Jump to content

Talk:Bret Hart

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 197.87.101.55 (talk) at 08:38, 10 January 2020. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Vital article Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
"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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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

Hart is definitely one of the most famous wrestlers to ever wrestle in the WWE Abi25gail05 (talk) 15:21, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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:

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 IITalk to my owner:Online 10:26, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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". [1]. 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)[reply]

"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,[1] but what's happening here is something different. Warlock82 (talk) 00:12, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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 the guy 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 what's the more objective to Wikipedia. And that's the way I'm proposing in this particular case. 151.35.36.60 (talk) 00:23, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I "prove" it with the source. I don't need to "think that the guy X or Y is speaking for the majority": a WP:RS has said in plain black and white what consensus opinion is. Seriously, stop avoiding WP:VNT.
And I already removed "revolutionized" from the lede. Warlock82 (talk) 00:36, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So I offer a way to reword the article and I'm rolled back and accused of "vandalism"? I think you're overblowing things a little. Very well, shall I open a dispute then and present everything to a third and neutral party? Look, I stress that I don't think this is even a matter of debate, because whoever will have to take care of the dispute will simply get a look at the article, get a look at WP:PEACOCK and re-edit it the proper way. Isn't it better, faster and less detrimental to reach a gentlemen's agreement? Pray tell, what's your problem with my proposed lead other than you personally disagreeing with the policy? I'm not avoiding WP:VNT, you're basically saying that the article says something and according to you the article reflects the opinion of the majority, so it can stay. Perfect. I DISAGREE with your idea that it reflects the opinion of the majority. So what are we gonna do? Bicker to infinity? Besides, even if one bothers to read WP:VNT you'll find that it basically reiterates the WP:PEACOCK concept[2]. And I can even quote other policies which clearly express the idea that opinable stuff should be dropped ideally when someone comes out promoting a less opinable way to word things. Do read quotes 1 and 2: Again, saying "Bret Hart is great" is considered an opinion here. Saying "IGN has called Hart great" is considered a fact. You or me saying "most people would agree that Bret Hart is great/ not great" are opinions in this context as well. Someone saying "the user 151.xx said Bret Hart is great" is reporting a fact. That's what both policies are talking about and that's what they mean by something being verifiable or not (of course, you can verify, usually quickly, if some person said something or not in an article online, but you can't verify what are basically semi-symbolic statements like Hart "revolutionized pro-wrestling/ changed the perception of the industry" or similar). 00:49, 23 September 2016 (UTC)151.35.36.60 (talk)

I reverted your edit because there's clearly a cite to support Hart's drawing power.
"Most sources do not state their opinions as opinions, but as facts"
For the millionth time, this is NOT what's happening here. The article is not using IGN's opinion: it's using widespread opinion verified by a RS in IGN. If Empire writes that "The Shawshank Redemption was well-received by critics", we have a RS for reviewer opinion: we don't need to say, "In the opinion of Empire, The Shawshank Redemption 'was well-received by critics'." Getting it? Warlock82 (talk) 10:22, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ Instead of making unprovable proclamations about a subject's importance, use facts and attribution to demonstrate that importance.
  2. ^ Most sources do not state their opinions as opinions, but as facts: "The hypno-toad is supreme" is more likely to be found than "our opinion is that the hypno-toad is supreme, but there are others who disagree with us." It is the task of the Wikipedia editor to present opinions as opinions, not as facts stated in Wikipedia's voice; this is one reason Wikipedia's voice should be neutral.

