Talk:Linda McMahon/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

On-screen roles

This section dominates the article, but appears to be either poorly sourced or composed primarily of original research. It makes sense that this section be moved to its own article. Justanotherguyonwiki (talk) 07:33, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I think there are ulterior motives for this move. The on-screen roles that she had are not only indisputable, they make up a large part of her recognition to mainstream audiences--and voters--throughout the US. I believe the on-screen roles should remain in the article, although they should be better-sourced. As the article stands now, her involvement in wrestling is virtually non-existent.--Screwball23 talk 23:38, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

There is a preexisting precedent here, Take the way Steven Colbert is dealt with on Wikipedia, he has separate pages for the actual person and his character on his show. Combining a person's actually identity and fictional identity into a single page is confusing and unnecessary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.127.112.247 (talk) 19:21, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Ask Mr.Blumenthal how he got a boy who's father had passed and had worked hard to get into Harvard admission pulled for a singular underage drinking incident by threatening to pull his family's powerful support from the school...what a nice guy..I guess he thought he never made a mistake...can he say vietnam!

Professional Wikiwashing

"justanotherguyonewiki" appears to be a professional political consultant who also has a client in Nevada based on his contribution history. CT residents may not take kindly to professional PR types trying to gloss over the McMahon record. I've already fielded e-mails on WWE practices which I'm not going to add to this article--her political opportunism is troubling enough

There are still issues with your contribution. The source you provide [1] was written by one person and does not mention other people, so that makes the statement "conservative activists" in your contribution incorrect. The question here is not whether it's true or false, but whether it's verifiable. Justanotherguyonwiki (talk) 04:46, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

On-screen_roles_of_Linda_McMahon

Created this page and added the original research template since most of this article is either un-sourced or original research. Justanotherguyonwiki (talk) 07:50, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

right, we would not want to tarnish her political career by mentioning such deeds as her low-blowing a commentator on her show in the same article. great job creating this content fork.--115.135.226.143 (talk) 17:15, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

um.. Ok. anyway, what was the reason for a seperate article? i don't think that anyone else has a sub page of this type, See Vince's, or Jeff Jaret's article, or Dixie Carter's. Sephiroth storm (talk) 23:18, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I was the one who suggested the merger. I think this split from Linda's article is not needed. It's barely bigger than a stub and her on-screen role has always been limited, not notable enought to warrant a separate article. TJ Spyke 23:34, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Merge it, content forking.--WillC 03:41, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely. This should be merged immediately. GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:15, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

It has been done, and the content of the talk page moved here. ArcAngel (talk) 07:37, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

This whole section needs to be marked "promotional fiction". No one was kidnapped, no father choked his daughter with an iron pipe. These are crimes and did not occur. 65.96.202.28 (talk) 17:44, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

We all know that what happens on WWE TV is kayfab/Kayfabe. There is no need for smart marks to make it sound like what happens on WWE TV is real. WWE TV is not real; it's kayfab/kayfabe. I think fans are smart enough to know this. I agree that what happens on screen is scripted and what happens in real life is not scripted. Qewr4231 (talk) 23:38, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Political photos

If anyone can get an image of Linda McMahon on the Campaign trail, that would be much-appreciated. I would love to see more images up on this page.--Screwball23 talk 02:42, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

"Edwards-McMahon"?

The first line of the article says she uses the hyphenated last name "Edwards-McMahon." I have never seen her being called by that name. I assume her maiden name was Edwards and she chose when she married. (Her daughter does use "McMahon-Levesque.") Timothy Horrigan (talk) 23:20, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Age?

