Talk:Hartley Jackson

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedily deleted because... (This page is of a notable athlete, professional wrestler, actor, multiple champion and fighter with a career of over 20 years. Multiple sources have been listed and sited. Hartley Jackson has worked for the largest companies in the world in sports entertainment. I am wondering the reason why this page does not meet the criteria of a notable person? Please let me know what is required so I can fix any issues with this page and future pages I create or amend. I am a fan of professional wrestling in Japan and Australia and I would like to amend current pages from these athletes/entertainers that need more work and sources sited, along with creating new pages for notable professional wrestlers from Australia and Japan on Wikipedia.) --Jammo85 (talk) 10:09, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

I have shown you where you need sources with the tags "citation needed" and "by whom?" Please also remove the sources at Word Press and You Tube as they are not reliable - blogs (Word Press) in particular are frowned upon and You Tube has a reputation for possible copyright issues. The interview on the Word Press blog is unreliable anyway as Jackson engaged in embellishment calling his trainer "well travelled" when he was not at all. You are overblowing Jackson's notability with name checks (Karl Anderson and Finn Balor) which is not alowed as notability is not inherited. His stint at the WWE Performance Centre was utterly devoid of anything notable and can also be described as trying to inherit notability. His title list is scarcely anything to write home about either. You shouldn't have brought this out of draft without is being reviewed first. Addicted4517 (talk) 11:17, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Thank you so much for that information. This was my first article, far from complete and mistakenly removed it from a draft. I am now aware and know for the future about drafts and reviews first. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jammo85 (talk • contribs) 12:56, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Multiple Citations on Hartley Jackson's participation on TMDK

For the record, in case someone ever wonders why there are so many sources to support the fact that Hartley was a member of TMDK, this is a result from the long discussion in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hartley Jackson (3rd_nomination). Walwal20 ^{talk ▾ contribs} 14:27, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

None of them are reliable and it was established previously that he was never an actual member. Addicted4517 (talk) 02:31, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Not reliable? Official event, original and promotional sources, backed up by multiple other sources don't count? But your opinion does? Where has it been established that Jackson wasn't a member, a part from your opinion? There are multiple sources cited to the contrary. This is getting beyond a joke. Every time it is cited you delete and ask for more, then repeat delete when more is provided.Jammo85 (talk) 14:02, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Wordpress and Facebook are not reliable and there is no back up of them in mainstream streams which is essential under the rules of WP:BLP. This is about policy, not opinion. It is not up to me to prove he is not a member. It is up to you to prove that he is/was, and with reliable sources. You have failed to do so and this is why the content is being removed. Addicted4517 (talk) 01:31, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

TMDK member Bronson Reed (Joanh Rock) with a verified Twitter account, acknowledges in a tweet https://twitter.com/bronsonreedwwe/status/1315864352428359680 that Hartley Jackson was an official TMDK member. Tweet includes a picture with both members wearing their TMDK t-shirts with the MCW Tag Team Championships during their time in Melbourne City Wrestling. Addicted4517 wrote in the Jackson afd that Twitter can only be used for verified accounts and even then it is discouraged. It could be discouraged, but this an independent reliable and verified source, plus along with the numerous other sources stating Jackson was a part of TMDK confirms this. I expect this matter can be put to rest now. Thank you. Jammo85 (talk) 07:24, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

That's yet another pretty clear source that Hartley was part of TMDK. Addicted4517, can we stop with this WP:GAME already? We can easily settle this by accepting the crystal clear fact that Hartley was once part of TMDK, and keeping only the official sources to that in the article. Best, Walwal20 ^{talk ▾ contribs} 09:33, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

No it's not because Twitter is the same as Facebook. It is not reliable. Just because someone is wearing a t-shirt does not make them a member. That is original research. Therefore it fails the test of verifiability. Bronson Reed AKA Jonah Rock is also not an independent source as he was a member of TMDK. It is quite clear that both of you need to review to rules of sources. That's not gaming the systme on my part. It's just plain fact AKA WP policy. You are yet to provide me anything to disprove this in any way. Addicted4517 (talk) 09:42, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

