Talk:Bret Hart

Arguably?

This phrasing is all wrong,

• The cite comes from the WWE.com, nothing short of advertising,
• Using the word Arguably is giving it a positive spin, and sounds like we are arguing that point, we are not "considered by some" is much more neutral.

Carl Sixsmith (talk) 07:12, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

You started all this because you didn't want repetition of "arguably", now we have repetition of "one of". As for a wrestler's popularity, only the WWE can definitively state who was among the most popular. Bit of a no-brainer. Lol, whatever. Calgarykid47 (talk) 15:15, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Should we add that Heineken is arguably the best beer because that's what their marketing department tell us? Carl Sixsmith (talk) 15:47, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Total non-sequitur. A brand can tell us what their popular products are. But your comment is just silly. Calgarykid47 (talk) 18:54, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

How is a WWE article on one of their stars not advertising? Carl Sixsmith (talk) 19:05, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

It was a WWE article about some memorable heel turns that was on their main page for a few hours. In describing Hart, it stated that he was one of, if not the, most popular wrestlers of the mid 90's. Nothing was advertised. I don't really care about it anyway, have the article your way. I have things to do. If that means you win, then congratulations. Calgarykid47 (talk) 19:18, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Do to the fact that you are arguing right now, I think "arguably" is a fine word. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.178.198.113 (talk) 02:05, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Reference list

I suggest the implementation of {{Reflist|30em}} on this article, because of the length of the reference list. Opinions, rejections? —bender235 (talk) 23:14, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Sergeant not in source?

The OWOW source provided for Bret's full name doesn't make any mention of his middle name being Sergeant. So why is it included in the article? Mac Dreamstate (talk) 00:15, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

OK, I've added the failed verification tag at the end of his full name, and whilst I realise there are a number of sources out there stating Sergeant to be his middle name (including his official Twitter profile, which I guess would count as a primary source?), I'll let more experienced editors deal with it. I'm just bringing it to attention. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 19:51, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

And someone's added it back. Removing again until a good source can be found. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 19:55, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Same again. Amazon and IMDb ain't gonna cut it. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 17:39, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

nWo Hollywood

Why does it say that Bret Hart was never actually a member of the New World Order when he very clearly comes out for a match with the nWo theme music on the July 13, 1998 episode of Nitro? TheGary (talk) 01:47, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Bret Hart was a member of the nWo, but not during that period. He became the leader of the nWo in December 1999[1], but prior to that, he was only ever an associate of the group. Hence the reason he was never seen wearing nWo attire. 2.124.196.38 (talk) 22:56, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Then why did he come out to nWo music in 1998? You totally ignored my comment and reference. TheGary (talk) 12:12, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Because he was an associate. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 06:41, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

The nWo theme was considerably better than Hitman's WCW theme! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:4C4:4001:AD8E:3DA4:4A53:6C85:24EF (talk) 01:03, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Wife

In the Bret Hart appreciation night, Bret mentioned a wife named Stephanie. Is there more information that can be added after the notes on the Italian ex-wife? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.16.8.23 (talk) 01:33, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Bret Hart has dual citizenship with the US.

Bret Hart's mother was an American, and he has mentioned on twitter that he holds dual citizenship with the USA and Canada. Should the article be updated to reflect that he is also a US citizen? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrono85 (talk • contribs) 13:36, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Being that citizenship is a legal matter, it certainly should be included, tho there are some people "controlling" some wikipedia pages who feel it's about how you perceive the person's citizenship, which is ridiculous. They will actually edit out this information even if it's accurate because they feel the person is viewed as being more of one nationality over the other. By the way, if this page is updated to reflect the dual citizenship, you should consider updating Owen Hart's too. Bret mentioned both he and his brother being dual citizens in his Calgary Sun column since their mother was born in the States. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Senorcanadiense (talk • contribs) 15:53, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

http://slam.canoe.com/SlamWrestlingBretHart9799/hitman_may17.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Senorcanadiense (talk • contribs) 15:54, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Bret Hart could never be called an all-time great

