is an egomaniac and hates anything unWWE. As for the X Title, it was advertised as being a world championship (not a world heavyweight championship, there is a difference) by TNA on multiple occasions. Mainly at Unbreakable in the main event where Borash said it was for the "TNA X Division Championship of the World", the samething he says for all other titles that TNA consider to have world status. Again they are now billing Chris Daniels as a former World Champion. The three X reigns and 7 world tag reigns make him a world champion.--WillC 22:53, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, TNA is billing Daniels as a "from TNA champion" (meaning he has been a champion in TNA). Anyways, the status of the X Division title is not relevant to this particular discussion. TJ Spyke 22:56, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

You haven't seen their new video on youtube regrading Lethal Lockdown at Lockdown I guess? Go check it out, they talk about Daniels being a former World Champion in TNA and his return on Impact. I'm referring to that. Anyway, the list of titles that are currect world heavyweight championships today are: The WWE Championship, the World Heavyweight Championship, the TNA World Heavyweight Championship, the NWA World Heavyweight Championship, the ROH World Championship, and the ECW Championship.--WillC 23:15, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

There are a few others, but who is counting.... oh wait. EVERYONE!!!! --DanteAgusta (talk) 00:04, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Too many to note at this moment.--WillC 04:55, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, there is a difference between a WORLD title and a HEAVYWEIGHT title. In the original ECW promotion the ECW championship it was a world title. in the WWE it was a heavyweight title. It doesn't mean anything what the WWE recognizes, but rather what the fans, PWI, and Wrestling Observer magazines recognizes. The WWE might be recognizing Punk as a 3-time champion to make their world titles more relevant. The Ring of Honor promotion recognizes their premier title as a world title, the fans do, and the wrestling magazines do so it really is a world title.~~bradleyhess~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.237.134.4 (talk) 23:17, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Punk joined Nexus?

Someone needs to remove where it says that Punk joined Nexus. This hasn't been proven, and the only source they used was the Raw recap which says "Could Punk be the new leader of the Black & Yellow brigade?". Yes, a question, not a clarification. I thought this was an encyclopedia, not a news source. P.S. I tried suggesting this above, but either it slipped your guys' eyes or you don't pay attention to the discussion page. Hopefully it's the former. Theharshtruth (talk) 23:46, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

The header of the section in that source reads "CM Punk attacked John Cena and joined The Nexus" - the only bone of contention within the prose is whether the new leader Otunga alluded to is Punk or Otunga himself. Tony2Times (talk) 23:58, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② 00:43, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

But still, I believed Wikipedia didn't include weekly events, which this seems to be. 74.143.163.98 (talk) 18:15, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I stand corrected, it obviously should stay. Theharshtruth (talk) 20:41, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 210.212.103.42, 12 January 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} Please add link to John Morrison (wrestler) in this portion: Mr. Money in the Bank (2008-2009) At WrestleMania XXIV, Punk won the Money in the Bank ladder match, after defeating Chris Jericho, Montel Vontavious Porter, Shelton Benjamin, John_Morrison_(wrestler), Mr. Kennedy and Carlito.

210.212.103.42 (talk) 11:14, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

John Morrison is already pipelinked in the ECW section, overlinking makes an article ugly on the eye. Tony2Times (talk) 11:21, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from --Fuzzysqurl (talk) 07:00, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

CM Punk's current theme song is This Fire Burns by Killswitch Engage. I know for a fact you can look up the youtube video of Punk joining Nexus and the song plays for a good 30 seconds.

It should be added in, I can't edit it in because I don't edit wikipedia enough to pass the restrictions on the page

Punk's title shot / Suspension

RAW's next episode is already tapped. Punk have been reinstated at Cena's demand. If Punk win the title at MITB, Cena is fired.

Although I've heard rumors of such as well, RAW's episode - while taped - has not aired yet and will not air till next Monday. Then there's that whole "Card Subject To Change" thing. Best to avoid speculation and wait till July 4, 2011. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② 09:17, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 74.171.89.72, 28 June 2011

This page should say punk was Kayfabe suspended.