Linda McMahon was supposedly born on October 4, 1948, and in fact she looks younger than 61 in her pictures. Her bio casts some doubt however, on her birth date. We are told very specifically: "After dating in high school, they married on August 6, 1966, before she graduated college." She was (supposedly) 17 years old, young enough to still be in high school. It seems odd that she makes a point of saying she was still in "college" at the time, if she was only 17 years old. No date of graduation from college is in fact given, although we do know she graduated from East Carolina University. The material on her campaign web site doesn't specify an exact year of birth. I am wondering if the birth date is in fact accurate, although it is shown as October 4, 1948 in many other sources. A lady is allowed to fib about her age, but this is an issue which could impact her Senate campaign. Timothy Horrigan (talk) 23:45, 11 December 2009 (UTC) --The date is correct.--Screwball23 talk 19:52, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

1989 steroid memo controversy

The memo has resurfaced in the media repeatedly, and it is too difficult to refer to it within the scope of the Republican Senate Primary. I have entered it into a new section entitled Public Image, as it, together with the wrestling past, better reflects a public image than a political campaign.--Screwball23 talk 03:08, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

McMahon DOESN'T support the carbon tax

Citation 179 it says she supports the carbon tax. That is wrong. In the article it's Mr. Graham that supports it and in the quote that is quoted in wiki, in the article it says HE (referring to Graham and not McMahon).

Here is the full quote.

Mrs. McMahon said she opposes the cap-and-trade provisions that were included in the legislation that was approved last June by seven votes in the U.S. House as well as the focused carbon tax that is expected to be part of an energy-reform package that Mr. Lieberman and fellow U.S. senators Lindsay Graham (R-S.C.) and John Kerry (D-Mass.) will present later this month.

She said both plans represent “job-killing legislation” since they would ultimately increase costs for consumers.

“Pricing carbon is the key to energy independence, and the byproduct is that young people look at you differently,” Mr. Graham told New York Times foreign affairs columnist Thomas Friedman in February.

“The [green] technology doesn’t make sense until you price carbon,” he added, indicating that an energy policy with a carbon tax to clean the environment and encourage further development of green technologies would help the Republican Party attract support from voters 30 years of age and younger.

My apologies. That definitely was not her quote, and I appreciate you reading through so closely to spot that. Remember, we all need help making wikipedia articles, and your point is well-taken and I will change it.--Screwball23 talk 16:59, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Ongoing additions/reversions to lead section

I just thought I'd drop this note here because this article keeps popping up on my watchlist due to some earlier vandalism reverts I did.

The problem appears to be that some editors would like the lead section to refer to earlier "controversial" events, whereas outside observers with no real involvement in the article, of whom I count myself one, would prefer to see a clean lead section in proper encyclopaedic style, without commentary and POV on the subject spoiling the neutrality of the lead.

Can anyone think of a better way to do this, whilst keeping the intricate details in their relevant sections, and maintaining the brevity and neutrality of the lead section? Begoon (talk) 17:15, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

You are right. The lead section definitely has been a point of concern.

Begoon, I like it the way it is now. You definitely improved the lead and gave it a clean NPOV. I always had mixed feelings about Linda's involvement in the wrestling industry, and I wished we had a discussion about her on-screen roles much earlier. Especially since her crowning achievement in the ring has been kicking her husband in the groin, some editors have capitalized on this as a way to tarnish her record while blowing an on-screen incident completely out of proportion. I strongly disagree with this, and feel that a mention of her groin-kicking incident is trivial and unwarranted. --Screwball23 talk 02:39, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks - I think it's important to keep "soapboxing" and POV editing out of all articles - especially WP:BLP articles, and even more especially the lead section. First of all, there is a duty of care to the living person, and secondly it just makes the articles look amateur and unprofessional. Often the lead is the only section a reader will look at after coming here from a Google search - so it needs to be balanced, and comprehensive. I noticed you've done a lot of work to the article recently - it's certainly looking a whole lot better than it did the first time I came here to revert some vandalism - Begoon (talk) 15:22, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Not the Connecticut Senate, and we don't need multiple Hogans.