Bret Hart was a fairly decent technician who had a measure of popularity in the mid 1990s, but he had absolutely no charisma, mic skills or drawing ability. He is a solid 0/10 in three major elements of sports entertainment, and for this reason he could never be classified as an "all time great", a title reserved for competent all-round performers like Shawn Michaels and Triple H. 2.218.47.194 (talk) 16:58, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

All opinion. IP hasn't attemped to garner discussion before removing/changing content—they've simply removed it and are choosing to edit war over it. I'm only posting this here for the sake of WP:AN/3, so that's my next stop. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 19:07, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Too lazy to bother with this—it's a weekend and my 'Net is slow. Maybe someone else can take it on. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 19:13, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

All opinion, indeed. I think Bret has great charisma and adequate mic skills - see? Also, a skim over the lede shows that Dave Meltzer strongly disagrees with the IP about Bret's drawing power. Rv back to "greatest of all time" since there's plenty of support for this within the section. And to be honest, I sense a pro-Kliq, anti-Bret troll vibe about all of this. DoubleYouSeaDoubleYou (talk) 19:34, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, you lost all credibility with your claim that Triple H (AKA the guy at the wheel when business sank in 2002-04 and AKA the guy who had worst match of all time contenders with guys like Kane, Scott Steiner, Kevin Nash, Great Khali and Vladimir Kozlov) is greater than Bret Hart. And don't kid yourself, Shawn Michaels isn't as great "all around" as WWE would have you believe. WWE may be trying to brainwash a whole generation, but Shawn Michaels was nowhere near a big enough draw to be considered alongside the likes of Ric Flair, Steve Austin or Lou Thesz (don't forget: HBK's period as "the man" was during the worst business period in WWE history, and during his latter years he was not the top guy).
Part of the problem here is the scope of "greatest of all-time". Would you only consider the top 5 to fit that? Top 10? Top 50? And who decides who fits that? And what about specific abilities? Under your criteria, Hulk Hogan, who was as great on the personality side as he was dismal on the technical wrestling, would not be deserving of that title. Either way, a lot of people with a lot more credibility than you have used the term to describe Hart. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 15:18, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

I think the IP was trolling, to be honest. Bret Hart is widely considered as one of, if not the, greatest of all time. Everyone and their dog knows this. DoubleYouSeaDoubleYou (talk) 22:17, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Silly trolling like this shouldn't be allowed. It's just starting to roll up flame wars. Bret Hart is a very recognized wrestler and so are the other two mentioned.*Treker (talk) 23:25, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

There is now a BBC cite in the lede, which mentions that Hart is "widely regarded as one of the greatest wrestlers of all time". DoubleYouSeaDoubleYou (talk) 06:31, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

I was watching clips on YouTube the other day of Ed Whalen fighting with Mike Shaw on practically a weekly basis (I miss those days). It reminded me of something Whalen said on TV back in 1978. Bret and Dynamite Kid did an hour broadway one time, with Whalen remarking during a later match between the two that "it was the finest fight I have ever watched, I do not exaggerate". As corny as Whalen was, he tended to be pretty straight-up about matters like that. Despite that, I think it's pretty safe to say that Bret earned his present stature more because of the push he received than because of his talent. Besides the Goldberg angle and the tribute match to Owen with Benoit, did he really do anything in WCW worth remembering? RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 07:12, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

"Bret earned his present stature more because of the push he received than because of his talent."

