Talk:Slaphappy: Pride, Prejudice, and Professional Wrestling

	Books portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook articles
	It is requested that a picture or pictures be included in this article to improve its quality.

Professional wrestling Low‑importance

	Slaphappy: Pride, Prejudice, and Professional Wrestling is within the scope of WikiProject Professional wrestling, an attempt to improve and standardize articles related to professional wrestling. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, visit the project to-do page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to discussions.Professional wrestlingWikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestlingTemplate:WikiProject Professional wrestlingProfessional wrestling articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled[edit]

I read the book and started the article. I encourage any fan to read it because it will explain many of the social aspects and cultural reasons for being a fan. It really dives into the mind of a wrestling fan, and I liked it.

If you have any questions on the book, please let me know. I can answer and clarify the content of the article quickly.--Screwball23 ^talk 21:53, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RE: references[edit]

I basically summarized the book. I agree, references should be more clear, but the book didn't state everything clearly and explicitly. No outside references or quotes are there, so the references are all pages from the book itself.--Screwball23 ^talk 21:00, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

cleanup[edit]

I've removed the giant, original-research summary. I've left a couple paragraphs, though they're still OR and un referenced. I've also found an NYT review, so I cited that. -- Mikeblas (talk) 01:12, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]