Jump to content

Talk:Montreal Screwjob/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Trivia

I removed a blurb about the Cena/Van Dam finish at One Night Stand, as it has no relevance to the Montreal Screwjob. 66.194.253.225 12:24, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Tone

This article is written in an inappropriate tone and is not suitably written for Wikipedia. The informal language used which includes "pummel" and "for real", which are just examples, are not common and accepted in Wikipedia. Therefore I feel that this needs to be changed. Thanks - Erebus555↔talk

I second this suggestion. Also, there are NPOV comments and assertions that the author couldn't possibly know with any authority (the exact backstage events, what Vince lied about and what not). There are not sources cited besides Meltzer, also. ka1iban 20:22, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

aww poor babies wrong tone? this is about a wrestling event not a tea party... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.154.17.49 (talk • contribs)

And this is an encyclopedia, not a web forum. We have to be professional in every article, no matter the subject. The tone in this is.. well, it's much to big of a mess for me to clean up. I hope someone comes along who has the writing skill to make this into a decent article. Errick 09:29, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Strongly agree with Kaliban, this article is a mess. It needs to be condensed to about 20% of its current size. It needs to be made clear what events mentioned here were staged and which were not. An outsider reading the article would get the impression from the tone that all of it including the shoot was staged. Tempshill 15:53, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Professional? really .. i swear the people who right for this site have some big ass egos ... your not profession you right for a sight that has no credibilty yes the article wasnt perfect but this is a highly desputed wrestling event and needs to be discussed thusly not liek some fake thing that never happend. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.128.202.124 (talk • contribs)

Orlando Screwjob and South Philly Screwjob sections

These are both recent kayfabe events in wrestling of no significance. The Orlando Screwjob served as a plot device to allow TNA to send their ratings into the toilet and South Philly was no screwjob. It was just a storyline to allow RVD to lose the belt without damaging his drawing power when he returned from his dope suspension. This is a WWE article. TNA storylines have no place in a WWE article. South Philly is a WWE storyline, but one of no significance and irrelevant to the Montreal Screwjob. I have removed both sections for the reasons I've provided. Simply put, neither one makes much sense in this article. Just about nobody looking for Montreal Screwjob information would be interested in some storyline occuring in a small WWE-wannabe promotion down in Florida.

Agreed, and fixed. JPG-GR 00:48, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Main page

I just thought I'd say that there has been an objection to this page making the main page due to its lead. I have taken the liberty of making some changes on the main page request thread and I figured I'd let the regular edits know so they can take a look. -- Scorpion 23:23, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Question about the execution

I've read that Shawn Michaels actually did offer his foot to Hart to reverse the hold just before Hebner called for the bell, but the article states differently. Also, the article states that Hart "sensed" something was wrong, and my "sources" also contradict that, stating that Hart only realized (or "sensed") something was wrong when the bell rang and Michaels was announced the winner. Clarification, please? Helltopay27 01:56, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Go and watch the match or clips of it (the ending is on the History of the WWE Championship DVD). Michaels didn't offer his foot to Bret until after the bell started to ring. TJ Spyke 14:51, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Sister projects


Shawn michaels was there at the hall of fame ceremony but left before bret's induction..whether he left or was just backstage remains to be seen


Citing Facts, Hart's Demands

Please cite or verify the claims that Hart's behavior had become erratic and that he demanded that ONO be available to Canada too. Never before have I seen those claims in print, and they are not mentioned in Dave Meltzer's account, the one most wrestling analysts, experts, and abckstage suits at WWE consider to be the most accurate.

Also, I hardly consider not wanting to lose in Canada to be a "strange demand." It is often commonplace for wrestlers to not want to lose in their home country; ESPECIALLY so in this case, with Hart being built up as such a Canadian patriot and hero. This isn't pro-Hart sentiment, either; you could easily revise this by stating, "Hart also refused to lose any matches in Canada, a demand some see as unreasonable and self-centered."

CinnamonCinder 21:36, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

cinnemoncinder I think that Bret attacking shawn after he made the joke about hart sleeping with sunny counts as erratic. as for hart whanting ONO in canada just look at this story from the brain washed Hart lover scott keith [1] I will try and fund some more on this.

--Shawn went on Live Television and accused Bret of cheating on his wife! You don't think that's deserving of a punch in the mouth? I'd say Shawn deliberately trying to cause problems in other wrestlers personal lives is far more "erratic" behaviour than what Bret did. - Andy.

