Talk:Doink the Clown

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

Additional info requested[edit]

Who else performed as Doink?[edit]

Steve "Skinner" Keirn was actually the illusion Doink at WrestleMania IX - this is common knowledge and I've never read anywhere previously that Barry Darsow portrayed the persona. It would take mere minutes to confirm Keirn, in fact Matt Bourne's Wiki page confirms this also. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.199.207.81 (talk) 14:21, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don´t who it does, but someone in Germany is wrestling as Dionk in the DWA (Deutsche Wrestling Allianz).

http://dwawebmaster.wix.com/dwa-homepage#!dwa-roster/c3a3

The article gives the impression Matt Borne was another guy who wrestled as Doink. But Matt Borne was Matt Osborne. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.1.82.110 (talk) 08:25, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A man named Richard Rego from New Bedford Masachusetts played Doink for a while and was the Doink that came back after being gone for a awhile that was very obviously on steroids. Seems WWF/WWE has deleted all footage of that Doink, possibly in the manner as Ric Flair had the footage of the one time he came down dressed as Spartacus and then cut a scathing promo on Jim Herd destroyed. YES it really happened !!!! I remember watching it , so it really cracks me up when people talk about it like it was just some really bad idea that thankfully never got aired.2601:189:C381:5A60:F1DE:BC1D:ECB9:FBE (talk) 02:38, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What was Dink's name?[edit]

I don't know Dink's real name but prior to being Dink he performed as Tiger Jackson.

More details?[edit]

A picture would be grand, of either/both Dink/Doink, or the performers sans makeup. Were these 'good guys' or 'bad guys'? I don't follow entertainment sports/commercial sports, but I know someone can dig out the info. Just paste it here and I'll factor it in if you don't have the time to lovingly craft the articlePedant 22:43, 2004 Oct 23 (UTC)

Deletion[edit]

Doink the Clown was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was to keep the page.

Doink the Clown[edit]

Delete. Garners a non-noteworthy 2620 hits on Google. [[User:Radman1|Radman1 (talk)]] 00:47, Oct 18, 2004 (PST)

  • Right on the edge, but keep. A notable bit of pop culture. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 07:50, Oct 18, 2004 (UTC)
  • 2620 hits is non-noteworthy? This is a sarcastic listing—see nominating user's comments at Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/PabloDraw, made immediately prior to this listing. Postdlf 07:53, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. I don't see why web hits on google should be the measure of noteworthyness - for various reasons, some topics tend to get discuessed more than others on web pages, so it's hardly an unbiased test. I favour the "use your brain" approach, and my brain tells me this is an entry of minor fame, and thus should be kept. ShaneKing 08:08, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. I agree with ShaneKing that Google isn't everything. One bias is the underrepresentation of all subjects from prehistory up until the explosive growth of the Web in the late 1990s. I see that Doink was active in 1993 [1], so this factor affects him. Doink gets more Google hits than an Emperor of China, King Xiao of Zhou, even if you add in the hits for the alternate spelling "King Hsiao of Chou". JamesMLane 03:58, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep - as Category:Professional wrestlers reveals, we have articles on a great many pro wrestlers. Community standards seem to be that they are acceptable encyclopedia topics. —Stormie 04:51, Oct 19, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, seems relevant enough. Andre (talk) 14:16, Oct 19, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep Carr 18:08, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep (Agree with Stormie and ShaneKing). [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|(talk)]] 19:47, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Legitimate. — Gwalla | Talk 19:28, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. I can't remember if he was actually any good, but he did make a splash. - Lifefeed 19:38, Oct 21, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep Legitimate article. And when will people learn that just because Google doesn't have something doesn't mean it isn't important. Does Google have an eyewitness account of the extinction of the dinosaurs? No, but that was sure important --Cynical 20:24, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Comment: and if eyewitness account of the extinction of the dinosaurs youre telling me you'd vote to keep? The bellman 10:43, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Reply to comment: No, because the article would not be truthful (therefore a violation of WP policy). My point was to illustrate that just because Google doesn't have something (after all it only indexes 3 or so billion out of about 20 billion pages) doesn't mean it isn't notable--Cynical 21:43, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep Legit article.The bellman 10:43, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep Why single out this particular one. But such minor characters might well share a single entry and gain interest that way. --Wetman 10:46, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep -- Cabalamat 21:50, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, of course. What seems un-noteworthy now may easily be quite notable later. (the 1963 World Book Encyclopedia doesn't have even a small article on Lucille Ball, yet we have several articles as she is now so notable that the information about her and her work can't really be covered in one single article.) Clowns and people who famously dress as clowns and performers whose performance is considered clownish by clowns and any related info is welcome in the Clown constellation. I'm adding Doink and Dink to the list of clowns on Clown and I encourage editors to expand Doink the Clown article. If this will be deleted, please copy the text of this article to the discuss page for Clown and I'll be quite happy change this to a redirect, and merge it into the clown constellation somehow, though I think it deserves it's own article however short. Pedant 22:30, 2004 Oct 23 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