No dear, that's exactly what's happening here, you are just pigheadedly trying to refute the point by repeating your stance ad nauseaum. Your example is again misleading, because saying that something was "well-received BY CRITICS" can more or less by supported more easily by using stuff like Metacritic and Rotten Tomatoes, critic aggregators, and is way less likely to be challenged. We obviously don't have anything like a council of critics or some documented research that ultimately corroborated the notion that "Hart changed the perception of mainstream wrestling by bringing technical performances to the fore". Say that in a wrestling forum or on wrestlingclassics and you'll find experts starting to give definitions of what they think refers to MAINSTREAM, what is TECHNICAL performances and what is FORE". The appropriate example, which seals the deal, is Bob Dylan in "Bob Dylan is a great musician" - which - trying to get you to understand this extremely simple fact - happens to be exactly the same thing as saying "Bob Dylan is well-received". Both can be interpreted as puffery, while saying that "Time said THIS about Bob Dylan" - alas showing through facts - is not. Period. And I, for the MILLIONTH TIME, will state that Wikipedia has a policy of trying to get rid of opinable stuff as soon as a voice like me comes questioning the puffery. Besides, I'll bring up the point, AGAIN, that following your contrived justificationism of the lead you'd be giving me a free pass to go and edit the Shawn Michaels page and put a clear "He is the greatest wrestler of all time/ he is considered the greatest wrestler of all time" because that's what the same IGN article says and what, according to me, should or could reflect the view of the majority. 151.38.52.163 (talk) 10:21, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"you are just pigheadedly trying to refute the point by repeating your stance ad nauseaum ... following your contrived justificationism of the lead you'd be giving me a free pass to go and edit the Shawn Michaels page and put a clear "He is the greatest wrestler of all time/ he is considered the greatest wrestler of all time" because that's what the same IGN article says and what, according to me, should or could reflect the view of the majority."
Okay, I get it. You simply don't WANT to acknowledge that RS and VNT are fulfilled because it doesn't fit your agenda. Nowhere does the IGN article speak to consensus opinion about Michaels' all-time great status. Your shady plots at the Seth Rollins and Guerrero articles failed, and I imagine this will be no different. Warlock82 (talk) 10:28, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

They're not verified in the slightest. Both RS and VNT are not even saying what you're trying to say. They in fact even repeat the WP:PEACOCK in un nutshell here and there while discussing what is the preferred way to do things. And your tendency to try to keep this on the name calling, bypassing counter-arguments along the way, only makes you appear more and more despicable to me. Now Michaels is first in the rankings of IGN "greatest pro wrestlers of all time" but this won't count as IGN saying that "Michaels is the greatest wrestler of all time". Okay, makes totally sense, right? Fine, I'll play along anyway simply because it's rather easy to make your line of logic fall on itself again. Another IGN article, "Top 50 wrestlers according to the readers". Michaels is, again, number 1. In response to IGN's own article and IGN says that "it's not surprising that everyone would have agreed with their N°1 placement".

Finally, something we all (well mostly all) can agree on - choosing HBK as #1. Despite battling his own personal demons, a severe back injury and even "losing his smile" at one point, no one has done more to elevate the artistry, creativity and athleticism of the business like Shawn Michaels did over his 25 years plus in the business. [IGN] http://www.ign.com/articles/2012/11/13/readers-choice-top-10-wrestlers-of-all-time

This is the same as IGN stating that "it's obvious that Shawn Michaels is the number one greatest wrestler of all time" (I mean, of course, if making him number one in their rankings of the "greatest wrestlers ever" could have any other meaning). If not, I suppose that according to you one may simply reword the "elevate" part and post it in the lead, right? Now, is it a FACT that this is a general consensus or is the FACT simply that IGN is reporting this? I think there's no doubt on what 100% of people would agree is the answer. If not, you're only giving me more leeway to edit. Now, what will you advocate there? "IGN saying something doesn't make it valid" again? Can we please act reasonable? 151.57.117.210 (talk) 10:58, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Now Michaels is first in the rankings of IGN "greatest pro wrestlers of all time" but this won't count as IGN saying that "Michaels is the greatest wrestler of all time". Okay, makes totally sense, right?"
Moving the goalposts, much? That ABSOLUTELY DOES support "IGN says Michaels is the greatest". What it DOESN'T support is saying he's widely regarded as the best. As for the readers' opinion piece, that supports IGN reader opinion, not a widespread opinion. Warlock82 (talk) 11:19, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Again?! This is YOUR OPINION on what is the general OPINION, just like what was MY OPINION on the general consensus that Eddie Guerrero was "widely considered one of the greatest". Your line of defense has been "everything reported in the lead is not simply IGN's view on what is the consensus opinion, but the consensus opinion itself". Point is, if we go further we immediately realize that this "consensus opinion" is not verifiable. To me - and I'm referencing your "I'm proving it through the article" - it's almost like you're trying to say that like the IGN article and the widespread consensus circularly prove each other. IGN's article says something that reflects the general consensus, and that's the general consensus because IGN's article says so. Tell me you do understand this is faulty logic. Whatever your idea really may be, it's clear that the most objective way to redact everything is to reference the article in a quote instead of elevating the article (or the editor) to ultimate authority on what the perceived reality is. 151.57.117.210 (talk) 11:34, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"IGN's article says something that reflects the general consensus, and that's the general consensus because IGN's article says so."
IGN isn't saying "something that reflects the general consensus", they're telling us what the consensus is. You don't seem to want to take this on board. Warlock82 (talk) 13:59, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kindly spare me the subtle condescending tone. You keep trying to make it sound like you're giving out facts while I'm using hyperboles or being opinionated since the first "there's a clear divide in the press between A-tiers and B-tiers". We both are stating opinions here: you think I'm wrong in saying that the part in the lead about Bret Hart cannot be treated as widespread opinion/ general consensus because I don't think it's actually verifiable, vice versa I think you are wrong in the same regard when you say it is the general consensus just because an article coming from IGN could say it is. As far as I'm concerned, the hypno-toad example from WP:VNT may reflect IGN's case perfectly: in that case, it is to be treated as the publication's own POW and not as something that is doubtlessly real or that applies to the majority. Ultimately, you are either handing IGN the last saying in the matter and/or arguing that the article and the consensus claim reciprocally prove each other. Both are very non-journalistic approaches.