On 2 May 2015, TMDK announced on their official Facebook page that Hartley Jackson joined their group. Furthermore, I've found a review of a Zero1 New Year’s Dream Series 2017 from 411Mania, that listed Jackson pasrt of the TMDK. On 1 August, the Australian wrestling promotion Australian Wrestling Allstars announced their card for AWA Champions League, E02, as Jackson listed part of TMDK as well. SeosiWrestling (talk) 12:02, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your research SeosiWrestling it is greatly appreciated. Jammo85 (talk) 14:44, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Well' that's a hard one. I never watched TMDK and I don't know their career. However, reading several sources, looks like he was part of the stable. Here is an article from Vice where he is part of TMDK. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 22:35, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

(unindent)Hmmmmm.

I'll get the easy ones out of the way first. Again we have Facebook links - two of them. One just can't use them for BLPs. I thought that was already established and the insistence that they be used goes to a rather strong argument of bad faith. The only thing I'll say against that is this has come from a fresh user who hadn't already been informed of this. Nevertheless, they can not be used for the previous reasons given.

The 411mania link is a little better, but there are two issues; first - it is listed as only reliable in certain circumstances much like Cage Match, but for different reasons. Now it is debatable as to whether or not said limitations are in play here, but that brings me to the second issue. It is not clear in the review if the video actually states that Jackson is a member of TMDK, or if it's an opinion expressed by the reviewer independent of the video. If it's the latter, that crosses the line into the area where 411mania is not reliable.

Now we come to the issue that caused my very first observation, and it has opened a whole new can of worms. The Vice link. On it's own this is the first source that would actually be viable for the claim. The fact that it's promotional for Melbourne City Wrestling (a separate issue) is actually not relevant here. But there's a problem - the date of the show; September 16, 2016. At that time, TMDK did not exist anymore. TMDK by then were in WWE as TM-61 and only a couple of months away from the final of the Dusty Rhodes Classic. That's how the TMDK article evolved here on Wikipedia. Established members were listed as past members, and yet here they are at an MCW show. So the question arises - will the real TMDK please stand up? Was it a split? Was it a breakaway or something else? I just wonder if this can even be sourced properly. We now have some serious confusion that needs to be sorted out for the most important aspect of Wikipedia - sourced accuracy. Addicted4517 (talk) 02:34, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

The matter already has reliable primary sources [1] [2], reliable secondary sources [3] [4] [5] and reliable tertiary sources [6].
From the guidelines, I think I will highlight that Deciding whether primary, secondary, or tertiary sources are appropriate in any given instance is a matter of good editorial judgment and common sense.
I will also add a bit of WP:WAXing here (which, [is] not a conclusive test, [it] may form part of a cogent argument) because official announcements from organizations about their own events have never been put into question, even though they may not be considered independent. If a museum places a notice on their website that they will hold an event on Edvard Munch, there will not be a single soul questioning whether the event happened or not (well, maybe Addicted would).
As for reliability, I'd say any source, be it academic papers or newspaper articles from well known organizations, can be put into question. There are also different degrees of reliability. The aforementioned sources are at least marginally reliable, and the set of references as a whole is fully reliable per WP:REPUTABLE and WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, as well as verifiable per WP:V (i.e. it is reliable and publicly available for anyone here to check), leaving no reasonable room to doubt that Hartley was a part of TMDK, or at least had a relation with them in 2015 and 2016. The subjective comments Addicted just added above are pure WP:original research, and I cannot find any source on these affirmations. Best, Walwal20 ^{talk ▾ contribs} 07:31, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