So he's in the same boat as every legendary wrestler, ever? As for WCW, Hart had two moments which are still talked about 15 years after the demise of that company. That makes his Atlanta run more memorable than that of 90% of people who worked there. DoubleYouSeaDoubleYou (talk) 15:40, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

"Bret earned his present stature more because of the push he received than because of his talent." This is a pretty ridiculous statement. It's a fixed sport, literally every successful wrestler has it like this. No one goes anywhere in wrestling without getting a push.*Treker (talk) 22:31, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Then there's George Gulas. His father pushed him to the moon, but fans saw right through it. While Gulas's attempts to royally screw Jerry Jarrett on multiple fronts were the major part of the reason why he went out of business, the push he gave to his son in spite of the fans' resistance didn't help any. Maybe it was different in Calgary, where you couldn't walk down the street without bumping into a Hart brother because there were so damn many of them. They weren't competing with the Calgary Flames for the public's attention and money when Bret started in the business, either. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 00:02, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Right. DoubleYouSeaDoubleYou (talk) 12:50, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Bret Hart. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.f4wonline.com/other-wrestling/bret-hart-reveals-he-has-prostate-cancer-makes-statement-206751

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:26, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Editorial bias

There's absolutely NO SENSE in keeping something like "Hart revolutionized the industry (of pro-wrestling)": it's not only a GIGANTIC claim that can't ultimately be proven (a.k.a. "a lot of people saying something doesn't make it automatically true), but it sounds near-sighted and something a lot of experts wouldn't say as well. There were A LOT of great wrestlers who wrestled before Hart and gave people "high-quality athletic performances". What about names like Steamboat, Flair, Billy Robinson, Karl Gotch, Mil Mascaras? Even more controversial is the fact that it makes appear like everything - BEFORE Hart very supposedly raised the bar in the 90s - was lower-quality in absolute terms, and it's not only something that cannot ultimately be proven as well but something that most experts would deem untrue. Again, see above: there were high quality matches and performers all around the world WAY before even an extremely talented worker like Hart had his classics in the 90s.

I'm more and more convinced that intros like "he's widely considered one of the greatest", "famous person X said he is good/excellent" is gratuitous being said, it's unreasonable to keep in Hart's case the extremely over-the-top part reporting that "he revolutionized this and that by bringing high chit-chat that should be dropped entirely unless, say, WWE/ NJPW or some eminent source itself says the same exact words in an official speech. That quality performances" as a fact, instead - if anything - of "according to source Y, Hart revolutionized this and that". Like I said before in a discussion in the Eddie Guerrero:talk page I'd say that the pro-wrestling project should start limiting its sources to a very limited pool made of the really high-quality ones (the reputable Hall of Fames created by historians and critics for instance), lest every page for this or that wrestler becomes a mini-fansite.

151.47.105.80 (talk) 15:15, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

The "revolutionized" stuff could do with a tweak. IGN says that Hart's first WWF Championship reign was responsible for "re-setting the WWF back to the days of technical wizardry and reshaping all our notions of what a great wrestling match should actually look and feel like". I've edited the lede to reflect this.

I'm more and more convinced that intros like "he's widely considered one of the greatest", "famous person X said he is good/excellent" is gratuitous chit-chat.

Only for wrestlers other than Eddie Guerrero, right? You've had problems with actually cited acclaim for Seth Rollins and Bret Hart, but have battled mercilessly to keep unsupported hyperbole in the lede of Guerrero. I suspect a possible "revenge" agenda after being consistently unable to come by a cite supporting Guerrero as being "widely regarded as one of the greatest professional wrestlers of all time". Unfortunately there's a delineation between all-timers (Hart, Flair, Undertaker, Angle etc) and really good cult guys (Guerrero, Regal, Malenko, Dynamite) among the (wrestling) press. Warlock82 (talk) 20:18, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

WWE/ NJPW or some eminent source itself says the same exact words in an official speech From Bret Hart's WWE profile, "Bret Hart is arguably the greatest technical wrestler in WWE history." "...finishing the final chapter of a Hall of Famer career, worthy of being called “the best there ever will be." Your criteria for what goes into the lede is arbitrary to begin with but this should end this particular discussion. All of the claims you take issue with are backed up by WP:RS.LM2000 (talk) 21:09, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