P.S. Do note that the policy is in WP:PEACOCK is basically "let the facts speak for themselves". I think that the problem here may be that you want to source IGN, but in part don't think that IGN is a good source to stand on its feet to conclusively prove the claim you're advocating to the reader, and that's why you prefer to keep it vague. Nevertheless, the policy states that - especially on effusive subjects - it's better to quote if unable to surmise. Here we can't surmise because it's not like we have some scientific higher ground (alas, a research) to prove conclusively and specifically that "Hart changed the mainstream perception by bringing technical matches". At most you and I could agree with it, we could gather a bunch of people and see if they agree with us, but doing a research is another thing. We may find reputable experts and historians who would disagree with it as well. That's still not a reputable research. In short, agreeing that IGN's article is lead-worthy and wanting to follow the policies, it's still better to quote it. 151.47.212.25 (talk) 14:18, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Request for comment

I have now asked for input from other editors from the Wrestling wikipedia project on their opinion on the matter.*Treker (talk) 02:10, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's for the better. Sorry, though, I have already opened a dispute. Let's hear what other people have to say, anyway. It would surely be helpful here. 151.35.36.60 (talk) 02:49, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It does seem like a peacock article to me. I agree with the "peacock" tag that was added but them was removed here. SageRad (talk) 13:53, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I removed it because at least three other editors here disagreed that it was necessary and since the other editor couldn't make his case very clear I didn't think it was appropriate. If you disssagre you can add it back or fix the content which you think is badly cited or embelished. I still don't personaly belive that it the case but go ahead.
Also, maybe I'm stupid but how is that link relevant?*Treker (talk) 14:05, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think the other editor made their case very clearly. I'm not going to personally add it back but i think it's a good idea and is accurate about an NPOV bias in this article. SageRad (talk) 15:45, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I don't agree. I can't keep track on what the conversation is even about anymore now that it's gone on for so long and it hasn't even gotten anywhere. I just want it to be over with.*Treker (talk) 16:35, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No peacockery. Any acclaim for Hart is fully cited. The IP keeps pointing to the Bob Dylan example in the WP:PEACOCK essay but it's irrelevant. We're not saying "Hart changed things" and using IGN's opinion as a source: we're using consensus opinion ("...reshaping all our notions of what a great wrestling match should actually look and feel like"), verified by a WP:RS in IGN. See the Frank Gotch lede for an example of where an actual editorial opinion is used (I added this). Warlock82 (talk) 17:33, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with this. I don't see how this article is any more peacockery than any other famous wrestlers article.*Treker (talk) 18:04, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Seems fairly simple to me, if IGN is "telling us what the consensus is", and it's a widespread consensus opinion, then it shouldn't be that hard of a task to produce additional reliable sources to confirm what IGN has reported. If there are no other reliable sources that confirm what IGN is reporting, then attribute their statement accordingly to them.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 18:49, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Let me say that this is uncontroversial and common knowledge amongst wrestling fans. The IP has an ax the grind here and has been doing this for months. Again I've found enough sources to put this discussion to bed.LM2000 (talk) 22:58, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Houston Chronicle:"The 58-year-old Hart is thought to be one of the greatest wrestlers of all-time, as he revolutionized the industry in the 1990s with an attention to his in-ring craftsmanship."
  • Avenue Calgary:"Along with his contemporary, “the Heartbreak Kid” Shawn Michaels, Hart represented a shift in who wrestlers could be, how they could wrestle and what main-event matches could look like, says Dorothy Roberts (no relation to Jake the Snake), an Edmonton writer and wrestling expert. “In the 1980s, wrestling was muscle-bound, superhero-looking men just beating on each other without any athleticism,” she says. “The idea that someone who is not 6'5" and 250 lbs. could be successful stems directly from Bret Hart. He inspired people who don’t look like giants and supermen.”"
  • The Pro Wrestling Hall of Fame: Heroes and Icons (book source):"Hart and Shawn Michaels would introduce a more athletic ring style. “The wrestling business changed then,”"
  • Pro Wrestling Dot Net:"Bret Hart might be one of the most important people in WrestleMania history. When Hulk Hogan finally left the company, Vince was left without the guy who closed 8 of the first 9 WrestleMania's. McMahon was also in the spotlight for his 1994 steroids trial. He couldn't rely on what he knew best – big jacked up guys. So he turned to his best hand, Bret Hart, as almost a means to an end. Little did he know that the smaller, less showy Hart would take to the lead role so well. Hart got over in an entirely new way – excellent wrestling. Bizarre concept, I know! Hart wasn't a charismatic powerhouse like Hogan and Savage, but he could put on the best matches. The fact that it worked opened so many doors for other guys."
  • WWE.com (Bret in his own words):" I’ve always thought the course WWE was taking started really to change drastically in the ’92-’93-’94 period. It changed from being wrestling cartoon characters to it being about the wrestling itself. It was about the wrestling now. It was about guys like Shawn Michaels, myself and “Stone Cold” Steve Austin — the guys that were on their way, and all of us had a different sort of vision as to what it was about. It wasn’t about having 24-inch arms — it wasn’t so much about being real-life cartoon characters as it was about being great wrestlers."
  • Keep as is WP:RS support everything in dispute here.LM2000 (talk) 23:02, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