You never use a primary source for a BLP when the claim is controversial, and Wordpress is not a primary source nor is it reliable. It is a blog. This is a bad faith review ignoring policy. I have already noted the Last Word on Pro Wrestling is unreliable for the reasons given on the source page (the managing editor previously worked for an established unreliable source - Wrestlezone). Cage Match is not to be used for anything other than actual match results (Walwa is using it for stable identification which is not allowed as it is not reliable). I have also placed reasonable question on the 411 mania link. Can Walwa prove it was mentioned on the video and is not an editorial opinion? There is no subjectivity surrounded "Will the real TMDK please stand up". It's fact. Shane Haste and Mikey Nichells - the founders of TMDK - were in WWE at the time of the Vice article. See this diff from the TMDK article for proof. As you can see, the other members were noted as past members (not including Jackson). So the claim made in Vice needs to be clarified. Who was TMDK? The group at the MCW show? Or the pair in WWE NXT? It is clearly a fair question and places a serious question mark over their claim. One can't avoid this. So there is an issue with verifiability there. At present Walwa is making no attempt to fix this properly, persisting with aspects that have already been proven to be inadmissible. Addicted4517 (talk) 07:52, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Walwal20 Addicted4517 The following information is on TMDK and the TMDK Stable, hopefully this can clear up their history for Addicted. Each section can be sourced from all the links found and cited so far, plus more from WWE and other articles and reports online, which piece together the TMDK timeline. This is not original research, as all this info can be referenced and cited. We all know Addicteds thoughts on the links regarding company websites, cagematch etc, but there is a bias towards Jackson and contradictions I would like to clear up following this reply.

TMDK was originally the tag team of Mikey Nicholls and Shane Haste in Pro Wrestling Noah. From Wikipedia it states - though best known as a tag team, TMDK has also been a stable, which included, in addition to Nicholls and Haste, fellow Australian’s, Elliot Sexton, Jonah Rock, Marcius Pitt and Slex. (There are three other members here that are not on the TMDK Wikipedia Page. These include Hartley Jackson, Damian Slater and Mikey Broderick. (I will not cover Broderick or Damien in this reply as this is about Jackson’s involvement)

Now, getting back to the TMDK Wikipedia Article. Pitt and Slex have used the same sources as Jackson, a company’s website and cagematch only. Same with Elliot Sexton, but with Sexton there is no cagematch source and the only reference is an article that’s not primarily about him) which is a dead link on his own Wikipedia page) and only mentions him in one sentence. Curious as to why Addicted, you have not disputed these members, yet remain adamant Jackson was not a member with all the reliable primary, reliable secondary and reliable tertiary sources that have been found on Jackson, by myself, by Walwal20 and multiple other editors?

To continue, Haste and Nicholls signed to the NXT division and became (TM-61/The Mighty, but the TMDK Stable still continued with Jonah, Slex and Pitt in Australia. The TMDK Stable went on to add Elliot Sexton and later Hartley Jackson. The Australian TMDK stable consisting of Jonah Rock, Hartley Jackson and Marcius Pitt had a feud with The Brotherhood in Wrestle Rampage in 2015/2016, and following this, the TMDK Stable (with Slex back again) had a feud with MCW in 2016. To answer your question Addicted, TM-61 (the TMDK Tag Team of Haste and Nicholls) competed in NXT while the TMDK Stable (Rock, Slex, Pitt, and Jackson) competed in Australia.

Now all of the above can be found on cagematch (TMDK match information sourced only) and other links and event reports. Now all this can be backed up with source material from the MCW and Wrestle Rampage On Demand Vimeo Channels. This has direct mentions of the TMDK Stable members (with Jackson), along with physical matches of all TMDK Stable members wrestling (including Jackson), with all members wearing TMDK clothing for representation of the stable together (including Jackson). I don’t know how to source this material, because these are an on demand paid service? Walwal20, is there a way to cite this officially? I am unsure what that protocol is there for paid services. Although all this information can be backed up by the reliable primary, secondary, tertiary, event websites, advertising articles, cagematch match, the Vice article and other show reports found.

I can definitely understand some confusion with sources and the different articles on TMDK as a tag team, the TMDK Stable and TM-61/The Mighty in NXT if you are unfamiliar with TMDK. As for source accuracy or being sourced properly, there isn't any ONE source that covers it all in an depth in an article, just everything collectively sourced adds up. Considering all this, it conveys that Jackson was a member of TMDK in 2015/2016. The MCW On Demand events with commentary refer to Jackson as a member of TMDK, leading the TMDK Stable against MCW and wrestling as a part of TMDK, in which that Vice article backs up. Hopefully, this history on TMDK clears up any confusion. Jammo85 (talk) 11:53, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Cage Match can not be used. You are relying not on the match results but on the stable. Let's make that clear. It is also clear that you can't use a primary source for a BLP without an independent reliable back up. Besides, the MCW archive source is simply match results and not a full report so that's an issue in itself. All the secondary sources and tertiary sources are not reliable - except for Vice. So there is nothing reliable from Wrestle Rampage. Vimeo can't be used due to the subscriber only issue AND possible (I have to look into it) WP:COPYVIO issues.