74.171.89.72 (talk) 18:44, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Jnorton7558 (talk) 06:33, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

It's just a work. But a damned good one, too! ;) 92.235.168.144 (talk) 17:25, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

July 2011 Speech Content Dispute

Quick Refresher: June 27, 2011 - CM Punk delivers speech on Monday Night RAW. The usual rush to edit, especially after an "impactful" moment in WWE occurs, is triggered. The storm calms. Cue the following.

For all intents and purposes, what occurred when CM Punk delivered his promo was a shoot. This sparked the user Mikeymike2001 to further link to the subsection, "Worked shoot", which describes an intended shoot which occurs as part of an active storyline in the world of professional wrestling. Now the fact of the matter is that the promo which was delivered by CM Punk, in conjunction with the circumstances it occurred under (coupled with the fallout), has all the appearances of being a worked shoot. But the other fact of the matter is that there are absolutely no sources (reliable or otherwise) which specifically state that it was a worked shoot. Wikipedia policy, especially for Biography of Living Persons, states that all material (no matter how menial) must be properly cited - and, in this case, it is not (for the record, Wikiproject:Professional Wrestling provides and maintains a readily accessible list of sources which have a track record of reliability and further sources which do not).

Per this, I attempted to assume good faith and removed the subsection link and linked it only to the article cited above. Furthermore, in my edit summary, I cited that while I agreed that it has the appearance of a worked shoot, a valid source must be cited otherwise it is clear and blatant speculation which is subject to removal at any point. Mikeymike2001 adds it back; with no edit summary to boot. Once again, I removed it, this time, reminding the user that "the burden of proof lies with the editor who adds or restores material".

In order to end what appeared to be an emerging content dispute, an uninvolved third party, User:NJZombie, stepped in (sans a 3PO request) with the suggestion to just remove the link entirely - which was a perfectly reasonable suggestion. NJZombie also reminded us, "the average wikipedia user or wrestling fan isn't going to be too concerned either way." This seem to be accepted and remained this way for just under a day's time when Mikeymike2001 re-emerged, absolutely insistent upon changing it back to be linked to the article above & worked shoot - once again, with no edit summary. I, in following with the example set by NJZombie, removed the link once again and pointed out that a third party had even rendered an opinion. This didn't stop the historically combative Mikeymike2001 from reverting it and bellowing out (in the first edit summary over the past few days) "IT WAS A STORYLINE SHOOT, THERE FOR IT STAYS".

At this point, I have absolutely no belief that Mikeymike2001 has any intention of following consensus in any way, shape, or form, or the actual policy's of Wikipedia (i.e.: those relating to edit-warring, and citing a source). NJZombie relayed the following to me afterwards:

"I tried to lend a hand with a neutral solution but obviously this other user isn't budging on his opinion. My solution would be to formally put it up for discussion on the third party opinion page that you linked. I'd do it myself but as I've already been involved, it seems to frown on me doing so. I agree that it certainly does seem to come across as a worked shoot but remain of the opinion that it's irrelevant to the article itself and unless something major happens as a result, shouldn't even be linked at all."

So, that said, consider this me attempting to try out dispute resolution as I have already warned Mikeymike2001 for his non-sourced edits, and issued a lengthy warning notice regarding their further actions. I have even invited the user to take part in this conversation. The next step is their own action. As described by me on their talk page, in order to avoid breaking the WP:3RR rule myself, my last reversion will be my last for a bit of a time period on this point and topic. In this quest for dispute resolution, I will impart a request unto WP:3PO for the opinion of another neutral third-party. If this does not work, my next step is WP:ANEW. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② 07:54, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

About your Third Opinion request: Your request has been removed due to the lack of discussion about the dispute. The 3O instructions say:

Before making a request here, be sure that the issue has been thoroughly discussed on the article talk page. 3O is only for assistance in resolving disagreements that have come to a standstill. If no agreement can be reached on the talk page and only two editors are involved, follow the directions below to list the dispute.