Vengeance 06[edit]

What is the source of the info that Steve Lombardi was Doink at Vengeance? --Ifrit 11:05, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


SNME[edit]

Anyone know who played Doink at wwf knows frank glendenning was known as Doink on july 31st (2007?) ==

The part on that page where it says that Nick Dinsmore did Doink on july 31st (citation needed) is wrong (If you're talking about july 31st of this year)

There was a SD! taping on july 31st but looking at wwe.com archive on the episode of friday night, august 3rd 2007 there is no mention of Eugene matche what so ever...

But when we take a look at friday night july 27th archive page we see that Eugene lost a match against Chavo and in the photo section of that episode we can see Eugene in his эugene-man (kind of Superman) clothes...

photo: http://www.wwe.com/shows/smackdown/archive/07272007/photos/02_ChavKickEugene.jpg

That part should be removed, dont you think?

Finishers...[edit]

I don't remember offhand if Doink ever used an inverted Boston crab, definitely don't remember it ever being a finisher, but seeing as how Matt Borne was fairly well-versed in submissions it's possible. However for the record, the Stump Puller is not a inverted Boston crab, it's actually a step-over leg-pull hamstring stretch to a seated opponent. A variation of it where he rolls back to use it can be seen at the end of his TV debut match, seen here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p-CIEJFw55c Enigmatic2k3 (talk) 03:16, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Matt Borne, "evil" version of Doink most-definitely used the Stump-puller and I'd imagine it would be relatively easy to find a match on YouTube that would back this up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.199.207.81 (talk) 14:28, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stump Puller proof - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vnaj7Cqyqpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.199.207.81 (talk) 14:39, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Face paint or mask?[edit]

The description of the Doink character refers to face paint, but, at least in the WWF (and in the picture in this article), he clearly wore a mask with a clown face. I'll look for sources, since sometimes obvious things aren't obvious enough for Wikipedia, but no promises. If someone else can find them quicker, be my guest. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:36, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You clearly have no clue. Anyone with a pulse knows that the various incarnations of Doink wore facepaint. Look at the match with Crush at WrestleMania IX. Matt Borne's facepaint was practically gone!69.243.42.251 (talk) 00:20, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Technically, it's both. He had face paint but also wore a sort of balaclava which I suppose some people might refer to ask a mask. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.199.207.81 (talk) 14:26, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Death info for Osborne[edit]