Bret Hart not wanting to lose was a 'strange demand' not because the match was in his hometown but because he was on his way out the company and refused to put HBK over. Besides, so what if the event was in his hometown??? Bret Hart is NOT a god to Canadians, no matter how moronic wrestling fans may be over there.. the majority of them do not worsip him like he thinks they do. Matt


Montreal isn't Bret's hometown. PHOENIXZERO 08:12, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

The consensus was that Bret being unwilling to lose in Canada was a very strange and bizarre request. Furthermore, he was caught lying about it years later. In the "Wrestling With Shadows" documentary, he's CLEARLY heard saying, "I'll drop the belt, but NOT in Canada." Then years later on the WWE-produced DVD, he said it wasn't about losing in Canada, as he had lost in Canada plenty of times. Back to the original point, McMahon was correct in stating that Bret being unwilling to lose in Canada was totally ridiculous, and would be akin to Austin/Michaels/Foley (read: American wrestlers) stating that they'd be unwilling to lose in their home country. Hart would have a leg to stand on if Surivor Series were held in his home city of Calgary, but the PPV wasn't even held in his home province. He was taking things a bit too seriously by that point. Barrelofagun69 22:19, 4 June 2007 (UTC) Barrelofagun69

Since this is the "Citing Facts" section, I will put this here. The article states that the screwjob happened over Hart's decision to leave the WWF for WCW, when in fact--according to the Wrestling With Shadows documentary--it was McMahon who told Hart that he was going to breach his contract, and to try to get the best deal he could out of WCW. I feel this should be changed. Moisanite 21:36, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Meltzer comment in trivia

"There has been a comment made on the Wrestling Classics forum by Dave Meltzer which states that the full Montreal story still hasn't been revealed and won't be until a certain person responsible for the 'sharpshooter spot' in the match passes away".

Did Meltzer say this? Who is he referring to?

I'm beginning to think the the man in question is either Pat Patterson or Vince Russo. And yes, Meltzer did say this, but I can't seem to find the source. Raderick 17:35, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Probably Patterson. Vince Russo has done so much retroactive chest-beating in regards to involvement with just about every aspect of the WWF from 1994-1999. Funny how he didn't want credit for it until after the WWF starting winning in the ratings. I doubt Russo was apart of it at all. Barrelofagun69 22:21, 4 June 2007 (UTC) Barrelofagun69

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.


I believe that the word "Screwjob" should be capitalized in the article title - as in "the Gulf of Tonkin Incident". Additionally, it seems to appear that way in most copyedited mentions of the event - including other Wikipedia articles. Ribonucleic 16:20, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I think you have an argument. However, this proposal is not uncontroversial, and as such, you should follow the procedure at WP:RM so that there can be an explicit discussion that an administrator will close. I noticed that you moved the page, so I've moved it back in anticipation of your move request. Croctotheface 16:54, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Given that there were no redirection (or even direct search) issues involved in changing the capitalization - plus my certainty that I'm right :-) - I honestly didn't think there would be any controversy. But I see your point. So I'll just let it ride for now. Thanks for the reminder. Ribonucleic 01:04, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
"Gulf of Tonkin" is about proper noun "Tonkin;" "Gulf" is a common noun but the first word. "Screwjob" is not a proper noun (its a type of incident that happens often) so it doesn't deserve capitalization." Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 16:56, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure I see your point. Neither "incident" nor "screwjob" by themselves are proper nouns - defined by the American Heritage Dictionary as "A noun belonging to the class of words used as names for unique individuals, events, or places." So neither is capitalized when they appear on their own. But the phrase "Gulf of Tonkin Incident" - since it refers to a unique event - is itself a proper noun. Hence, the capitalization. Same for the Montreal Screwjob, in my opinion. Ribonucleic 00:59, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Again, see WP:RM if you want to propose moving the article. Croctotheface 03:11, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure I see your point either - "Tonkin" and "Montreal" are proper nouns. "Gulf," "Screwjob" are common nouns - see examples like 2002 Gujarat violence, 2005 Bali bombings, etc. Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 01:15, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes, "gulf" - which describes any number of bodies of water - is a common noun and is not capitalized. However, "the Gulf of Tonkin" - referring to a unique body of water - is a proper noun and is capitalized. Likewise: an "incident" - which describes any number of occurrences - is a common noun and is not capitalized. However, "the Gulf of Tonkin Incident" - referring to a unique historical event - is a proper noun and is capitalized. So yes, a "screwjob" - which describes any number of wrestling double-crosses - is a common noun and is not capitalized. However, "the Montreal Screwjob" - referring to the unique event that occurred between Michaels and Hart - is a proper noun and is capitalized. Your two new examples only reinforce the point I am making. "2002 Gujarat violence" is not a unique event. It is a collection of related events given a blanket name. Because it is not a unique event, it is a common noun and is not capitalized. For example: "the 9/11 attacks". Ribonucleic 04:18, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Hmmm... now I see your argument, although its still a bit grey. I don't mind if the change goes through, but I'm not sure if its necessary or right in terms of grammar. Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 12:50, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
I concede that it's not as black-and-white as I first thought. Even "Gulf of Tonkin Incident" isn't unfailingly capitalized, it turns out upon some Googling. I still think I have the stronger argument. But my wife has told me in no uncertain terms that I need to get a life about this. So I'm letting it drop. That said: if it's not capitalized in the title, presumably it ought not to be capitalized in the opening sentence of the article. Thank you for playing. :-) Ribonucleic 13:29, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Again, I want to suggest you nominate the article to be moved at WP:RM. I'm not going to nominate because I am personally ambivalent about the subject, but I think that your arguments are convincing and could bring people to a consensus for capitalizing "screwjob". If you actually care about what you have been arguing about, this would be the way to enact your change. Croctotheface 05:21, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
I'll give it a shot. I hope my Wiki-skillz are up to the task. Ribonucleic 17:51, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. Obviously, the analagous, non-proper noun in "Gulf of Tonkin Incident" is "incident". "Incident", like "screwjob", is not a proper noun, but it is treated like one for the purpose of naming a historical event. I tend to be reluctant to capitalize, but there's a pretty strong case for it here. I have been convinced. Croctotheface 01:58, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Support per previous arguments, and because a Google search shows that WWE.com officially capitalizes "Screwjob". --MarcK 08:58, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
    • I just want to add in a friendly way that we should not, as a rule, change our usage to conform to WWE. If it so happens that those of us who write and edit Wikipedia come to the same conclusions (as I believe we should in this case), then great. However, WWE has their "official" style guide and we have WP:MOS. If those two conflict, even when writing about WWE-related material, our articles should follow our style guidelines. Croctotheface 09:04, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