One particularly wise Third Opinion Wikipedian, RegentsPark, once succinctly put the purpose of Third Opinions like this

It's sort of like if you're having an argument on the street in front of City Hall and turn to a passer-by to ask 'hey, is it true that the Brooklyn Bridge is for sale?'.

When one editor chooses to not participate in discussion, then a request for comments, a complaint to an appropriate noticeboard, or some higher form of dispute resolution is more appropriate and more likely to achieve lasting results than a Third Opinion request. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 13:22, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

A warning to all editors: An edit war is defined as editors trying "to force their own position by combative editing (making edits they know will be opposed) and repeated reverting." The three revert rule is merely a bright-line rule and it expressly says, "Even without a 3RR violation, an administrator may still act if they believe a user's behavior constitutes edit warring, and any user may report edit-warring with or without 3RR being breached. The rule is not an entitlement to revert a page a specific number of times." What's going on here is clearly an edit war and I must warn you that you stand a risk of having this page protected and/or being blocked from editing if it continues, even if you are otherwise acting in good faith or attempting to enforce WP policy. You are to be commended for seeking dispute resolution, but please stop the edit war while that process is pending. — TransporterMan (TALK) 13:37, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Indeed, you are correct. This is why I have chosen to step back as I found myself being potentially being party to an edit war and, regardless of whether I was correct in my actions or not, would rather not cause a disruption. Hence why I stated I would no longer be taking part in that specific point of the page - regardless of outcome. At this point, I am just of the hope that a resolution can be easily reached without [further] incident. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② 18:53, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

WWE Raw is an episode, scripted programme like all WWE's shows (with the possible exception of Tough Enough which is made out of house anyways). Regardless of what anyone ever does or says on the programme, without a source to say otherwise, everything on the show should be viewed as part of the scripted, episodic entertainment. If it was a shoot, that is a deviation from the norm and the onus is on you to prove so; you need to prove the exception.

And if you believe it's a genuine shoot, then I ask you why WWE's production crew allowed him to talk for so long despite overrunning, having already fulfilled their obligated time to USA network; why the credit logo in the bottom right corner appeared as the second hour ended rather than at the end, which never happens; why Cena remained in the ring if Punk wasn't going to cut a promo; why it took so long for his microphone to be cut; why the footage has been replayed on every programme since? It's like the difference between a scripted run-in and a fan run-in; at SummerSlam '09 when Ted DiBiase's brother interfered as a fan they showed him being carted off, same as Husky Harris in Cena's match against Barrett. If a real fan interferes, as in the Guerrero/RVD ladder match, the camera pans off and goes to a replay and doesn't show them at all. If this was a real shoot, WWE wouldn't acknowledge it, they would have cut the mic and the show quicker and all you'd hear about it would be on the sheets, not the official, in-universe website. And on the off chance that wasn't, see my above point anyway. If you thought it was a shoot, I'm glad you enjoyed it because it's brilliant to feel that raw passion, but ultimately it wasn't so either pipelink it as a worked shoot or a promo/not at all. Tony2Times (talk) 18:43, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

While I don't disagree that it was most likely a worked shoot (and have previously clearly stated such on more than one occasion), I'll remind you that not only is your second paragraph the very definition of WP:SPECULATION, but that the burden of proof lies with the editor who adds material, not the one who challenges it - especially when a source has not been cited, whether it be reliable or not. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② 18:57, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

As I've stated elsewhere, I'm of the opinion that it shouldn't be linked at all. I think, if anything, the argument by Tony2Times supports that. If the entire show, included the real life moments that occasionally happen, is considered to all be part of the script, then there's no reason to point out differently to begin with. There's no doubt that there was truth behind Punk's words but it's since become obvious that WWE is once again playing off of real life events, as they did with the Hardy/Lita/Edge situation. So yes, it's a worked shoot but the wrestling articles on Wikipedia tend to explain what's going on in the storylines. So unless a performer truly went rogue and did something significant that couldn't possibly be scripted or looked past, there's little reason to point out that a particular speech was anything but a simple promo. I'm certain that most of us speaking here on this point are part of what has been coined, the internet wrestling community and while we're all somewhat passionate about it, it's very true that the average wrestling fan doesn't look past what they see on TV or at the arena. The average fan isn't going to be concerned over whether Punk's word were a shoot or worked. NJZombie (talk) 19:30, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