An editor has repeatedly deleted terminology specifying what race Linda is in, preferring to insert "Connecticut Senate race". Problem is that she's not running for the Connecticut Senate, which is an entirely different body. On my talk page, the same editor also tries to argue for referring to the position as "Senator of Connecticut", which is again wrong, as she does not preside separately over Connecticut; she may represent Connecticut, but she is a member of the U.S. Senate, a role generally referred to as "U.S. Senator from Connecticut". When he reverted calling it from being called "the 2010 race for U.S. Senator from Connecticut", I tried another accurate wording, " the 2010 race for one of Connecticut's seats on the U.S. Senate", and that too got reverted.

The same editor has also reverted multiple other editors excising of one of two Hulk Hogan shots in the piece. Neither shot shows him with McMahon, neither shot shows him injecting steroids, they don't really add any information other than "here's what one of the wrestlers involved looks like".... which may be sufficient to justify one such shot, but not two. The one used in the discussion of Vince's trial is a photo from 2005, which is more than a decade and a half after the trial in question. The one which is captioned to talk about Hulk joining the WCW is a shot from Wrestlemania, a WWF event. So these pictures cannot be adding to the particulars of the discussion. During one reversion to reinsert a Hogan picture, editor used the edit summary "I firmly believe in placing images to enliven the article for different readers", which is all well and good, but images should be used that add relevant information to the article, and what Hogan's back looked like at some point other than during the period discussed in the caption is hardly relevant. At least the second Hogan shot should be eliminated. --Nat Gertler (talk) 04:28, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Please, let's avoid the personal attacks here. Characterizing me as "that same editor who reverted editors" is not the sum of the discussion here.

There are 3 points of discussion here:

• 1. The mention of the Senate race. She is running in the 2010 Connecticut Senate race. Yes, she is running for Senator of Connecticut, and yes, she is running for one of Connecticut's Senate seats in the U.S. Congress. I believe she can suffice with the explanation given, which gives a wikilink to the 2010 Connecticut Senate race.

In September 2009, McMahon stepped down from her position as CEO after a 30-year career in the wrestling industry to run a self-financed campaign for Senator from Connecticut

The Chris Dodd page, for instance, as well as many other Senators and Senate candidates Richard Blumenthal, Merrick Alpert Rob Simmons, have similar explanations. My feeling is it sets a bad precedent, and because there is only one seat up for grabs in Connecticut this year (Lieberman is 2012 I think), it is not exactly necessary to expand on the purpose of the race. The quote, "running for one of Connecticut's seats in the U.S. Senate" seems a bit lengthy for me. Again, let me know your thoughts on this. It is not my biggest concern, and I'm most willing to compromise here.

• 1. I appreciate NatGertler's use of different verb tenses in "Stating a willingness to spend up to $50 million, she campaigns on issues". I don't know what your feelings are, but in my reading, the sentences are becoming a jumble. I think the part about what she is campaigning on should be separate from the sentence on her campaign finances. They are not directly related, and I think more can be done with the fragment about her willingness to spend $50 million. My best guess would be, "She has already spent $16 million on her campaign, and is willing to spend up to $50 million." Let me know what you think on this.
  2. The Hogan images are absolutely important to the issue of steroid abuse and the steroid trials. I do not feel he is used excessively. I understand your feeling at first is that he is being placed twice, and this may seem to be a clutter on the page. I put him in the section on the Monday Night Wars because his leave to WCW was a major issue for the WWE and the Monday Night Wars. Please remember that he is a major icon in WWF/WCW history, and his leave was significant, especially considering the fact that it happened at that time after the steroid scandals.--Screwball23 talk 06:10, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Do you know why the Richard Blumenthal and Rob Simmons have references to the "Connecticut Senate" and "Connecticut House of Representatives", respectively? Because they were members of the Connecticut Senate and Connecticut House of Representatives, respectively. References to their US Senate race are in such forms as "a candidate in the 2010 U.S. Senate election for the seat currently held by Christopher Dodd" and "a candidate for the Republican nomination for U.S. Senator from Connecticut in 2010." Dodd's lede describes him as "the senior United States Senator from Connecticut." If there are other articles that misdescribe a federal position as a state one, then that is reason to correct those articles, not to put misinformation into this one.