First off, I'd be extremely grateful if you could stop addressing my supposedly "bad" conduct here or the fact that you believe I have an "agenda", or that I'm concocting "shady plots". I've got nothing personal against any of you editors, nor is my intention to disrupt anyone's work. Now, I'm fairly convinced that this is not really a matter of finding 10, 12, or 20 people claiming the same thing: in WP:PEACOCK you have Bob Dylan being labeled a "great songwriter" - which I believe would account for an even more widespread "consensus" opinion, according to your mileage here you could find a similar pool of sources - being addressed as less preferable puffery than the facts about Bob Dylan as those reported by, finally, a reputable source (i.e. "Rolling Stones said 'Bob Dylan rocked'"). The exemplification above refers precisely to the case at hand. Hart winning stuff, main-eventing a PPV, being the longest reigning champion in 1992 are facts. Harkening historiographic data back to Hart like the idea - we all may even agree upon here, I do - that he "changed someone's perception" is the same of saying Bob Dylan is a "great songwriter" or "a defining figure" just because everyone you know agrees (the same would hold true for all the "widely regarded as the greatest/ one of the greatest" that fill a lot of leads in the wrestler's bio). No matter how many people say it, you can't treat it as a "fact" because even what a lot of people believe may not be a fact. The verifiability policy, which has been quoted before, is in fact about this as well: verifiability in this case is to be intended as in "can we verify if this particular excerpt can be attributed to this particular person/publication?"[1], not as in "we don't know if what the source is saying is the truth, but a lot of people say so, hence what is stated by the source is verified and can be reported as a fact(oid)", as in the hypno-toad example; it's a subtle but crucial undertone. As far as I've read in Wikipedia policies (believe me, I've read them a lot in these days while reflecting on our entire exchange), puffery as a placeholder can be seen as somewhat acceptable, but this is not really the case because we already had an alternative on paper more conforming to the quality standards. To simplify: let's say that we had a robust research on Hart's impact (and we don't have anything of the such) made by a tertiary source on the secondary sources (IGN, experts etc.), you could at most say something along the lines of "according to 'contemporary historians and critics', Hart was someone who changed the public perception" [2][3]. Anything else and you, and transitively the article, would be taking a position in the debate. 151.37.112.2 (talk) 18:07, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ "Verifiability" was used in this context to mean that material added to Wikipedia must have been published previously by a reliable source
  2. ^ To say it in a few words: there are no universal truths in social sciences. As said earlier, there are facts, opinions, facts about opinions and opinions about opinions. Only facts have a truth value, and even then, it's much weaker than for maths and logics. For example, "The administration of president 'Whoever' promoted the law 'resistance is futile'" is a fact.
  3. ^ As history is about things that took place in the past, there's the temptation to think that it is composed of truths, but it isn't. History is the politics of the past, same as today's politics is tomorrow's history. The opinions and perspectives about the presidency of Abraham Lincoln or Richard Nixon are as diverse as they can be about George Bush or Barack Obama.
I've wanted to leave you messages on your talk page but have been unable to because your IP changes constantly, registering an account may be a good idea if you will be editing here for awhile. It is a fact that Hart changed the perception of wrestling in the early 90s as demonstrated by a litany of sources. WP:PEA doesn't apply; this is not subjective opinion, Hart was the face of the WWF during their transitional period where smaller wrestlers with technical skill were pushed to the top. There's even more sources that call Hart the greatest ever. Personally, he has never been a favorite of mine. That does not and should not matter. Per WP:NPOV we cannot state categorically that Hart is the best ever, that's subjective. However, when reviewing the Legacy section, you'll find that he's frequently cited as being as such. "He is widely regarded as one of the greatest pro wrestlers of all time" is a policy compliant statement when backed up by reliable sources.LM2000 (talk) 20:31, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The point here is that taking a source that states someone's opinion, like IGN's or that of any other source you've listed above, and choosing to give them the ultimate authority in something which is entirely opinable in itself. We're not discussing science here. Contextually, saying "Hart is the best" or "Hart is revolutionary" is the same. Re-read yourself above: you're saying that it's a "fact". I don't see a fact. You see people routinely debating 2+2? Would you see people creating debates and questioning if a phrase like "this article said this" is written with nineteen letters or not? The answer is, in this case, self-evident. Now would people dispute something like "Bob Dylan is a defining figure in something", "chocolate tastes good" or "Colombus changed the perspective of the world in 1492"? Of course they would. Different angles. Mileage may vary. What we have at hand is not a case of 2+2, but a case of addressing the "quality" of something (Hart's effect on the business). That contemplates subjectivity. Therefore, refer to [2] as to what is Wikipedia stance. Otherwise, one would need to be able to give out 100% univocal, quantitative