The speculative article is what backs me up. To call it a shoot speculates it is something different to the rest of the show which is why the onus is on anyone who wants to call it a shoot to source that. Tony2Times (talk) 21:35, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't disagree. Hence why it shouldn't say or link to shoot OR worked shoot and just be taken as part of the show. NJZombie (talk) 22:20, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I believe, on that point, that we all agree. As it is presently worded, it actually looks pretty good. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② 22:35, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Theignigma, 18 July 2011

Due to interfence by John Cena, Brooks' match at Money in the Bank was reinstated by WWE Chairman, Vince McMahon. Brooks then made a list of requests and if they were met he would sign an exclusive contract in WWE if he won the championship from John Cena, if not he would take the WWE Championship with him and defend it in wrestling promotions such as Ring of Honor and New Japan Pro Wrestling. Six days before Money in the Bank, Brooks mocked John Cena and his home town of Boston causing Cena to strike Brooks. Enraged, Brooks tore the contrat, stating that he was tired of Cena and WWE and wanted to leave reguardless if he won or not.

Theignigma (talk) 03:04, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Not done for now: 2 questions from me, 1 where in the article should this go, note that I have not really looked yet, and 2 is there a WP:RS that backs this up. Jnorton7558 (talk) 06:11, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

 Not done - To much play-by-play, unnecessary in the long run, and possibly a candidate for WP:FANCRUFT. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② 11:54, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 86.151.173.237, 22 July 2011

Can you update Punk's picture its so outdated it sucks

86.151.173.237 (talk) 00:31, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Not done: Please provide a new valid picture that can be used. Jnorton7558 (talk) 01:24, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Further more, it is a perfectly valid picture of rather good quality. Pictures are changed should a non-free picture be available that also displays a SIGNIFICANT change in appearance. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② 02:44, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

5 Star Match

CM Punk vs John Cena at Money In The Bank 2011 received a 5-star match rating from the Wresltin Observer Newsletter. Could someone please edit this information in? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.88.136.139 (talk) 23:31, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

 Not done - No source provided. Please cite a reliable source for this information. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② 02:45, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Punk is still part of WWE/Raw

Let's make something clear...

Punk is still (in real life) under WWE contract.

It's all part of an angle folks.

You really think they'd put the WWE Title on a guy who is ready to take a walk?

Use some common sense.

Thank you.

Vjmlhds 03:56, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that we would need reliable sources to make that assertion and since there are none that make that assertion we can't declare that he is really under contract. Also if that is really case we would probably find out really soon and can correct the article at that point.--76.66.188.209 (talk) 22:45, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps a better site to say that he isn't under contract is something other than the company website. They may not be the most unbiased and informative site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.168.192.219 (talk) 23:08, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps, but are there any reliable sources that said that he is still under contract if not it can't be added at this point.--76.66.188.209 (talk) 05:57, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

The fact that he's spent the last 48 hours partying with the belt and bringing it to a Chicago Cubs game, pretty much proves that he's at some level of employment with the WWE. There's not a chance in hell that WWE would hand the guy the belt as he's walking out the door. They also wouldn't have made him champ on his last night, knowing that he could go to another company still holding that title. When Bret Hart got screwed in Montreal, the fear wasn't truly him bringing the belt to WCW but him going there as the champion so that WCW could say that their guys beat the WWF champion. So until Punk no longer has the belt in his possession, I would have to say that the burden of proof is on those saying that his contract truly did end and not the other way around. NJZombie (talk) 06:18, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

It proves nothing of the sort, NJZombie! Remember the old Ric Flair situation post-NWA affiliation. He had the belt for quite a long while afterward. Now, could Punk be under some level of WWE affiliation? Fine, but then show me a source that says it, or I have more justification adding the Rey/Miz final to the WWE Champions list (as was done after Raw). Until we have a source that says, "Yes, he IS under contract!", then we have to go with past tense until someone can source that he is under contract! Common sense, indeed! Everything in wrestling is an angle unless something completely gets out of hand, but they are keeping key details well under wraps here.

