Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Montreal Screwjob

Montreal Screwjob

I have listed the Screwjob as a major candidate as it goes into deep depth in regards to the events that occurred, leading up to and after the event. It also says how it still occurs today. Davnel03 21:48, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Object has been tagged as unreferenced since July 2006. The article will need references if it is to be featured. Jay32183 22:54, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have read the article before, very great article in a good formal tone. Hope for the best. Showmanship is the key 01:01, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Very obvious object It's got zero references. Not just unreferenced, but zero references. Please see WP:WIAFA (or, for that matter, WP:WIAGA). -- Kicking222 15:09, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uh... Yea... Object. A very strange vote for a very strange article. Staxringold _talk^contribs 22:43, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Surprisingly, a book search doesn't show anything obvious about it to use, even though it undoubtedly occurred. I don't really know how to fix this article at this point, unless we refr to the action figures. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:26, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object "Undoubtedly occurred?" Hmmmm.... Haven't any of them written a book? Not even McMahon? My son has a couple of books by professional wrestlers of this era. All these guys have web pages, they're referenced in various internet sources also--there are books, and Internet resources, and magazines without end about WWF. If none of these have anything about it that can be referenced, we ought to be considering AfD, not FAC. KP Botany 15:47, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a URL to a scholarly paper by an undergraduate that discusses this incident[1], the paper is referenced, so, although it might not be usable, it might get you a good start on other references. WWF is comparatively mainstream enough that the expecation of references is not too much to ask, and I like to think of Wikipedia as the one encyclopedia that does archive modern culture. KP Botany 15:53, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- A little outside the realm of this discussion, but this is more a failure of our sourcing policies and guidelines than a lack of sources. There's no doubt that this event occurred, and the details in the article are more than likely spot-on, but there's no way this could become featured even with inline cites considering the current handling of sourcing. Just saying. Object anyway, for major prose issues. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:50, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't follow, what about Wikipedia sourcing policies would make it impossible for this to become a FA? I can see The Mentors might have problems with sourcing that could lead to it never becoming a FA, but WWF? Please elaborate. KP Botany 15:54, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Mainly because we lack reliable third party sources on the event. We have some who refer to it in terms of it happening (as a Google Books searched showed), but most that refer to it would be considered unreliable, being self-published sources or lacking serious editorial oversight. I'm not even a WWE/WWF fan anymore (haven't been in 12 years) and I'm aware of this - it was a Big Deal - but what's available simply wouldn't cut it. That's not a problem with the subject matter, but with how we rate such sources for the subject matter. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:03, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - But this stuff is written up in magazines. Did you look at the research paper and see what they used? What about the industry pages, also? Like the lay public reads magazines that feature restaurants, but there are professional journals for restaurent owners and managers--is there something similar for WWF? This might require some library searching at the nearest University as opposed to all on-line research, also. Also, when my son went to a match, it was written up in the newspaper the next day, not the sports page that I recall.... KP Botany 00:50, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KP Botany is right - magazines and wrestling books have extensively covered the incident. Plenty of sources out there for this, both first hand and third parties. LuciferMorgan 02:20, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, it seems pretty far-fetched it wouldn't be covered, when a long look by one wrestler to another's potential lady friend generates a season or two of coverage. Actually, I talked to my son about this. He said there are some underlying issues, mainly that it was unscripted, and apparently (obviously this is going to show I didn't read the article fully) Hart's brother died soon afterwards and he never got another title match, and it's written up, he thinks in one of McFoley's books, but it was written up in magazines at the time, and later in articles and biographical information about Hart, although, again, because it was unscripted, not fully and accurately covered initially. Hart was supposed to loose, was actually pinned, then McMahon came out and told them to restart the match, almost as soon as match started Michaels pinned him, declared winner, Hart went around telling people he would go to WCW because he was very angry about it, went around for weeks throwing up the WCW signal with his hands, eventually left, Bret Hart post 1997 in WCW, Triple H, Shawn Michaels was in Degeneration X still claim to not have any knowledge of what had happened that night. And on and on and on. AND my son started watching wrestling AFTER Bret Hart moved to WCW, so he learned about all of it from reading wrestling books. So, it's there, in the books, in other sources, and I love somewhat non-mainstream culture, and obscure little parts of non-mainstream culture, and would love to see this sucker as a FA, so get cracking, get it up to snuff, and bring something beautiful all about this back here to get on the main page! I love to hit the mainpage and there's an article about something I never even heard of, and others must have fun with this also. Montreal Screwjob--sounds like a sting, to me. KP Botany 03:32, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]