definitions pertaining to the case at hand, answering questions like: what exactly constitutes a technical match and what not? What is a revolution? What is the fore? Do you think everyone would agree with each of these terms? Of course they wouldn't. This counts as a premise. Secondly, do note that my edits had received criticism for the very same reason. I was following my own notion that Eddie Guerrero, being in the top 5 on cagematch (a site with hundreds of thousands of votes), having a dozen of peers other workers saying that he was the greatest, being in the top 11 of the "top wrestlers ever" made by WWE (which in this case is not good enough for being sourced because, according to you and another couple editors, THIS counts as WWE's opinion), and being in a dozen of sparsed lists could suffice. And yet, since according to another editor there was a clear divide between Eddie Guerrero and the A-listers, it had to be gutted or worded like "publication X said Y about Z". Despite not sharing the view of my fellow editor I was lead to think "well, alright, after all we are just reporting the hard fact", this is fairly journalistic. However, one need not to make the mistake of stating just - because I had conceded - the other editor was the bearer of some superior truth, there. The arguments, just like your "Bret Hart clearly revolutionized the 90s", are our opinion on what is the truth. Is Guerrero greater than Hart? Is Hart greater than Guerrero? Is Pat O'Conner greater than Ric Flair? Is Riki Choshu greater than the Great Gama? There are NO facts, only intepretations based on facts. Getting to the crucial problem in this debate. While you probably bear no ill intent, you're indirectly giving yourself the authority in interpreting what is the "mos maiorum" of our time. In short, you are not acting as editors already, you're acting like critics and interpreters. The only "fact" here is that IGN and the people above have said something. Even assuming Hart "revolutionizing the industry" was not a fact, but indeed a "widespread consensual interpretation" - and trying to be flexible - we'd have no tertiary reputable source corroborating that to give journalistic credibility to the claim in such an article. That's because you will hardly find analytical and statistical on that topic, and in pro-wrestling. You'll have stray journalists, stray wrestlers and critics that are speaking their mind. I bet even your journalist would retract his stance if I said "hey, do you think Hart revolutionizing the 90s is a dogma or anything? Shall you swear on the sacred life of a newborn"? He'd say: "uh, when you put it that way no, I simply think that's the case. It's only my opinion". The neutral point of view, quite simply is: "IGN said this about Bret Hart". Period. There's no way around it. And this is not something that dimishes Hart's value in the slightest. If you think so it's because you don't think IGN is a good source; perhaps you may simply switch for another sources between one of those above. Finally, reporting the thing is not like implying that only IGN thinks so (or else what, was Time the only one to believe Dylan was one of the defining figures of the century? Again, that's not the case). What, you find a lot of critics? Very well, until disputed it'd be best to put "wrestling critics said this about Hart" (not really my cup of tea because I think it'd be just a semi-objective claim, but, hey, it'd be slightly better). This would apply to every other article in the pro-wrestling project as well. That's the policy. In theory. That being said do whatever you like, however do note that your premise ("it's a fact/ it's a commonly accepted opinion" because "50 articles said so" or "it's self-evident") is not logically sound. And as far as I'm concerned WP:PEACOCK was meant to reflect cases like this very specifically. It seems we disagre on that as well. You may want to pose the question to someone else. 151.57.108.93 (talk) 23:18, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
From what I saw in your dispute at Seth Rollins, where you disputed praise in the lede despite it given proper context and attribution, I find it hard to believe you will WP:DROPTHESTICK here if we slightly modify the wording. I'll remind you that WP:FAs like Warren G. Harding and Philip Seymour Hoffman include reception in their ledes. I wouldn't like modifying the sentence "He is widely regarded as one of the greatest pro wrestlers of all time..." to say "He is widely regarded by his peers and critics as one of the greatest pro wrestlers of all time", I think that goes without saying, but I will ask what others here think of that change. I think "..changed the perception of mainstream wrestling in the early 1990s by bringing technical in-ring performance to the fore" is essential and modifications, such a describing him as a "face of the WWF during the 1990s" loses essential context and is less supported by RS than what we have now. That Hart ushered in a new era of wrestling seems as much fact as Harding's reputation being impacted by the Teapot Dome scandal. Also, would it be possible to make responses more succinct in the future? Thanks.LM2000 (talk) 22:49, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Like I said above, to my knowledge you either have some analytical tertiary data from another reputable source that reviews critically the secondary data, or you simply quote/ paraphrase while keeping the references ("critics", "historians", "peers") and let everything run its course (a.k.a. the collective pool of users decides on what to keep and what to cut). Otherwise the editor would ostensibly be acting like the tertiary source reviewing the data. The "loaded language" page expands upon the concept fairly comprehensively. I still don't think that a wrestler or a veteran praising another wrestler