In fact, one can go further and assert that, although he is (kayfabe) out of the company, he may still be champion under the auspices of the "questionable decisions" in the HHH/McMahon part of this storyline. --Starcade (talk) 09:26, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry but the Flair situation doesn't even come close to applying here. The reason for the Flair situation was not that Flair's contract was up and he was allowed to just walk out of the building with the belt because he was champion. At the time, the champion was required to put a considerably large deposit down on the belt for the duration of his reign, which was returned to him upon losing the belt. Flair was fired while still the champion and when he wanted his deposit back, he was told no. He immediately sent the belt to McMahon and then signed a contract with him. He didn't bring the belt to Vince to spite the company. He did it to spite the management and for all intents and purposes, it was his property to do with as he pleased. WWE would NEVER allow the belt to leave their possession without some form of contract in place. NJZombie (talk) 06:32, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually, it was exactly that he walked out with the belt, because they failed to come up with the $25,000 deposit -- and he then called up Vince and said he had the belt! Please don't alter history to serve your own means. You still have to give me a verifiable as to that he is actually signed, or you don't put it there. If I want to counter that, I could say he went to the same panel and gave Rey Mysterio a title shot in Chicago -- which I did and that part of it was removed. Why? I have no idea. He could be under a "working agreement", but there is absolutely ZERO verification that he is "signed". --Starcade (talk) 07:12, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

How am I altering history when you just said exactly what I said? He was let go while home with the belt and when he asked for his deposit back, he was denied. Therefore, he brought the belt to Vince. Flair's own book is the source for that. So once again, how am I personally altering history for my own use? Being fired legitimately from a company while in possession of an item you have a deposit on is a world of difference from carrying around a belt the company leaves in your possession that you have no claim on. NJZombie (talk) 08:00, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I know Starcade is unable to comment for the time being, but as far as there being "ZERO verification that he is signed", that applies to pretty much any performer within the organization. How many WWE contracts do we get to see with our own eyes? Undertaker hasn't been on TV since March but we accept that he's still a part of the organization despite lack of any visual or even verbal proof. The fact that Punk still carries the belt and is interacting with talent at WWE events should be proof enough that he still works for WWE. Even if it's only a working agreement, it's a form of contract. NJZombie (talk) 19:04, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Those are all still speculations and conclusions based on what you think the WWE would do. Common sense would tell you that he is under contract, but this is Wikipedia. Common sense doesn't write the articles. Documented sources do. And since nobody has physical proof whatsoever that CM Punk is under contract, we shouldn't treat him as someone who is under contract with the WWE for the time being. 78.249.2.100 (talk) 09:13, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

The Undertaker is a bad example because unlike CM Punk it has never be stated that his contract expired so that is not a valid comparsion. Also the reason that people said that CM Punk contract expiried was not due to a lack of television appearences making the comparison even weaker. He may still be under contract but we will need better evidence than this.--76.66.188.209 (talk) 05:32, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

The truth is that outside of dirtsheet website speculation, there's no solid proof that there ever was a contract issue. All that we have seen is his CHARACTER talk about leaving, followed by him winning the title and continuing to possess it while taking part in WWE events, INCLUDING the most recent episode of Raw tonight. So where is the evidence that a new contract WASN'T signed. In proposing that he not be acknowledged as a continued WWE employee, the burden belongs to you as nothing since has happened to prove otherwise. NJZombie (talk) 05:51, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