This article has been renamed from Montreal screwjob to Montreal Screwjob as the result of a move request. --Stemonitis 10:09, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Word

Confused word choice: "The palpable outrage of the fans was converted into rancorous cheering as Hart entered the ring carrying the Canadian flag and wearing the championship belt." I suspect the word intended here was "raucous", given the context, not to mention "rancorous" and "cheer" together seem somewhat oxymoronic. Gooshy 18:48, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Hall of Fame

Slight correction here, Bret DID say he'd walk out if HBK was at the HOF ceremony but when it came to the day, Shawn was sat there in the front row throughout and Bret didn't leave. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.133.169.224 (talk • contribs)

Shawn Michaels attended the ceremony, but left early out of respect for Bret's wishes. Bret probably knew Shawn was there, but didn't walk out since Shawn already had. (Sawyer 08:22, 9 August 2007 (UTC))

Website change

The link provided to Dave Meltzer's account of the incident referred to a Page Not Found. The article has been moved to Bret Hart's secondary site, brethart.info. I have updated the link. Moisanite 01:07, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Passive voice

Almost every sentence in the introduction unnecessarily uses passive voice, which makes the text turgid and hard-to-read. I would fix it myself except that I'm hesitant to unilaterally restructure text featured on the main page. 129.34.20.19 16:15, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Hart's demands

there is nothing in the artical besides one paragraph that keeps geting deleated about Harts demands and behaver. For the past month I have been giting rid of the pro Hart POV that seems to have bene written by a brain washed Hart lover like Scott Keith or scorpion0422, the main source of this page seems to be a Meltzer artical from Hart's personal site. Two years ago I made similer edits and and my argument with a man called CinnamonCinder is still visable on this talk page. over time though the majarity of my edits have been removed and more pro Hart pov has seeped into this artical. this page is still varey pro Hart yet it the artical of the day on this the tenth aniversery of the screwjob I hope we can put asside our diffrentses and bring balence to this artical. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rafff18 (talk • contribs) 04:09, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea what you're talking about because I've written exactly 0% of this article. I've just been reverting vandalism and making a few small edits here and there. -- Scorpion0422 17:20, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't the fact it's all staged be mentioned?

Reading the article makes it sound as if this is a "real" sporting competition when in reality the whole thing is a staged fight organized by the World Wrestling Entertainment Inc. involving wrestlers "play-fighting".

Surely a disclaimer that the incident was pre-decided by WWE Inc. should be mentioned? What's next, the storyline's of film's & novels described as if they were real events not invented by the author? Ranny11 16:12, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

A secret change of the match's pre-determined finish (known as a "screwjob" in professional wrestling parlance)
Although Hart and McMahon agreed to a compromise on the match ending that allowed Hart to retain the title, McMahon was determined to remove the title from Hart.