is something that could indiscriminately occupy the lead simply because I have, personally, very clear standards about what may constitute framing for a reader and what not - moreover, I believe this feature would easily be abused -; nevertheless, that's merely my opinion. My opinion on "he is widely regarded" is the same as before: puffery. You can let people know that Leonardo Da Vinci was a genius by informing people on what he has done objectively ("he created this and that", "was the first while doing this and that", "scientific publication X reports he is "super-duper"") without saying "Leonardo Da Vinci was a genius" or "Leonardo Da Vinci was revolutionary back in the day" or "most people think he is a genius". Puffery for the deserving is better than nothing, of course, but there's basically always something more concrete and of greater encyclopedic value to say than puffery. 151.57.108.93 (talk) 23:18, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As this has spiraled so far out of control, I dunno how to properly respond, so I'll offer a few thoughts I've had. The article, in between the time it hit my watchlist and the delete-athon this past February in response to his announcement of prostate cancer, was one of the more obviously bloated navel-gazing exercises I've seen on Wikipedia shy of the multitude of recent dumping grounds/puffery magnets related to the current U.S. presidential election. As of today, I'm still not convinced that this has been properly rectified. Funny how one of the deletions was the section where Hart trashes Greg Oliver. In plenty of other corners of the encyclopedia, Greg Oliver is deified as the ultimate authority on pro wrestling, whereas people I would view as authorities on pro wrestling such as Tom Burke, J. Michael Kenyon and Norm Kietzer are barely acknowledged or unacknowledged. Last I checked, blogs sponsored by media outlets pass muster under RS and The Baltimore Sun is plenty credible as a source. Speaking of RS, much effort has been expended discussing that IGN source. I'm not intimately familiar with IGN, but it appears to be an outlet which exercises editorial control. My problem with the specific link is that it's too reminiscent of those clickbait-type ads you see at the bottom of legitimate news stories on some sites glorifying inbred C-listers and D-listers in the "celebrity world" (a few examples come to mind, but someone would likely howl "BLP violation" in response). There appears to be some small amount of backlash against the prevailing notion that anything which passes muster under RS automatically deserves to be added to the encyclopedia. It took a little bit of scrolling down before the page stopped automatically favoring WWE and acknowledged that there's other pro wrestling elsewhere in the world. I see abundant peacock language in IGN's accolades of Hart despite how short the passage is. In other words, I wouldn't exactly call it the greatest source in the world. Additionally, this "resurgence" attributed to Hart in the source occurred during a time when WWF wasn't at any sort of peak either critically or financially, unless you want to call the sexual misconduct and steroid abuse allegations a "high point". When viewed in the context of the era in general, this particular point in time bookended the peak period headlined by Hogan and Piper, and the peak period headlined by The Rock and SCSA. Hart benefited from booking and foils such as Austin and Michaels just as much as he benefited from his own star power. As hot as Hart was in Stampede in 1982-83, they were still running the same small arenas. They were drawing much larger crowds during their resurgence when Dynamite Kid came back from WWF. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 23:50, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're free to add back what he said about Greg Oliver if you like it probbaly should be there somewhere. Not that I see what that has to do with the discussion at all. Bret acting aggressive and opinionated against someone isn't supprising at all but I'm not sure how it concerns whether the information in the lead belongs there or not.*Treker (talk) 02:21, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks RadioKAOS for being far more eloquent than I could ever hope to be. I believe the discussion has proved that the peacock banner was not out of place. Three editors (or two editors and a former one, since Warlock82 was a sockpuppet?) defending the article's stance and tone and three others asserting that it's either fluffy or a mass of complacent self-absorption means there's probably enough room to put the banner back... just maybe. 151.57.3.41 (talk) 03:12, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Warlock82 Was a sockpuppet? Holly shit!*Treker (talk) 03:24, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It was him, Austin! It was him all along! 151.57.3.41 (talk) 03:44, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Haha.*Treker (talk) 04:14, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dropping by to say that I ever-so-slighty retouched the dreaded lead with what I think should be a more objective phrasing. Have a good one. 151.35.100.238 (talk) 20:04, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Bret Hart. 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: 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:30, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 32 external links on Bret Hart. 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: 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:50, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Bret Hart. 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: 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:46, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bret in Starrcade (1997) main event?