Now, on Jackson alone (we should discuss the TMDK confusion on the talk page there and not here) let's try this. We have to concentrate on the Vice article and that alone for evidence of Jackson being in TMDK. Is it enough by itself? I call it borderline, but in the order of getting this out of the way let's add it when the page is released. but this source only - because it's the only one that can be used under WP policy. The wording might need to be spoken of but let's get this agreed to first.

Finally - for both @Jammo85: and Walwa - don't change the page until we have an agreement here. That's what GorillaWarfare said on the AN/EW. If anyone wants to start a discussion on the TMDK talk page about the other issue please do. Addicted4517 (talk) 07:47, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Wordpress is not a blog. It is a content management system, and is used by companies that don't want to bother with buying a domain name or renting a virtual private server to run their web server. Cage match is reliable for stating that Hartley was a member of TMDK, as the essay on notability says it can be used for results. We are not using anything from the cage match blog posts. Also, your stating that persisting with aspects that have already been proven to be inadmissible reflects the fact that you are not open to WP:CONSENSUS and takes your own words as the last truth, which it is not. Kindly, Walwal20 ^{talk ▾ contribs} 12:54, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Wordpress is known as a blog hosting server and can not be used. You are not using Cage Matches match results. You are using their stable identification under the guise of match results and that is outside the match result restriction. You also persist in inserting unreliable sources from Facebook and have now been warned for this on your talk page. We do not have a consensus and I already made a suggestion above to over come this issue in part and you completely ignored it. It can therefore be stated that it is you who is not working towards a consensus, and if you persist the argument can be made that you are not here to contribute constructively to Wikipedia. These issues must be discussed fully as I have already done on the draft RfC and you are yet to adres in full detail in WP policy how this in not correct. Until then, per GorillaWarfare's comment on AN/EW, the articles must stay per my edit. A consensus is possible. Please try it and debate the issue instead of assuming bad faith on my part. I await your constructive response. Addicted4517 (talk) 21:21, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

I really do hope we can achieve consensus here. Can you please recognize the fact that multiple people disagree with you, and stop reverting? It would be better to consult third parties to see if they agree with your argument or not.
You can totally remove just the social media sources. I have no problems with that. But you keep throwing out the baby with the bathwater.
As for WP:NOTHERE, thankfully I have a record of contributions to multiple mathematics articles, which I am proud of. Therefore I don't think there is room to doubt that I'm doing this in good faith. As for you, most of your edits are removal of content from articles related to professional wrestling, so you could either be trying to avoid undue content from being added to articles, or you are trying to degrade the image of professional wrestling within Wikipedia, or a middle ground between both. Best, Walwal20 ^{talk ▾ contribs} 07:25, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

You were told by @GorillaWarfare: to not revert until we have a genuine consensus, which we do not. Your claims of support only hold water with Jammo. Others only provided links and did nothing else. As you have ignored my legitimate warning on your talk page and the warning from Gorilla on the AN/EW, it is you who is in trouble IMHO. Save yourself the trouble and revert your revert before action is taken. Your sources that are there are not reliable under WP:BLP and you are yet to prove conclusively otherwise. Addicted4517 (talk) 08:27, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

We do not have unanimity, and probably will not. This isn't a problem, as consensus is not unanimity (per WP:CONSENSUS itself). The suggestion you gave eliminates multiple sources that are reliable and verifiable per the numerous arguments I and Jammo gave, and which received external support from others. I will continue to do what I think is right per the Wikipedia policies. The trouble of being blocked is nothing in comparison to the trouble of later blaming myself for allowing legitimate, sourced content to be easily removed by a single person. Best, Walwal20 ^{talk ▾ contribs} 11:48, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

We have social media posts of TMDK acknowledging Jackson's membership (posted above) and of Jackson acknowledging his membership. Per WP:BLPSELFPUB, self-published sources can be used as sources on themselves. I'm not aware of a rule saying twitter accounts must be verified - only that there must be "no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity". Is there any reason to doubt the authenticity of these 2 posts?