And how about this entire passage

Hart and Michaels had met with Patterson to discuss the match setup and plan, during which Hart agreed to allow Michaels to put him into the sharpshooter hold at a time when the referee would be unconscious.[9] The rest of the match was planned to proceed thus: Hart would grab Michaels' foot and reverse the hold, putting him in the sharpshooter. Michaels would submit to the hold, but the referee would still be unconscious. Hart would let go of the hold to try to revive the referee, but Michaels would hit Hart with his finisher, Sweet Chin Music, and make the cover. A second referee would then run to the ring with Owen Hart and Davey Boy Smith following close behind. The second referee would start the count, but Hart and Smith would break the pin. The original referee would then recover and start to make the count, but Hart would kick out, setting up about five more minutes of brawling that would result in a disqualification.

I could scour the article some more but it's plainly obvious that it's abundantly clear in several places in the article precisely what the nature of this event was. I'm not sure what you're reading to draw the conclusion you did. Tromboneguy0186 17:27, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

He didn't read. That's the point. He saw a wrestling related article as the featured article of the day and thought to himself "Hey, let me go remind everyone wrestling isn't real." Lord only knows what we would all do without those people to constantly remind us of that!
The article couldn't be worded any better than it is. Anyone who reads it can tell the article is written on a real event and not a staged one. Anyone who can't tell either didn't read it, skipped huge chunks, or probally just doesn't understand english well. TheJudge310 19:29, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

McMahon image

Please do not replace the image of Vince McMahon. Is is free use, not fair use, as said by The Hybrid. The old one is outdated. ThunderPower 02:28, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

How can it be out of date? The Screwjob happened 10 years ago, so it doesn't matter if a brand new image of McMahon is used. If anything, an older image is more appropriate. Besides, the older image was better because it didn't have anyone else in the frame and none of the image was obscured. -- Scorpion0422 02:31, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Featured Article Status

How on earth did this article get to be a featured article let alone be "Today's featured article"? We really need to do something about the FA selection process. Albatross2147 23:19, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Any constructive comments, such as why this should have failed its FAC, or is this just because you don't see pro wrestling as relevant? The Hybrid T/C 23:20, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
I suppose Pro "Wrestling" in that some people find it a diversion is encyc. but this article in encyc. Albatross2147 23:32, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Pro wrestling itself may be a good featured article; but a double crossing called a screwjab? This just adds fuel to the anti-wikipedia movement who seek to discredit the encyclopaedia based on the trivial stuff included - just like this article. I can't believe it got to featured article status; I am shocked and ashamed Wikipedia would put this trivial nonsense on the front page. --23:36, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
In Pro Wrestling Parlance a double cross is referred to as a "screwjob" naming the article what this event is actually called among those who know and have heard about it does not discredit Wikipedia. Bmg916Speak 23:41, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
This article is about the single most influential event in pro wrestling history, aside from, maybe, the nationalization of World Wrestling Entertainment. This is most certainly encyclopedic. Keep in mind that 7-10 million people watched wrestling at this time, so it was a much bigger entity then than it is now, and it was selected democratically to be put on the main page. You have no one to blame but yourselves for not voting. The Hybrid T/C 23:42, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm a bit surprised myself. The discussion had 3 objections and 5 supports. Not really the consensus usually required. DoubleBlue (Talk) 23:37, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
And a pro wrestling article is in what way worse on the main page then say, an article about a painting, or an article regarding to an episode of the simpsons? Just because you're not a fan of pro wrestling does not mean this article does not deserve to be featured, especially since it was a huge event which impacted the future of pro wrestling forever and lead to it's biggest boom in history. Not a fan? That's ok. I don't like spiders, but it doesn't make an article about black widows any less interesting, well written, and deserving. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and encyclopedias are created without bias. So please, if you cannot display the same, just simply pass the article by and read about something you're interested in. TheJudge310 00:25, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm somewhat surprised this article achieved Featured status as well. Not because of the subject matter, or quality of writing - simply because of its appearance. Most of the article is made up of ugly, large blocks of text with few pictures, which makes it quite difficult to read. Aren't Featured Articles supposed to be better illustrated than this, or at least broken up with tables, lists, diagrams, etc., so as not to look like one unreadably massive lump of prose? Terraxos 02:33, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