Bret in Starrcade (1997) main event? That's what the lead says.--Psychonot (talk) 21:43, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

He was involved as a referee. It has a source. Stop wasting everyone's time with the edit war.★Trekker (talk) 21:44, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@*Treker:Hart was referee of Larry Zbyszko vs Eric Bischoff match, which was not mainevent of Starrcade (1997).--Psychonot (talk) 21:46, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
He was also present and involved in the Hogan/Sting match, read the ref. Also, don't contact me, I keep track on this article, no need.★Trekker (talk) 21:50, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, ok then. That's all I was confused about--Psychonot (talk) 21:51, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cancer

He is a 2 time prostate cancer survivor. Wolfcoolrose (talk) 04:32, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

One time, and you added it in a terrible section.★Trekker (talk) 07:09, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Bret Hart. 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: 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:37, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cited

Everything is cited. What exactly is it that would count as "weasle" here?★Trekker (talk) 13:08, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Legacy Section

I'm really baffled by beginning the legacy section with a quote by Jordan Peterson. The clause "according to clinical psychologist" just reads to me like this guy has no expertise in this area--its almost funny. All the other quotes in that first paragraph--and nearly all the quotes in the whole section--come from writers and wrestlers with experience and expertise in the industry, so why is the section leading with a quote from someone who, although well known, has no reason to be there. It just feels like someone wanted a reason to link that particular youtube video, and found one, rather than actually informing readers about the importance of the man.

Gushing praise, needs NPOV

This so-called "article" reads like a teen fanzine. It's actually laughable.

It desperately needs some balance. I put forward that comments about Bret Hart from people such as Hulk Hogan, Jerry Lawler, Bad News Brown and Ric Flair be added to make this NPOV, and cease reading like the ramblings of some middle school mark. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.87.101.252 (talk) 12:29, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This subject has already been discussed several times and resolved.★Trekker (talk) 15:44, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Flair and Lawler are now friends with Hart and say only good things about him. Allen and Hogan specialise(d) in dissing Bret because he hurt their egos by daring to criticise them back in the day.[2][3]
Thing is, There's no need to introduce fringe viewpoints from a small handful of guys who are clearly not objective. Telekinetics (talk) 17:21, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You can't be serious! "Hart is kinda hugely acclaimed and widely regarded as one of, if not the, greatest ever." How the hell is THAT "objective"?

"Fringe viewpoints from a small handful of guys"?

But it doesn't even matter what people think.

Let's look at the NUMBERS.

Compare Hart's success at PPV buys, television ratings, ticket sales, merchandise sales, compared to what people like Hogan did. There's no comparison.