Having read the above discussion, seen the Vice source (which I consider valid), these two posts, and the many other less reliable sources, I think there are clear grounds to include Jackson's membership in TMDK in the article. -M.Nelson (talk) 17:03, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Correction. Self published sources can be used for uncontroversial information. In other words, per WP:BLPSELFPUB, in this case it is unduly self serving and there is reasonable doubt as to it's authenticity. The second one goes directly to the Twitter remark as well as Facebook. WP:SOCIAL MEDIA repeats this rule and also adds exceptional claims. The membership of a notable group, The Mighty Don't Kneel, is an exceptional claim. Anyone can create accounts or pages on either platform and that means that there must be doubt in it's authenticity by default - unless it is verified by the platform. That's why back up is needed, and it has to be independent and reliable. The only source that provides any clarity in this regard is the Vice article. The only issue with it is that it is just one show and it doesn't back up any length of membership by Jackson. Along with the fact that it harms the present history of TMDK as reflected above by Jammo (which would need separate action).

Appreciate your thoughts, @M.nelson:. There is no doubt that the presently blocked Walwa has been adding material that is unreliable in his reverts. The only source that can be used is the Vice article and membership must concentrate on that and that alone. Addicted4517 (talk) 21:23, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

There is no WP policy or guideline that requires a social media account to be verified. The relevant policy is WP:BLPSELFPUB which states that the source can be accepted if "there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity." https://www.facebook.com/Themightydontkneel/ is TMDK's official Facebook page, according to their official twitter [7]. https://twitter.com/HartleyJackson_ is clearly Jackson's personal/professional account. As I've dug through these accounts, I've found no reason at all to doubt their authenticity.

Regarding the Vice article, I think it supports the claim that Jackson was a member of TMDK. I agree that it doesn't support any claims on length of membership. -M.Nelson (talk) 23:18, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Agree with nelson. Several thing point Jackson is part of TMDK. Events hosted by promotions where he is presented as member of the stable, posters, match results... In the end, it's fiction, so any promotion or the stable itself can declare Jackson is a member, not like a contract with a promotion. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 10:42, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Let me ask you both a question. How do you know that the Facebook page and Twitter account are authentic? What are the indicators? One can't just say "it's genuine" because that would smack of original research and one just can't do that with a BLP. Just because it says "official" doesn't mean that it is. It could be an official fan page. Also, if it is an official fan page, WP:BLPSELFPUB ceases to be a factor. Not only that, if you rely on the TMDK social media presence, self publication also doesn't apply because it's not published by Jackson. The only one that can be used for that here is Jackson's account, which while not verified does look genuine I admit. It helps him that a verified acount (Bronson Reed AKA Jonah Rock) tagged him referencing their time as the SA Serial Killers. But one would have to go a fair way back to find TMDK material there I would suggest. Bottom line on this - it is very important in a BLP to not be naive and take something at face value. Facebook and Twitter are littered with fake accounts. That's why the verification helps in the authenticity point. That's why it doesn't need to be be mentioned in WP police to be a factor. It goes to the authenticity of the account.

One last thing about HHHPedigree's comment about fiction. I don't think that's in dispute at all. The point here is not so much a promotions right to do what is suggested. It is if it gets reliable independent coverage - like the Vice article. Using promotional material like videos and so on runs the risk of being in violation of WP:PROMO.

I appreciate both of you being prepared to discuss this and hopefully this discussion can continue on this level. Addicted4517 (talk) 07:31, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

You're holding these accounts to a far higher standard than WP:BLPSELFPUB/WP:SOCIALMEDIA require. We don't have to know that these pages are authentic, we just have to have no reasonable doubts in their authenticity. The mere possibility that unverified could mean inauthentic is not a reasonable doubt. In digging through these accounts, their posts, conversations/mentions with other users/accounts (incl verified ones), there's nothing at all that suggests that they're not authentic - nowhere near a reasonable doubt. -M.Nelson (talk) 23:47, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