And repasting what you said on my talk page fails to address the comments actually made here. In what way does running two out-of-time-context Hogan pictures give more relevant information than running just one? --Nat Gertler (talk) 06:30, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Linda Marie Edwards-McMahon (born October 4, 1948) is an American businesswoman and a candidate for the Republican nomination in the 2010 race for one of Connecticut's seats on the U.S. Senate

-or-

Linda Marie Edwards-McMahon (born October 4, 1948) is an American businesswoman and a candidate for the Republican nomination in the 2010 Connecticut Senate race

The dispute is over which version works best here. I don't think it is possible for anyone to become confused over which position she is running for, given the fact that the wikilink is given to the U.S. Senate election in Connecticut, 2010. In the second paragraph of the lead, it is clearly stated that she is running for the position of U.S. Senator from Connecticut. The lead is brief, concise, and as far as I can see, it does not confuse anyone with the idea that she is running to become a Connecticut state senator.

Linda Marie Edwards-McMahon (born October 4, 1948) is an American businesswoman and a Republican candidate for the U.S. Senate election in Connecticut, 2010.

I think this one works well, and I think it strikes a good compromise. My main concern is brevity and clarity. Lengthy sentences can do more harm than good in a lead sentence.--Screwball23 talk 20:22, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

No, it's not a "good compromise", because it's both false and awkward. She is not a Republican candidate for Senate, the Republicans have not yet picked a candidate for Senate. And "in Connecticut, 2010" is an awkward construction; intersecting the dimensions of time and space like that is generally not done in English; specifying "in Connecticut" and "in 2010" would generally be done separately. "Linda Marie Edwards-McMahon (born October 4, 1948) is an American businesswoman and a candidate for the Republican nomination in the 2010 race for U.S. Senator from Connecticut." That will shorten if and when she gets the nomination. If you're that concerned about length of sentence, we can end the first sentence with "businesswoman and politician." and have a second sentence that starts "She is a candidate". And once we establish what the race is in the first paragraph, we can do away with some of the repetition of that information in the second paragraph, as was seen in the editions that were reverted.

(That correct information will be revealed if someone follows a wikilink is not an excuse to have the visible text be misleading.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 20:54, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I understand you feel it is misleading, and as a dedicated copyeditor, you are aspiring for pinpoint accuracy. Please understand where I'm coming from, because I contributed to this article hoping people will read it and gain info as efficiently as could be. In the lead, there is already an extended explanation of the fact that her campaign is for the U.S. Senator from Connecticut. We are in essence just discussing the first sentence, which is given plenty of context and factual information just two lines down. For a first sentence, I strongly believe in enhancing readability and brevity. Furthermore, I do not feel it is misleading to label it as the 2010 Connecticut Senate race because I have seen it listed as 2010 Connecticut Senate election and the 2010 Connecticut Senate race in multiple news articles,[2] none of which can be mistaken for a concurrent Connecticut state senate seat. --Screwball23 talk 04:11, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Just passing by, and noticing this might be getting a bit stuck, after reading through all of the above, as a fresh pair of eyes - my preferred option would be:

• Linda Marie Edwards-McMahon (born October 4, 1948) is an American businesswoman and politician. She is a candidate for the Republican nomination in the 2010 race for U.S. Senator from Connecticut.

That seems to me to keep the first sentence nice and brief - says what she is, and "politician" and "businesswoman" are both expanded upon in subsequent sentences, the new one here, and the existing one about WWE. As a non US reader, it's more clear to me from this that she's intending to run as one of the 2 US senators from the state, not as a State Senator. Just my 2 cents - take or leave :-) - Begoon (talk) 04:31, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

'Support' Excellent. I like this one. It strikes a good balance, and I like it.--Screwball23 talk 04:38, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm glad we've ironed that out. I've made the change, and made adjustments to the second paragraph to reflect that the info is now in the first paragraph.