And who are you to decide what is "widely regarded" and what is "a fringe viewpoint"?

fact is, people, many people, have criticised Hart. That needs to be added. And, let's go to actual drawing power, using actual statistics. Or, would you consider actual data to be a "Fringe viewpoint" as well?

Please stop edit warring and ignoring the cited sources. Saying "he wasn't as big as Hogan" isn't the same as someone not being a great draw on their own. Again, this has been discusses already.★Trekker (talk) 06:44, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WHERE? And again, the "sources" are people saying they liked working with him. But, what does that have to do with DRAWING?

But, WHEN did he draw? WHEN was he a "a major draw"?

He never really got a chance in WCW, and even Bret Hart himself would say he wasn't used properly in WCW.

So, WWF(now WWE)? Up to 1992, Hogan, Savage, Warrior were the main acts. Only in the period 1992-1997 was he actually pushed as a main event guy. Except not even then. From WrestleMania IX through WrestleMania X, he was in the midcard. from November '94 through November '95 Diesel was the World Champion. And Hart wasn't even in the WWF for most of 1996(when Shawn Michaels was the World Champion.)

So, we're basically looking at October 1992 through WrestleMania IX, then WrestleMania X through Survivor Series 1994, and then MAYBE a few months in 1997.

And, what do the FACTS, what does the actual DATA tell us about these brief time periods, as far as World Wrestling Federation BUSINESS and MONEY?

Exactly.

How the hell is that "a major international draw within professional wrestling"? It isn't. Nobody could claim it is, and in fact nobody did. Your sources have people saying he was a great worker, but that's got nothing to do with being a draw. Dean Malenko was a great worker, William Regal was a great worker, but so what?

And, again, WHERE has this "been discusses already"?

By the way, the sentence which falsely claims he was "a major international draw" is grammatically incorrect as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.87.101.55 (talk) 07:16, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Listen here, no one is interested in talking to you if all you're going to do is raging and ranting while ignoring the cited sources. As I said, this topic has been discusses on this very talkpage to death already (feel free to look in the archives), you're not the first angry Bret hater to come here to complain.★Trekker (talk) 07:25, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm NOT "an angry Bret hater". I am putting forward a serious issue. You, as a fanboy, are reacting emotionally. You, and you alone, are the one who is "raging and ranting". And IGNORING someone attempting to put forward a NPOV position, which is what Wikipedia is supposed to be about after all. You just dismiss out of hand any attempt at rational discussion, with "that was discusses before" or "but people like him!" No, YOU like him. No doubt other people do too. But this is NOT about who does or doesn't like somebody. it's about verified sources about drawing. Your inability to differentiate between who likes somebody, and whether someone actually made money is clear.

Whether or not Flair likes Hart now is irrelevant to the topic at hand. What Flair said here is still 100% accurate...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qUd35rQAKmI

Was Hart a good 'worker'? Does he have people who like him? That simply doesn't matter in this issue.

You're the only one here who is acting emotional. I'll make it clear for you: the awnser is "no". We're not going to remove cited information just because you don't agree with it, three experienced editors have already disagreed with you so Wikipedia:JUSTDROPIT.★Trekker (talk) 07:44, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Experienced"? Your user page has that you are a Hart fanboy listed at the top of the page! How exactly are you showing NEUTRALITY or OBJECTIVITY? You're not. I've seen your edit history, where, the second someone tries to make any sort of neutral comment about Bret Hart or the Hart foundation, you pounce to revert it, and keep this mark fanzine version. You have YET to answer one question I asked. You just resort to insults and claims of "this has been discusses before? WHERE? i checked the archives. I saw nothing. Please direct me to where it was discussed before. If you don't, I will know you made that up, the same way you made up the false claim about "major international draw". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.87.101.55 (talk) 07:52, 10 January 2020 (UTC) And, I still don't see anyone saying he was "a major international draw". Yes, many people say he had "great matches"(whatever that is supposed to mean.)[reply]

By the way, what actually is a 'great match'? Not what people like Meltzer think..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BRpSoSLOR_A

By the way, you REALLY need to separate what you like, from what a draw is. As an example, I hate John Cena, but I can freely admit that he is without a doubt the biggest draw of the 21st century so far. Iw as a huge Ultimate Warrior fan in 1990, but I can also admit that he didn't draw anywhere near what Hogan drew.

And, AGAIN, where was this discussed before. Give a link, or admit that it's not true. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.87.101.55 (talk) 08:27, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up. I'll wait for your sources saying Hart was a 'draw, as well as your link to where this was discussed before, before I reply.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kv9nEQrD-Vc

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bret_Hart&oldid=935072503"