The article reads like something out of a fanzine eg. Hart was anxious over the match finish and had been warned of the prospect of a screwjob by his brother-in-law and Hart Foundation member Jim Neidhart as well as Leon White, who had experienced similar situations. Do such fanciful speculations have a place in Wp? Do we really need a step by step of the "event's" choreography? I mean surely it would be enough to say that this event in the history of a relatively minor business organisation took place and that it had such and such consequences with the business's main article. I can see how this stage managed affair deserves a seperate article let alone FA status. Albatross2147 02:50, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Relatively minor? You must be joking. WWE is one of the largest businesses in the country and is popular around the globe. It's Television show Raw was the highest rated show on cable TV for years. This event shaped the wrestling industry, let alone the direction of WWE for years afterward. Fanciful speculation? Try watching The A&E documentary "Wrestling with Shadows". This event wasn't choreographed, the pre-determined outcome of the match was changed without the knowledge of one of the participants. Please take your obvious bias against professional wrestling elsewhere. Thank you. Bmg916Speak 03:01, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
" Is WWE in the Fortune 1000? No, I didn't think so. So with a net revenue of less than 319,000,000 CNY (get used to it) and less than 500 employees it is a minor company even in US terms. Albatross2147 07:41, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

First off: congrats on the FA. Second, those who are complaining: get over it. Jeez, if this was "not worth a FA" then what about Bulbasaur from Pokemon back when it was a FA, eh? Blacklist 06:43, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with the subject matter ie. professional "wrestling" per se it is the fact that such a lousy article (yet again) made it as an FA. Albatross2147 07:41, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Whether it is in the Fortune 1000 or not is in no way relavant. Once again, please do not let your bias show on wikipedia, because it's shining way brighter than any point you're trying to/will make. TheJudge310 16:24, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
User:Bmg916 said WWE is not minor because it is one of the largest businesses in the country and User:TheJudge310 responded. DoubleBlue (Talk) 17:38, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
What's your point? He probably saw the response to my comment before I did. And maybe I worded my point wrong. Whether the WWE is in the Fortune 1000 or not is irrelevant because it puts out one of the most popular products in the United States, and is very popular around the world. Again, please take your bias' against professional wrestling elsewhere, I'm not getting into a "who can top this" on Wikipedia. This conversation is now dead in my eyes, no longer has anything to do with improving the article, and I will no longer be responding to any comments. Thank you. Bmg916Speak 22:10, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I found these links under the "External Links" section of the article to be no longer working.

I removed them from the main article. If a replacement for them can be found, then they can be added back into the main article. 65.43.213.83 04:22, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

The first two work now, and I posted an archive.org link to the third.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 23:48, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Intro

The introduction does not make sense for someone who doesn't watch pro wrestling. --Apoc2400 20:04, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

No offense, but how in the world could it be any more clear than what is written there? It's obviously written specificly in the context for those who do not watch pro wrestling. TheJudge310 21:42, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Match Director?

I took out the mention of a match director due to the fact that there is no such thing as a match director in professional wrestling. Why was my edit reverted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by SChaos1701 (talk • contribs) 22:58, 15 April 2008 (UTC)


NPOV? Hardly!

Who wrote this article, a Bret Hart fanboy? 41.245.141.56 (talk) 10:16, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Problems

First, how common is the term "Montreal Screwjob"? Has anyone from WWE or say PWI ever used it, or is it just an IWC term?

Secondly, this article is entirely from Bret hart's perspective, many of the "facts" are POV and highly suspect.

Thirdly, does this really warrant an article of its own? Would it not be good enough to feature it the Survivor Series 1997 or Bret hart pages, or perhaps both?

41.245.137.57 (talk) 10:59, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Non POV

With words such as horrible and awful betrayal, this article cannot possibly be POV.

So? Fix it. Nothing is stopping you except for your own apparent laziness. 75.64.247.79 (talk) 19:28, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Okay asshole, maybe due to the number of edit-wars I've been drawn into with people being territorial with their articles maybe I thought it would be a good idea to get the opinions of others here before editing?


Remember ...

...that this is an encyclopedia and that kayfabe events, when known to be such, should clearly be labeled as such. This event seems to have begun as a real "screwjob" but has now been taken into the kayfabe culture. It certainly doesn't belong in "1997 in sports" IMO since even if it was a "real" event, it still occured in the context of "sports entertainment", not real sports. I also agree that it will be very difficult to verify what went on in McMahon's mind, and especially since most published sources, what Wikipedia usually prefers as verification for articles, are often in the case of professional wrestling media notoriously notoriously part of the kayfabe, what really happened in any event. Certainly if Wikipedia is to have its extensive and mostly valuable IMO pro wrestling coverage there will always have to be a careful walking of the line between fantasy and reality, and probably more leeway would be allowable here than in a biography of Copernicus or a summary of the Diets of Worms and Speyer, but this article could probably use more judicious editing and cutting down. Rlquall 14:24, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