Hulk Hogan images

In my experiences on wikipedia, I have found that a discussion that drags on in two or three directions ultimately fails. We have established a compromise on the lead sentence in regards to her campaign for U.S. Senator from Connecticut.

I have copied and pasted the discussion on the hulk hogan images here. If I have missed a relevant piece, please do not take it personally. Just feel free to copy and paste it below. Thanks.

Again, the Hogan images are absolutely important to the issue of steroid abuse and the steroid trials. I do not feel he is used excessively. I understand the feeling at first is that he is being placed twice, and this may seem to be a clutter on the page. I put him in the section on the Monday Night Wars because his leave to WCW was a major issue for the WWE and the Monday Night Wars. Please remember that he is a major icon in WWF/WCW history, and his leave was significant, especially considering the fact that it happened at that time after the steroid scandals.--Screwball23 talk 06:10, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

On the Hogan matter, here's another way to look at it: there are currently twice as many pictures of the Hulk in this article as there are of Linda. That seems problematic in both directions. --Nat Gertler (talk) 13:11, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. I'm also all for pictures to enliven the text, but having a picture just to have a picture isn't helpful to anyone. One Hogan is enough. Nikki♥311 02:34, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with this accusation that I have placed a picture for the sake of having a picture. I believe it adds valuable context to the exodus WWF faced during the Monday Night Wars.--Screwball23 talk 04:19, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

What context does it add? It's not actually a picture from the period, and what Hulk looks like is already established by the earlier pic. The article makes it clear that Hulk was involved. So what relevant actual info - even visual - does it add to the article? (If we're going to keep one, I suggest keeping the one now at the trial section, although that doesn't have to be its placement.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 05:25, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

How about replacing the one in the trial section with a relevant picture of Vince? That keeps the text "enlivened", solves the "duplicate Hogan" concern, and introduces a pic of someone very relevant to Linda (the subject of the article) who is not already pictured in the article. Just a thought. - Begoon (talk) 02:54, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

For the section on the Monday Night wars, I believe the Hogan image serves its purpose. An image of Vince doesn't really apply to the Monday Night Wars, but it should be included in the page.

But, Begoon has a good idea here. I have looked into adding more images on Vince and I have not seen any good photos of Vince or Linda and family that could really fit this page. The images online would be great for this article,[3] but I don't know how to get hold of them without some type of copyright violation. --Screwball23 talk 04:19, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. My comment didn't relate to the "Monday Night Wars" image. The idea was that, since the other Hogan image is in the 1993–1994 steroid trial section, and a couple of editors seem to think it's not terribly relevant there, and overkill to have 2 Hogan images, replacing that one with a picture of Vince might solve the problem. I'm not familiar with it all - but the article seems to say it was Vince who was indicted in the trial, so a picture of him in that section, replacing the Hogan one, seemed to me to kill 2 birds with one stone. But it's only a suggestion to try and help "unstick" the discussion. - Begoon (talk) 04:56, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Steroid trial

I think the amount of detail on the steroid trial in Linda's article is too excessive. The information is mostly about Vince and Zohorian. I think it is best to employ WP:SUMMARY style here...briefly describe the trial and focus on Linda's involvement, with a link to the main article where the detail is already located (History of World Wrestling Entertainment#The steroid trials and subsequent years). Nikki♥311 18:54, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. However, there are in some ways more details here, and we may want to make sure that useful details get transfered over to the main page. --Nat Gertler (talk) 19:45, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

"Several politicians"

The page currently contains the text:

Several politicians argued that her involvement in the "racy, sexual, and violent" aspects of wrestling made her unfit for the Board