There is reasonable doubt, and here is why. The Facebook account's about page gives a birth date that does not match any known DOB of any member and has not been updated since before Nicholls and Haste went to WWE. It only mentions EPW and Pro Wrestling NOAH. There is a lot that is suspicious about it, smacking of the very fan account I was referring to. A look at the Twitter account - it also looks very much like a fan account with no original content back to at least July - only retweets and the odd share, most of it from WWE involving mostly Bronson Reed with the odd mention of Shane and Brendan Vink. This is aside from the fact that as I mentioned before, neither are published by Jackson so WP:BLPSELFPUB doesn't apply. Addicted4517 (talk) 04:22, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Jackon's twitter does not look like a fan account. He posts selfies, refers to himself in first person, for example [8], [9]. He is mentioned in the second person from many other legitimate accounts (including verified accounts - not that that matters). Nothing about it looks like a fan account. I feel like you're stuck on the verification, which is completely irrelevant. If verification was at all significant, WP:BLPSELFPUB would mention it. -M.Nelson (talk) 08:11, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Please re-read what I said. I was talking about the Facebook and Twitter links for TMDK, not Jackson. Addicted4517 (talk) 07:06, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

OK, then let's use Jackson's twitter and Vice to support the claim that he was in TMDK. -M.Nelson (talk) 08:04, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Agree, but keep to what's there and not what's insinuated. Might be an idea to discuss the wording. Addicted4517 (talk) 07:32, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

How about "[he] was part of The Mighty Don't Kneel (TMDK) c. 2015." -M.Nelson (talk) 07:59, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Uh not 2015. That's using the tweet's insinuation from the picture. You can't use it for that. You can only use it for the written content (Bronson's as well as Hartley's). The Vice article is from 2016 so that's the year that should be used. I won't mind using the tweet with that change. Addicted4517 (talk) 07:30, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

No, the image is part of the tweet. The comment "throwback to when" and posting a photo with a date is clearly vouching for the content of that date. If we also trust 2016 from Vice, then we could say "[he] was part of The Mighty Don't Kneel (TMDK) ~2015-2016". -M.Nelson (talk) 07:59, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Would you care to explain these then? Results 1 Results 2 - the night the photo was taken Results 3 Results 4 And this? Jackson against a member of TMDK You assumed, and in the process engaged in original research. The team was not TMDK at the time of the photo. Note - I am NOT using Cage Match in an article here so they can be used to prove my point Addicted4517 (talk) 21:52, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

I haven't assumed anything. We have two reliable sources, and we should use the content from those sources in the article. You explained earlier that cagematch isn't reliable this type of thing - are there any actual reliable sources which dispute 2015? -M.Nelson (talk) 22:48, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes you have. You have assumed that the photo proves that Jackson was a member of TMDK at the time. That is not what Bronson said in his tweet. One can use the tweet to prove Jackson was a member of TMDK but it does not prove he was a member on May 23, 2015. It only proves he and Bronson/Jonah were a tag team. The Cage Match results (as distinct from the stable issue) implant reasonable doubt to your interpretation of the tweet. Addicted4517 (talk) 08:15, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

The image is part of the tweet - it's not my interpretation, it's literally in the source. You are applying your own interpretation by arbitrarily deciding that one part of the published tweet is considered valid and another is not. This is your personal interpretation which, like your verification argument above, has no basis in WP policy or WP consensus.

CageMatch also shows Jackson as in TMDK in 2015 [10]. As you explained earlier, it's unreliable, thus irrelevant. Again, please find a reliable source that sheds any doubt on 2015.

If we have a reliable source which says one thing and unreliable source which says another, we have to trust the reliable source. WP:V is about following the reliable sources, not judging them ourselves. -M.Nelson (talk) 09:11, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Images are not part of tweets. Cage Match is reliable for match results only. You are using other links from Cage Match. I used match results. You are interpreting the tweet as stating that Jackson was a member of TMDK on May 23, 2015. I dispute this interpretation on the basis of match results that say otherwise. It is therefore incumbent on you to provide backing to what is your interpretation. There is another interpretation, even without Cage Match results - that being that the comment by Bronson Reed about a tag team (as shown in the picture) was separate to the reference to TMDK and Jackson's membership. If you refuse to acknowledge this probability equally with your interpretation, then you are incapable of being compliant with WP:CONSENSUS. Do not dismiss Cage Match totally as that would not be consistent with the source requirements. Are you going to be part of the solution or part of the problem? Addicted4517 (talk) 09:49, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

"Images are not part of tweets" - the image is part of the social media post. WP:SOCIALMEDIA refers to "material published", not just text. Please link to a WP policy, guideline, or example of discussion elsewhere that says that images should not be included. Don't bother to explain "why" - I don't need your opinion on this topic - I need to see Wikipedia policy or consensus.