Looking at the traffic stats for this article for 6-28-13, it had over 25k hits, while the article for Matt Osborne had 29k views. Obviously many general readers who aren't even familiar with Matt Osborne saw the news regarding the death of "Doink the Clown" and are googling that and pulling up this article - for instance, the NY Daily News' headline stated: "Ex-WWE wrestler Doink the Clown dead at 55". Yes, I am aware that this was a character/gimmick of Osborne's and that it was Osborne who actually died.. Evenrød (talk) 03:14, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it's about the gimmick. No need to mention Osborne's death, especially in the lead. Unless he died in the costume, it's largely irrelevant. Anyone coming here because of a newspaper should know the guy's name, and if they don't, the Wikilink's right there. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:52, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have to respectfully disagree with this point. While it doesn't need to be discussed in great detail, noting Osborne's death is justifiable. You made a point that we don't note the death of a mall Santa's death in the Santa Claus article but it's not the same situation. First off, the mall Santa was not the originator of the character and was not notable for playing the part. On the other hand, Osborne is notable for being the first to play Doink. Secondly, if the article was truly only about the gimmick, as you mentioned above, there would be no need to mention who played Doink at any given time, as the article does presently. NJZombie (talk) 20:40, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We do note it, in "Wrestlers who played Doink". The year and the fact he died are all that's relevant. Of course, more should be (and is) said in Osborne's article, which is conveniently Wikilinked a few times here. We have nothing here on any Doink's birthdates, hometowns, marriages, non-Doink career, other work, etc. Singling out a death in any substantial way is undue weight. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:33, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As for actors who played the gimmick, of course that's relevant. Without a person, the gimmick is just an intangible idea. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:36, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
At the time I wrote my last post, I did not see the minor reference to his death. While I agree there doesn't need be info on the death within the lead and/or info box, it just as noteworthy as mentioning in the body as who portrayed the character through the years. My point was if you're going to bother mentioning a wrestler who portrayed the character, especially the primary one, it's worth mentioning that wrestler's death in the body of the article. Of course the majority of the story should be discussed as more than a mention in a list. Nobody has even brought up including birthdates, hometowns, marriages, non-Doink career or other work and none of those are particularly notable when the article is about the character. The death of the primary guy to portray him though? Pretty notable. I also didn't say that mentioning the wrestlers to play Doink weren't relevant. You had claimed "it's about the gimmick" and that there was "no need to mention Osborne's death". My point was that if it was ONLY about the gimmick and that Osborne's death was not relevant to that, then it was not relevant to list any of the wrestlers WITHIN THE BODY OF THE ARTICLE to begin with. That's the big difference. NJZombie (talk) 06:12, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
His birth and life isn't notable here, but his death is? Biased towards recent events and morbid dead clown curiosity. Even moreso written newspaper style like you have it now. Possible suspicions and ongoing investigations. At least wait till we have facts. No deadlines here. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:59, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Like I have it now? I'm not the one who added mention of his death. I made edits to the line that somebody else added. I even deleted entries to the lead and info box that somebody made because it made the article immediately revolve around Osborne. I've approached this respectfully and civilly without making any additions concerning the death of Osborne. So let's not make any accusations. Sound fair? And yes, the death of the primary wrestler to portray the character is more notable about his life before playing the character. The character is what he is most noted for making his passing notable, at least as it relates to the character. NJZombie (talk) 00:23, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you edited it and left your edition. That's what I meant by "as you have it now". Didn't mean to imply you added the section, just condoned it. Sorry if that touched a nerve.
Still not seeing how his death is a bigger part of his personal life than the relationships, drug troubles and other stuff he did after becoming Doink. Maybe, as a zombie, you tend to see death as the most important part of life. Even if you're right, it had nothing to do with the character (unless it emerges he slipped on a banana peel). Look at Bozo the Clown, Clarabell the Clown, Ronald McDonald or Zorro. No death sections for creators or original actors. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:49, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I left it because I don't disagree that it deserves to be mentioned in the body. Not the same as adding it in. If I was looking to edit war, I'd just add back in myself. I've chosen the discussion route, despite the little digs you keep trying to get in. As far as your examples, there may not be entire sections dedicated to the subject but several actors to portray Bozo, as well as his creator, have their deaths mentioned within that article's body which is all that's being suggested here. Also, to go back to a point that you've managed to ignore... If the article is truly JUST going to be about the character, then mentioning who played the character during particular matches is not relevant either. That would be like describing an artist and/or writer who wrote or drew Batman in each and every storyline described within his article. There's not actually anything wrong with that but it should remain consistent then. If you're going to say that it's ONLY about the character and not the people who portrayed the character at any given time, then those mentions within the articles body, should also be removed because it's irrelevant. If those stay there though in that capacity, then it's equally relevant to mention that the guy most notable for playing that character died. Doesn't need a whole section with each and every detail. The reason his recent death is more notable than his relationships, and drug troubles is because it was covered by major media outlets and not just wrestling websites and they all refer directly to his work with WWF/WWE as Doink. NJZombie (talk) 02:34, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There are no little digs. And Osborne's death is mentioned in the body, along with a date. That's all that matters to the gimmick. From this date forward, Doink will no longer be played by him. Saying where he was found, who's investigating, who's speculating...that's people stuff, for people articles.
Speaking of ignoring and people, I said earlier that a gimmick is only an idea without a person. Osborne, Apollo and the rest gave it life. Doink dies every time they wash off the paint and pack their boots, and will live again. Everything these people did as Doink is Doink's story. Everything else goes to a better place.
Whenever anyone notable dies, newspapers will mention what they're notable for. Whitney Houston's death received about as much coverage as the moon landing, but we don't mention it in Whitney Houston (album) or any other, even though the papers probably mentioned she created it. Same deal, different medium. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:45, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Really? "Sorry if that touched a nerve." seems like a passive aggressive dig to me. Osborne's death is NOT mentioned in the body. It's mentioned in a list that follows the article. You keep talking about how the article belongs solely to character which directly contradicts condoning mentioning who played the character throughout the article at any given time. A sentence like this, "On July 2, 2012, Doink, this time portrayed by longtime WWE veteran Steve Lombardi, aka The Brooklyn Brawler, made a surprise return and had a losing effort against Heath Slater in a match on Monday Night RAW." doesn't belong by that logic. My point is that if THAT is acceptable, then it's not strictly about the character and the "Doink is Doink" theory goes out the window. It can be one or the other. It can't be both. If we want to treat the article body as strictly "Doink is Doink", that's fine. We delete the references to the wrestlers in that section but list them AND mention Osborne's death in the list, apart from the body that discusses the character and the character alone.
The Whitney Houston analogy does not even apply to this debate. A news story about a wrestler who portrayed a notable character does make it worth noting in that character's article. Whitney Houston's album is human being, whether fictional or not. She didn't portray an album. A better analogy attempt would have been saying that Ian Fleming's death, doesn't belong in an article about James Bond since he was his creator. But then his death IS mentioned in the James Bond article. This brings me back to the above "Doink is Doink" mention. The only person mandating that the article be strictly about the character is you. James Bond is a character. He's definitely not on the same recognition level as James Bond, but a fictional character nonetheless. I see nobody arguing on the James Bond or James Bond (literary character) that the article be strictly about the character and not to mention the death of the character's creator, which both pages do.
As I've said numerous times now, nobody is asking for a huge section dedicated to every detail. Mentioning that he was found dead on a particular date suffices. The details do not need to be even as detailed as in the version that I "condoned" but there should be something other than a mention next to his name in a list. If not, then all mentions of wrestlers who portrayed him should be removed from what is currently titled as the History section due to inconsistency. NJZombie (talk) 06:29, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe in passive aggression. If I want to insult you, it'll be obvious. When I say sorry, it's an apology. Anyway, I just removed the Brawler bit before I saw this, so we're on the same page there. James Bond is James Bond. Whether people argue there doesn't matter here.
The album was analogous to the creation aspect, I'd already given examples of other portrayed clowns.
There's no inconsistency in the History section. When Borne plays him, we note it. When someone else does, we note it. Would it be better if we changed "died" to "was found dead" in the list? InedibleHulk (talk) 06:47, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I rewrote the lead. Worked his death in with the character as best I could. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:14, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It actually does matter whether people debate such a thing in other articles as guidelines are the same across the board. Each article does not have its own set of rules. As far as the examples of clowns you gave, at least one of them DID mention the deaths of its creator and actors. The inconsistency in the History section does not refer to the fact that each person to play him is noted. The inconsistency refers to the fact that if you're going to note that the character is played by somebody, it's relevant to note the death of the primary guy to play him in that same section. That being said, I'm fine with the mention as it is now. That's all I was suggesting from the beginning. NJZombie (talk) 11:59, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Good to hear. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:01, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Doink the Clown. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:59, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Doink the Clown. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:25, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tatanka needs a new link[edit]