HMMPH! Now that they have the Olympic Gold Medalist, are they still wannabees? 64.241.230.3 15:14, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
What are you talking about, user with no name? --Ultimo Camdawg 23:49, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
While it is "sports entertainment", I would also like to point out that it shares that category (for better or worse) with Nascar. --96.18.67.104 (talk) 01:48, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Breaking Point PPV

Thre was an actual sequel. Please leave the additions alone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by KE4QPF (talk • contribs) 15:52, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

If you can find an official source that cites it as a "sequel" we can call it one. However, I doubt you could call it that. It was scripted and obviously meant to mock what happened at Survivor Series 97. Therefore, it should go under the Legacy heading. 130.157.62.179 (talk) 23:59, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Owen Hart's Death

Is there a reason Owen's death is mentioned in the Legacy section of this article? It seems horribly out of place. I don't want to remove it without checking first, but I can't see a reason why it's there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.157.62.179 (talk) 00:06, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Work? - Shoot!

In the documentary Wrestling with Shadows, the scene of Vince McMahon staggering around after getting punched out by Bret Hart would have been very hard to fake. The atmosphere of that film is that of a straight shoot.

Work vs. Shoot

I noticed in watching video of the match, mainly clips from WWE.com, in which I noticed the following:

1) After Hart delivered the double ax-handle blow that knocked down referee, Earl Hebner, Jerry "The King" Lawler asks "Is that a disqualification." Jim Ross replies, "It could be if the referee gets up and calls for it." To me, that shows that Ross and Lawler were expecting the planned finish of a disqualification, but were unsure of what exactly would be the end of the match.

2) I also noticed that when "The Heartbreak Kid" Shawn Michaels was announced as the "winner of the match and new WWF Champion," the announcer didn't sound like Howard Finkel. I don't know if Finkel announced any matches during the Survivor Series pay-per-view. Does anybody know who that announcer was? If so, that may help shed some insight on more of the story.

The PPV was held in Montreal, so in keeping with the French-Canadian atmosphere, a local ring announcer was used. If you notice, he announces Michaels as the new WWF champion in French, not English. I doubt this has any bearing on the work vs. shoot aspect of this discusison. Barrelofagun69 22:12, 4 June 2007 (UTC) Barrelofagun69

3) In Wrestling With Shadows there is a scene where Hart is taking off his wrestling boots and Michaels is apparently in the same room, but off camera. Hart asked Michaels if he was in on it. Michaels is heard swearing to God that he knew nothing about it. It is noticed that Hart stayed calm with Michaels and did not physically try to hurt him.

They are in the same room and Micheals in on camera seated next to Hart. He knew that Micheals was not involved or thought he wasn't involved , the man he wanted to hit was McMahon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Guiltypetit89 (talk • contribs) 15:59, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

4) I'm beginning to wonder if it truly was a work. It seems a little funny to me that at the same time when the WWE rolled out the red carpet for Hart and his DVD, Vince McMahon and Michaels continued to bash Hart and gloat about the situation.

THey were turning a shoot into a work, something that happens in wrestling all the time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.146.59.122 (talk) 21:48, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

A final argument for the situation being a work would be the finish in relation to the complex politics that were involved going into the match. Neither man wanted to lose (Note: neither Hart nor Michaels were jobbing for each other, especially in a World Wrestling Federation World Heavyweight Championship match) to the other. And though Michaels was declared the winner and given the title, it can be argued that Michaels did not "really win", Hart did not "really lose", the belt was off Hart, and Hart was free to go to WCW.

  • 1 : the fact that the commentators knew of a DQ finish means nothing at all really<< it means alot when you take into consideration that they want it to seem real as possible so why woud they mention it if it wasnt going to happen?>>
  • 2 : ummm,i dont think thats very relevant.
  • 3 : well,he just cant go on and punch his lights out without at reason,if you look at the match,michaels was told to act surprised an pissed off,and he did.
  • 4 : just a way to get heat for WWE.
  • 5 : i dont think so,that would create huge publicity for WCW,and would not strenghten the WWF in any way at all.