There is no evidence that Punk is currently under contract to WWE. There is, however, ample evidence that his WWE contract did indeed expire. As far as anyone can prove, he is no longer under contract to WWE. We have to remain unbiased - wikipedia gains a bad reputation when people assume. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.242.207.193 (talk) 12:12, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Exactly where is this "ample" evidence that Punk's contract has expired? Because if you're going to use anything that's been broadcasted on WWE programming as your evidence, congratulations, you've just been worked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.183.247.178 (talk) 09:38, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Apparently, "ample evidence" that he has no contract with the company, or at the very least, a working agreement, includes continuing to possess and carry around a belt owned by a multimillion dollar corporation and interacting with that company's other talent at the company's own events (ie. the panel at Comic-Con). You're right, how could anybody feel otherwise? NJZombie (talk) 06:32, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Depends. Do we end up with a lawsuit here, at least kayfabe? --Starcade (talk) 07:12, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

And who exactly is filing this lawsuit and against who? Even if it turned out to be incorrect in the end, and that's a very LARGE if, it would have to be slanderous for any lawsuit to be filed. Being mistaken over whether someone was actually an employee in a fictional storyline is hardly slanderous. Let's not get ridiculous here. NJZombie (talk) 08:29, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Have to agree with the IP users. As far as we know, Punk is indeed gone as WWE is not providing any evidence to the contrary. ☆ Antoshi ☆ ^{T | C} 12:16, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, this statement is just hilarious, now: Smarked so hard, you marked! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.183.247.178 (talk) 07:52, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

If I recall correctly, Trish Stratus won the Women's Title in her last match with the WWE. However, I do believe that she relinquished the title right away. So I would assume that CM Punk is still employed with the WWE or else they would not have allowed him to leave the building with the title. --Reverend Edward Brain, D.D. (talk) 01:38, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

CM Punk himself states the decision to stay with the WWE was made on the day of the Money in the Bank PPV, up until that point he was tired and ready to leave. Source - http://espn.go.com/espnradio/grantland/player?id=6808291 --FLStyle (talk) 21:12, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Punk vs Cena feud and storyline of 2011

I feel that this should have a stand alone article. The entire storyline is noteworthy. It got it's start because of CM Punk's real life contract issues with the WWE and has grown into one of the most exciting angles in years. There is already an article on the Montreal Screwjob and that was also based on real life issues so why not here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.18.166.19 (talk) 23:27, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Because the Montreal Screwjob is a massively important legitimate situation in the history of North American pro wrestling when wrestling was at its zenith, dominating TV and pop culture and created a paradigm shift in the legal and professional way business was operated and is still debated and talked about 15 years later. This current situation is a two month storyline which was based on a little facet of truth. Tony2Times (talk) 00:30, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Maybe if it helps bring forth another boom period for wrestling, then you could make a case for an article. It's way too early to say if that's going to happen though. Besides, unlike Bret Hart, Punk actually resigned with WWE the day of the PPV. It's not like he won the belt and then jumped ship. WWE would never have allowed that to happen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.18.166.19 (talk) 01:17, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with Tony2Times and IP Editor 75.18.166.19. The Montreal Screwjob was a landmark upon the entire wrestling industry that no one involved in the situation has been able to live down to this very day - especially Shawn Michaels. This feud is, by far and wide, not even close to having the same impact. Whether or not it stands even close to it in terms of historical value is yet to be seen, but not for us to speculate upon in this forum. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② 13:57, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 94.250.41.183, 4 August 2011

Please change the main CM Punk picture...I recommend this one : http://www.wrestlingvalley.org/wv/01/17647/17647.jpg Thank you.