I posted a table of cage match results. Clearly I was referring to the individual results. Here's a direct link to match results showing Jackson in TMDK - [11] - it looks like we have another reliable source supporting his membership in 2015. -M.Nelson (talk) 10:14, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

"I don't need your opinion on this topic". Equally I don't need yours either. This is about establishing facts. And it is a fact that the tweet is open to multiple interpretations. Also, you can NOT use anything in Cage Match other than match results in the article. Just to clear that up.

However - now that you've added that Cage Match result specifically - forgetting for the moment that it's from Wrestle Rampage and not from Melbourne City Wrestling - the combination of the tweet and the result CAN be used to show 2015 membership, while the Vice article can back up 2016. I don't think there will be an objection to that so I'll take that suggested quote with the sources and ad that now. I have to remove a couple of unreliable sources anyway. Addicted4517 (talk) 22:33, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, I'm glad we arrived at this conclusion. -M.Nelson (talk) 22:50, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

If you actually watched the events Addicted4517, it answers the question you have as you are the one assuming here. You would see Jonah and Jackson come out as a tag team as (SASK), but still represent TMDK. TMDK members in a stable can still fight each other (This is pro wrestling remember). The biggest note on that is the match between Jackson and Jonah in 2015, while both wrestlers were in TMDK with the original TMDK members at the event and they all come out at the end. This match set up TMDK vs Brotherhood at the start of 2016. All available On-Demand in both MCW and Wrestle Rampage. There are match reports and other sources in which you deem unreliable, but it cites some of this information. Jammo85 (talk) 23:51, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

TMDK v The Brotherhood has ZERO to do with the SA Serial Killers as they are in two different promotions and two different states as well. Do NOT refer to videos. You must have written content. As you don't - you are engaging in original research by referring to it. Claiming that as the SASK are a part of TMDK is equally original research. The ONLY proof we have of Jackson in TMDK at a specific time is the 2016 Vice article. Everything else is too generalised to provide dates. Addicted4517 (talk) 08:15, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

I agree with M.Nelson (thank you for the help with the article) and his way to reference the article with the reliable sources and wording on both occasions. Which also goes back and attributes similar to Walwal20 and his original wording also. Jammo85 (talk) 00:02, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Addicted4517 Yes, Jonah and Jackson may tag as SASK, but they are a part of the TMDK Stable. Just as Damian and Marcuis are a part of the TMDK Stable as The Untouchables. Similar to Road Dogg and Billy Gunn as the New Age Outlaws, but they are a part of the DX Stable. Also, please tell me more about written consent for videos? I'm interested in what is required for that? Thank you. Jammo85 (talk) 13:17, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Irrelevant, given that SASK were only ever called that in MCW and nowhere else. And there are plenty of sources stating "the New Age Outlaws are members of DX". There are NONE saying that SASK (or the Untouchables for that matter) were part of TMDK. You just assume that, and that is original research.

I did not say anything about "written consent". I said "written conTent". You can't use the videos themselves because they can not be verified to due being subscriber only. Videos must be freely available to be used, provided they are not in violation of WP:COPYVIO. That means - for example - you can't use a fan video of WWE content on You Tube as that violates WWE's copyright. Addicted4517 (talk) 22:33, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Addicted4517, per WP:PAYWALL, content that requires subscription to access is fine. Also, WP:COPYVIO only applies if you'll embed the video in the page, or take a direct quote from it. Small quotes are fine per WP:NFCCP, and paraphrases are fine in any shape and form. Walwal20 ^{talk ▾ contribs} 01:29, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Did Hartley Jackson himself write this?

This reads like a resume 2001:240:2413:8CC9:94EF:B99A:578C:8AB2 (talk) 23:59, 21 February 2023 (UTC)