First off, I'd say it's extremely clear that your criteria to what is lead-worthy are actually arbitrary to begin with and it comes out pretty strongly in some of your posts, but it's clear that I'm beating a dead horse. Other than ad personam attacks, which are an extremely low line of defense in themselves, I'll stress, though, you are basically confirming everything I said. Do note that I never said I had any crucial problem with the "widely regarded" part. Again, I did say though that these are all extremely subjective criteria: it goes for Guerrero AS WELL as for Hart, and I won't even start with how off the use "widely" adjective is. That being said, I shall remind you I conceded while discussing Guerrero's case, since it followed a very precise revision with proper contextualization of the sources - hence I have no idea on why this was even brought up again in the first place; however, I do think it's clear that in basically every case of pro wrestlers being identified here as "the greatest or widely considered as one of the greatest" everything is more or less based on one's own feelings and hearsay than on scientific or sociological research with proper stratification. The problem within the doubtful use of grandiose prose such as "he revolutionized pro-wrestling by bringing HIGH QUALITY performances" still persists. It's nearly lyrical in tone and clearly denotes a personal position between what's revolutionary and high-quality and what not. This is the same as saying that "all performances were of lower quality before Hart stepped in" and it's needless to point out this is an extremely controversial stance; I won't even start by naming matches - like Tsuruta/ Misawa or Steamboat/ Funk - that could be considered equal or superior to some of the Hart's best and that were fought before Hart had his classics, matches that make the affirmation of Hart being something that changed the entire pro-wrestling industry (what does that mean in the first place? Worldwide? WWF?) crumble.

@Warlock82: the proper "journalist" way would be to quote everything as "IGN said X", not "Hart revolutionized everything", the source being "'cause IGN said so in an article" (and IGN is a far cry from a clique of historians or a specialized critic). 151.38.18.175 (talk) 22:08, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

This is some anyong shit. People should just read what the sources says, rewrite it slightly to not cause copyright issues and leave it at that. It doesn't have to be harder than that. There are more than enough sources to support that Hart is concidered to be one of the greatest of all time why is this such an upset to some people?

The lead doensn't say he revolutionized the industry anymore anyway so why are you still upset about that?*Treker (talk) 22:20, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

IGN is a well-known entertainment site with a dedicated pro wrestling section. Seems fairly WP:RS. The publication says that Hart had a widespread impact on the idea of what great wrestling was - it didn't simply give its own opinion. WP:VNT satisfied. Warlock82 (talk) 23:06, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Did you actually READ the post? "Changing the perception" has the same justificational problem unless we quote IGN directly. Without adding the context it becomes immediately troublesome, because:

1. IGN is not really something people would call a legitimate authoritative source on pro-wrestling (its general focus is entertainment, not being a wrestling divulgator/critic). 2. Someone would feel compelled to write, say, in Shawn Michaels' article that "HBK is the greatest wrestler of all time (source = IGN)" - because in another article with rankings called "greatest wrestlers of all time", you have Shawn Michaels in the first position (http://www.ign.com/articles/top-50-wrestlers-of-all-time?page=5).

Besides, there's even a little irony in the fact that using IGN I would in fact have a good enough source to claim that Guerrero is "regarded as one of the greatest ever *see, he's in the top 50 of all time* [because IGN said so]" just like "Hart changed the perception of pro wrestling *see, it's said in this article* [because IGN said so]". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.38.18.175 (talk) 22:49, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

That being said you're talking with someone whose favorite match is Bret vs. Austin from 'Mania. 151.38.18.175 (talk) 22:21, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry but you're being pretty impolite and aggressive and I really don't understand what you're trying to get to with your ramblings. You didn't like the way it was at first now you're upset when it's more in line with what the source said. We're not supposed to copy everything or quote directly all the time.