Lord revan 14:08, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

The 'official' plan was for the match to end on a DQ anyway, so point 2 is invalid, only a handful of people knew it would end otherwise, I doubt Jerry Lawler or JR were part of that handful. 82.9.253.47 10:51, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

The WWF had brought in a French-Canadien ring announcer for the show, since it was in Montreal, a French-speaking city Raderick 17:31, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I personally think it was a work. Bret Hart's WCW run was a massive failure and it freed up Stone Cold's spot as champion. It actually helped the WWF and hurt WCW. Eric Bischoff was blowing money in WCW, which the fans and the WWF knew about. Prior to Montreal, Bret was turned heel in a manner that made him unable to go back to a face in the USA. Plus, the Shawn Michaels turn at Summerslam made him unable to be a heel either. I think he was planning to return to WWE a few years later when WCW died. Vince, Bret, and Shawn were astute enough to help Eric Bischoff get himself fired then Vince Russo ran off to WCW and ran it further into the ground. Eventually, AOL Time Warner owned WCW's parent company Turner Broadcasting and canned WCW. The legacy of Montreal was Vince McMahon's heel turn, which he could probably have anticipated and Stone Cold Steve Austin's World Title run. Montreal strengthened the WWF and Bret also chose to get the family values retards going on his way out to further aid the WWF. Without Austin VS McMahon, there would have been no Attitude Era and without Montreal, there would have been no Austin VS McMahon. Brad Blaze 17:32, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Agree with above. My feeling is that McMahons appearance at ringside would have made no sense if it was a shoot. Surely he would have been locked away in his office! However, if it was a work, VM's appearance would underline the idea of BH being "screwed" for the viewers who may otherwise have missed the point. Also it clearly established VM as a heel and paved the way for his "Evil Boss" role. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tigerboy1966 (talk • contribs) 13:22, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest that those of you who are unsure of the events surrounding the Screwjob go to 411mania and search for "The Piledriver Report" under their wrestling tab. There is a 23+ part series on the history of the WWE, and one of the entries is solely devoted to the Screwjob. It alludes to several things not in this article, and does an excellent job of backing up its sources whether from Michaels' autobiography, or various personal interviews.Ricknoberts 13:26, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Could you please put a hyperlink to this website on this page. Also I feel that it was a work. Bret, Michaels and Vince probably had a last minute change of plans and decided to go with a "screwjob" to get the title off of Bret. You gotta love Survivor Series 1997! Big Boss 0 22:39, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Heres the link: [2] Liamarmson4 15:23, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Bret Hart - Vince McMahon speculations of WrestleMania fight?

Okay, I know it's way to early to even think of the next wrestlemania, but some editor commented at the end of the article on the montreal screwjob about his opinions on what will happen between McMahon/Hart at WM. So, I deleted the speculations for now, please feel free to talk about this with me or Adminstrators, or anyone in general. Thank you this is a very heated topic! --KangoJangothe3rd (talk) 14:12, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Legacy (Last Paragraph)

This section is terribly worded, especially for a featured article. Please could someone who watched the CM Punk/Teddy Long/Undertaker version please look over this. Many Thanks Icosahedron (talk) 06:12, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

confusing

it is —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.162.201.161 (talk) 11:35, 9 November 2007 (UTC) is it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.45.58.164 (talk) 01:45, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Montreal Screwjob

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Montreal Screwjob's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "oww":

  • From Mick Foley: "Stud Stable". Online World of Wrestling. Retrieved 2009-09-08.
  • From Davey Boy Smith: "Profile on Davey Boy Smith". Online World of Wrestling. Retrieved 2006-12-15.
  • From Bill Goldberg: "Bill Goldberg's Profile". Online World of Wrestling. Retrieved 2008-03-21.
  • From Rick Rude: "Wrestler Profiles: Rick Rude". Online World of Wrestling. Retrieved 2008-05-25.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 02:25, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

this is now repaired. - Salamurai (talk) 19:43, 20 May 2010 (UTC)


The Madusa Connection

I think the article is fine as it is. This is a very sore subject with some Bret Hart fans but Vince McMahon also has his supporters when it comes to this issue, so the details are important in order to be fair to both. One detail I didn't see is one of the keys to McMahon's decision. It seems that earlier that year (or maybe the year before) the WWE Women's champion Alundra Blayze (Madusa Micelli) had left the company and signed with the WCW. She appeared on WCW television with the WWE Women's title belt and promptly (and contemptuously)threw it in a nearby garbage can! Vince did not want that repeated with the WWE title belt.MARK VENTURE (talk) 04:01, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

The "Screwjob" was kayfabe

Many people feel, and there is evidence to support it, that Brett Hart was in on the "screwjob" from the beginning. Why is there not even a mention in this article that not everyone believes that this was a real life double cross?Mk5384 (talk) 18:49, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
Anyone care to weigh in on this? As this is a featured article, I would prefer to get some feedback before adding it.Mk5384 (talk) 20:27, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
No one has commented yet, but like I said, it's a featured article, so I'm going to wait a week before changing anything. But I really have a problem when the first line of an article, a featured article no less, is complete BS. "The Montreal Screwjob was the real life double cross..."-Proof that Brett Hart was in on the "screwjob" is right there in the first paragraph. "Brett Hart had a clause in his contract giving him reasonable creative control over his character..."-If McMahon had actually done it behind Hart's back, Hart would have sued the balls off of him.Mk5384 (talk) 08:24, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