94.250.41.183 (talk) 12:30, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid photographs have copyright laws and are owned by the person who takes them. We can only use pictures taken by people who voluntarily upload their own photos to Wikipedia, hence the one we have at the moment. Tony2Times (talk) 13:23, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Theme songs

Why are there two separate sections for theme songs? I don't recall this being done for any other wrestler. And it makes it confusing editing wise. I didn't notice it reading it or editing until it was point out to me. chris†ianrocker90 02:09, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

One appears to be for WWE specifically while the other appears to be for themes used during his run on the Independent Circuit. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② 02:13, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

That's not what I'm asking, I'm asking why do we do this for this wrestler and not for others? chris†ianrocker90 07:06, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Ease of reading, possibly. I'm honestly now sure. I guess it's just how the article developed over time. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② 07:39, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I can answer this as I was the main editor when this article became a featured article several years ago - at the time there was a struggle over editing guidelines between the independent circuit/TNA and what is now referred to as the WWE style when it came to move sets. Punk specifically had two vastly different move sets between his time in the independents and his WWE style move set so as not to clutter the linking every two moves with an annotation of Independent circuit only or WWE only it was made an editing choice to split the two. This hasn't happened on other articles as the most notable independent wrestler in WWE since Punk, Bryan Danielson, was largely allowed to maintain his move set and style. TNA wrestlers also are largely allowed to use their independent move sets. Because of this split between WWE and Independent it served, to not cause confusion, to include managers/music under those respective headings also otherwise it would appear all the managers/music had taken place in WWE or the independent circuit. –– Lid^(Talk) 12:03, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Babyface

CM Punk is clearly now a babyface in WWE (due to the fact fans cheer for him a lot and he is constantly fighting heels), but I'm not certain where to put it in the article (since it was not a clear turn, and the fact he became a tweener somewhat too). Suggestions? Srsrox (talk) 03:21, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Simolfc, 25 September 2011

the fact that The Miz and R-Truth interrupted in the night of champions match should be added as well as the scheduled hell in a cell match, not leaving out that it's the first triple threat hell in a cell match ever Simolfc (talk) 04:00, 25 September 2011 (UTC) Simolfc (talk) 04:00, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

 Not done - Future events are subject to change at any time. Always remember that "Card(s) are subject to change". Also, the former is considered extraneous information and does not meet notability requirements. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② 05:04, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Rami1230, 29 September 2011

Can i please change the picture that's all i wanna do Rami1230 (talk) 11:03, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Rami1230, 29 September 2011

Can i please change the picture that's all i wanna do Rami1230 (talk) 11:03, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

We can only just pictures taken by the general public and uploaded to Wikipedia/Wikimedia, with their copyright waivered. If you can find a more suitable free picture that shows Punk's face then change it, but if you want to use a screenshot or something you found on someone else's website (including WWE.com) then Wikipedia will unfortunately delete it very quickly. Tony2Times (talk) 14:36, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Not done: requests for changes to the page protection level should be made at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. Dynamic|cimanyD contact me ⁞ my edits 18:31, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

CM Punk's Picture

Will someone change Punk's picture for me? I have a link, too; http://cmpunk.com/images/displayimage.php?album=238&pos=1 It's a perfect picture of him...for now. MaraquanWocky1 (talk) 13:23, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah... Change it. -Matthew — Preceding unsigned comment added by MatthewCriss (talk • contribs) 14:34, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

World title reigns

It seems rather presumptuous and un-encyclopaedic to bundle all championships with "world" in the title as on-par with each other in a "total world heavyweight title" listing. Shouldn't the article simply list each individual title (WWE championship, for eg) and the amount of times held?

Edit request from , 25 October 2011

I want to change the picture because that it the old one you need to have the new one with wwe champion Hope you consider this. 72.226.101.123 (talk) 21:14, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Could you provide a link to the image you'd like to see used? – Luna Santin (talk) 21:51, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

If you mean this one it is not very focused on his face, which is why I don't believe it's a suitable replacement for the current one. Tony2Times (talk) 23:19, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

✗ Not done No new picture provided. If it needs to be uploaded first, go to WP:FFU and request it there. mabdul 14:03, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Championship Reigns

CM Punk is a seven-time world champion, not six.