I don't care what your favorite match is, it's not relevant. That being your favorite match doesn't give you any more credibility about being unbiased. Your idea of what should be in the lead seems to be just as arbitrary as any other. It seems fine as far as I can see. A lot of wrestling articles which are GA or FA contain "praise" in the lead section and that seems perfectly fine as far as I'm concerned. You have not done a good job of explaing why you think it is unfitting in this case despite the fact that there are sources which are generaly considered reliable.

Also, please format properly, it's much easier to read that way.*Treker (talk) 22:44, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

I may be slightly lacking in the netiquette department today, but don't get it twisted: you are the ones who need to come up with a proper rebuttal, because all you've been saying so far are not-so-subtle "you're biased" and "the article is fine as it is", with the extreme end of the argument now being that "Hart changed the perception of the entire 'mainstream' industry, it's not up to debate". I'm the one who's trying to respect the way an article should be formatted here because I'm simply arguing that, admitting IGN is lead-worthy, it would be written like "IGN said Hart changed the perception" (WP:PEACOCK is clear about that). It's as simple as that and Wikipedia clearly supports the "try to stay as neutral and conservative as possible" stance in its policies (see WP:IMPARTIAL, WP:SUBJECTIVE, and especially WP:WEASEL - which is my main basis for the "drop the embellishments" for every article). 151.19.78.232 (talk) 23:05, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Again, IGN is speaking to widespread opinion: it's not just giving its own. Warlock82 (talk) 23:09, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

FORMAT! Format for god's sake, it's impossible to have a conversation with several people on wikipedia when someone refuses to use proper formating. I can't even tell who you're replying to.*Treker (talk) 23:14, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

We had a similar discussion on Talk:Seth Rollins awhile ago. Reception in ledes are common across many subjects, everything from Warren G. Harding to Philip Seymour Hoffman (both WP:FAs). This has been discussed before, see #Bret Hart could never be called an all-time great. Time to WP:DROPTHESTICK and move on.LM2000 (talk) 23:26, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry on the formatting, I got no idea on how to quote someone here. Anyway, Warlock82, in this case claiming that this must be the truth is not enough just like it was in the case of Eddie Guerrero (that's been reworded in a more proper fashion as well). Like I said, WP:PEACOCK is absolutely clear on what's the preferred way to word something: "just the facts". . Given that in the example for the style and format guide you have "Bob Dylan is a great songwriter and the defining figure in this or that" being switched out for "Time's included Bob Dylan in the top 100 of all time saying 'this or that'" I'd say the suggested way to do things here is clear. If we're to WP:DROPTHESTICK it simply means IGN should be quoted appropriately in the lead. 151.19.78.232 (talk) 23:38, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

"in this case claiming that this must be the truth is not enough just like it was in the case of Eddie Guerrero"

No, this is not like the Eddie Guerrero situation. As I said earlier, there was no available source to support consensus opinion on Guerrero as one of the all-time greats. The IGN source very much supports consensus opinion on Hart's impact. Again, the lede here is not using IGN's editorial opinion as support: it's using widespread opinion, reported by IGN (absolutely WP:RS), as support. I used an IGN cite at Ted DiBiase yesterday, and made very clear that my addition reflected the publication's own opinion,[2] but what's happening here is something different. Warlock82 (talk) 00:12, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

WHAT? This is ludicrous. You do understand that I could've said that while we were discussing the Guerrero's lead ("oh, I think that source X or Y is speaking for the majority here, we'd do well to keep it like that") and we would have ended up at an impasse anyway, right? Let me get this straight then, you're saying that most people would agree with a claim like "Hart revolutionized the industry in the 90s". We're back to square one. How do you intend to prove that? In any case, this is not a matter of agreeing/disagreeing; you're still arguably going against the policies. You have an example right above of someone who'd, again arguably, reach a higher consensus if called "a great musician" (Bob Dylan) and who'd still get the lead of his article reworded in the more objective way I'm proposing in this case. 151.35.36.60 (talk) 00:23, 23 September 2016 (UTC)