no you are wrong it was real —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.4.110.235 (talk) 15:09, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I've given my reasons for my position. Perhaps you could tell me why I am wrong.Mk5384 (talk) 03:57, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
Except that isn't evidence at all. You're presuming to know how Bret Hart would have reacted "if" it were real. The fact is that it doesn't make any sense for it to have been a work, for the following reasons:
  1. Hart was headed to WCW. What good would it have done him to agree to set up an angle like this on his way out?
  2. There was no pay-off for the WWF/E for thirteen years, the amount of time it took Hart and Michaels to be in the same ring again.
  3. By screwing Hart, McMahon cost himself the trust of most of his roster at the time, a vain loss if it were all a work to begin with.
  4. The only people who have ever suggested it was a work have had nothing to do with the Screwjob at all. Chris Kanyon once said that he was told by Bret Hart it was a work, but this was at a time when Kanyon was desperately seeking a way back into the spotlight and nobody in the business really took his claims seriously.
In addition, none of the material in the article which suggests that it was worked has been given a reliable source, making it all pure original research. If you can find a reliable source that suggests there's any crediblility to these kinds of claims, then provide them. In the meantime, I'm removing them per WP:OP. Jeff Silvers (talk) 15:46, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
McMahon's payoff was immediate. This incident ushered in the so-called "attitude era", in which McMahon made untold millions, and ultimately bought WCW. You're asking for "sources" to document the fact that a professional wrestling event was a scripted event?Mk5384 (talk) 07:40, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

According to Mick Foley, the death of Brian Pillman ushered in the "attitude era," some weeks before (these things take time to form), and this seems to be coincidental in it's timing.200.83.209.128 (talk) 12:21, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Patterson needs to be "introduced".

The first reference I can find to "Patterson" is in the "Setup & Execution" section which begins: "The day before the Survivor Series (which was to be held on Sunday), McMahon met with Jim Ross, Jim Cornette, Triple H and Michaels in a hotel room in Montreal and planned the screwjob.[5] It is unclear how many people knew of the impending screwjob, but McMahon's close aides Gerald Brisco and Robert "Sgt. Slaughter" Remus had been involved in the planning. Hart and Michaels had met with Patterson to discuss the match setup and plan, ..."

When I read that, my reaction was "who in the heck is this 'Patterson' character ... he seems important". He needs to be introduced earlier in the article with some kind of description of who he is and how he relates to the other characters. 24.180.99.144 (talk) 14:56, 25 August 2010 (UTC) bill.landis@gmail.com

Michaels

JasarDaConqueror (talk) 15:40, 10 April 2010 (UTC) I'm pretty sure Shawn Michaels wasn't in on it. When Shawn had Bret in the Sharpshooter he offers his foot to Bret but the ref calls for the bell. And, When Earl calls for the bell they both spring up suprised and Shawn gets out of the ring and confronts McMahon and says "No way! No f**king way I'm taking the title", Vince told him to take the title or else. Shawn left and Bret just glared down at Vince. He then spit on him from the ring and Vince got out of the area. Bret destroyed $20,000 worth of camera equipment and went to the back, enraged. There is more evidence that Shawn was not in on it, than that he was.

He quite possibly wasn't. It is my position that Brett Hart, Vince McMahon, and Pat Patterson were all in on it.Mk5384 (talk) 04:02, 23 April 2010 (UTC)


All of the things Jasar Mentions in support of his contention that Shawn Michaels wasn't in on it sound like acting to me. The "No f**cking way I'm taking the title" bit could have been on instructions from McMahon. Rather than trying to cover up the fact that Bret got screwed, McMahon was clearly planning to try to capitalize on it, but he might not have been sure how best to position Michaels. I also thought it was Bret rather than Shawn that spit on Vince McMahon. Emotionally and ethically I definitely sided with Bret Hart on this, but in retrospect I have to admit that when it comes to marketing, Vince McMahon is a genius in the same vein as "Darth Sidious" (aka Emperor / Senator Palpatine) of Star Wars fame. 24.180.99.144 (talk) 15:05, 25 August 2010 (UTC) bill.landis@gmail.com

Montreal --> Montréal

I don't know about any of you, but I think, apart from "Montreal Screwjob", all other references to Montréal should have an é, instead of an e. -- Réeduck 08:10, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually, simple explanation... Montréal is the French spelling of Montreal. (See Montreal) Being that this is the English Wikipedia, we used the English spelling of the name.--UnquestionableTruth-- 10:34, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Montreal_Screwjob/Archive_1&oldid=1144799067"