ROH World Champion ECW Champion World Heavyweight Champion x3 WWE Champion WWE Undisputed Champion

Someone should update the main page. Minor error, simple fix. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.1.105.148 (talk) 20:43, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

1 ROH win + 1 ECW win = 2. Add 3 WHC wins = 5. Add 1 WWE Championship win = 6. His reign as WWE Champion and Undisputed Champion was one, unbroken reign. He never lost the title nor was he stripped of it, the title was simply disputed by Cena being an Interim Champion. Tony2Times (talk) 15:33, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Tony2Times is correct in his explanation of the situation regarding his WWE Championship reign. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② 21:16, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

WWE is really confusing with CM Punk's title reign. Initially, they had his first title reign ending the same day as Money in the Bank and now they have it simultaneously with Cena's reign. It's just freaking weird. Feedback ^☎ 17:55, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

CM Punk is a 5-time world champion according to WWE. They no longer recognise the ECW title as being a world title; simply watch a WWE broadcast, Punk is referred to as a 5-time world champion. For exmaple, list at 1:40 seconds;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8W8Oo-V1UFo

He is a 5-time world champion. It's just an exmaple of why people take wikipedia with a large grain of salt because of bias nonsense and presumption. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.207.119 (talk) 18:57, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

You calling him a 5 time World Champion is bias. Even if you take out the one ECW Title reign, he's still a 6 time World Champion unless you're biased against non-WWE promotions like ROH. Tony2Times (talk) 22:44, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Luchas de Apuestas record

This section should be deleted. To my knowledge Punk has not wrestled for Lucha Libre, or any other Mexican federation, in his entire career. Rey Mysterio hasn't wrestled Lucha in 15 years as well. This portion of the article insinuates that the WWE works under similar rules or a similar mentality to Lucha, which plain isn't true. It's also redundant as his feud and the hair matches were mentioned earlier in the article. Smokachu (talk) 11:54, 22 September 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.56.246.194 (talk)

A Lucha de Apuestas match does not need to be in a mexican promotion. At the Oct 16,2011 Smackdown, it was Sin Cara vs Sin Cara in a Mask vs Mask match and it's also considered a Lucha de Apuestas match

Semi-protected edit request on December 4th, 2014

In Colt Cabana's Art of Wrestling podcast interview with CM Punk, Punk explicitly mentions "[needing] a beef sandwich" at a Chicago Blackhawks game. This occurs at the one hour and fifty minutes and thirty second mark of the interview. He refers to this again later, in the same segment.

This suggests Punk is no longer a pescetarian, which his article states he is under the "Personal life" section.

Yay! (talk) 02:18, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Fascinating perspective... but primary source only backing it up unfortunately. Jeremy112233 ^{(Lettuce-jibber-jabber?)} 04:25, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

What do you mean by this? The policy for acceptable change conditions is unclear for me. What further sources would be necessary for the change? The entry on his page is only supported by a response on his Twitter, while the above information is stated multiple times, directly by him. Is the issue related to that fact that one source is a direct answer and the other is implied (albeit very heavily, considering people typically buy sandwiches to eat). Yay! (talk) 02:45, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, it's the implication thing. Filling in the blanks is original research. Maybe he wanted to throw it on the ice after a goal. Maybe it was tofu beef. Or sea cow. Or it was AJ's hot dog dessert. Maybe he needed it to trade for something, like in an adventure game. Maybe it was all just a story. Wrestlers have been known to stretch the truth now and then. There's a lot we don't know about this alleged sandwich, but keep digging! The truth is out there. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:28, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

I think that we can use Twitter as an adequate source. Twitter verification is a stringent and difficult to attain status and is literally the word of the beholder. In fact, there just isn't a more reliable source than that. It would be a very weak argument to say that a tweet is unreliable possibly due to someone hacking the account. People with credibility on twitter only follow many 100 people, and those are all people with just as much credibility and fame that are close to them. If someone got hacked, one of their friends would be quick to cover for that person declaring the statement false, the account would be shut down until the password could get reinstated, then whatever tweet that was forged would get deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chewbakadog (talk • contribs) 09:37, 7 December 2014 (UTC)