In the 10th line and second word ,i.e: Tatanka needs a new link so that it doesn't confuse us. So please input the new link as given below for that word-

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tatanka_(wrestler) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:204:501C:8A9D:B1B7:53F2:5C80:87C4 (talk) 17:18, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reporting, I have changed the link. Keith D (talk) 19:43, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 1 November 2022[edit]

add link to National Wrestling Conference 173.162.220.17 (talk) 20:42, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Done ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:08, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 23 June 2023[edit]

"His attitude insinuated that he had developed borderline personality disorder from having been forced to wrestle as a clown"

What does this even mean? Total misunderstanding of what BPD is. It's not multiple personality disorder or split personality disorder so whoever added that is disparaging a mental illness without having any understanding of what it actually is. Vispizzer (talk) 03:43, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Done I removed the content in question. Remember that edit request should generally propose changes in a clear "change X to Y" format. Happy editing! Actualcpscm (talk) 09:12, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Shane Douglas[edit]

On August 24, 1994, at the NWA World Title Tournament, “The Franchise” Shane Douglas would dress in Matt Osborne’s Doink ring gear and face paint to distract 911 in his match against 2 Cold Scorpio. Matt Osborne would come out without his gear and only partial Doink face paint to deliver chair shots to 911 leading to 911’s countout elimination from the tournament. This would be the precursor of Osborne’s “Born Again” character. Douglas went on to win the tournament later that night and then famously threw the NWA belt down and declared himself as the new ECW Heavyweight Champion of the World. It was a pivotal moment in ECW history as Eastern Championship Wrestling would become Extreme Championship Wrestling, establishing its lasting legacy. 108.59.115.250 (talk) 00:22, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Doink_the_Clown&oldid=1201590696"