Given particularly that there is what is displayed as a quote of an argument being made there, we should be specifically clear on precisely who said that.... and I'm dubious that several politicians used the exact same phrasing. I've placed the "who?" tag on there, and it should not be deleted unless the question is answered or the claim altered. --Nat Gertler (talk) 19:17, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

With the greatest respect to other editors who I admire for having spent a long time building and improving this article, I do have to agree with that. It was a valid tag, and if a statement proves contentious, it does need a citation.  Begoon^talk 19:26, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Guys, let's have some good faith editing here. The references are given. Here is the full paragraph:

The State Senate approved her nomination by a vote of 34-1 and the House by 96-45. Several politicians argued that her involvement in the "racy, sexual, and violent" aspects of wrestling made her unfit for the Board.

The references from ctnewsjunkie and WTNH both quote several politicians, all with the same objections regarding her involvement in the wrestling industry.--Screwball23 talk 02:54, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Assuming the ctnewsjunkie ref cites "racy" and "sexual", then I apologise - (I can't call it up right now - Internal Server error 500.) - "violent" is certainly covered by the other ref. The wording does tend to imply that "several" politicians used all of those terms, though - guess it wouldn't hurt to rephrase it a bit?  Begoon^talk 03:26, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I have restored the "who" note, as the one reference that can be pulled up doesn't answer it - and given that we're providing a quote, we should know who is being quoted. Please do not remove this legitimate question until it is answered who these several politicians are that are being quoted, or until the claim has been removed. The only one of those three references that I can pull up doesn't support either the specific quote or the general claim - the WTNH source just had lawmakers who "expressed concern about the message", not saying that she was unfit because of it, and it quotes no one. --Nat Gertler (talk) 03:51, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Again, this as a very petty matter. The WTNH link is not descriptive enough, I agree, but the CTnewsjunkie quotes are spot-on, with names, quotes, and direct objections from the lawmakers. Please take the time to read through the refs. Its not a good precedent to have a statement disregarded because its most direct citation is one line above on the same paragraph.--Screwball23 talk 04:33, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

First off, I was not calling for a statement to be disregarded; I was calling for actual people to be specified. That's what the "who?" tag is for. However, having now found a working address for the CTNJ article, I see the quotes there. No one is quoted with the "racy, sexual, and violent" phrase being put forth as a quote. More vitally, it cites no one as saying that those aspects of her work make her unfit for the board. That there were people who opposed her who "questioned the violence and sex appeal" and who think that such things send the wrong message is not the same as saying that those aspects of her WWE work made her unfit for the board. As we're dealing with a BLP issue here, and as you're saying that that source is the most direct citation, and as that source does not support the line, I am going to delete the line. --Nat Gertler (talk) 05:36, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Listen, spite will not help wikipedia. Please listen with your full unbiased, logical mind, and I promise you will not do that. There were people who opposed her from being placed on the Board, yes?. They voted no on her nomination, yes? They said she was involved in the violence, sex, and racy storylines of WWE, yes? And what was the reason they said no to her nomination?

See, it's all in there. I know each of those words were used to describe their distaste with WWE. Maybe not together, but "racy", "violent", and "sexual" were in there. --Screwball23 talk 05:45, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Please forego inventing motives for me; your presumptions are not accurate. What we have here is a sentence with a quote that, as best as I can tell, nobody said, and an interpretation which, while logical, is indeed an application of presumptive logic rather than what the source says. That they said one thing -and- opposed her does not mean that that one thing made her unfit. They may have opposed her -and- noted that she has a nice car, but we wouldn't put forth that they said that having a nice car made her unfit. You ask "And what was the reason they said no to her nomination?", and the answer is that from the sources given, we don't truly know. This a is WP:BLP, and standards are high. --Nat Gertler (talk) 06:11, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Given the BLP concerns, with the available sources, I would support rewriting the statement to more accurately reflect the content of the sources, including a reference to the opposition based on education knowledge, etc. Something like:

• Some senators who spoke in opposition to her appointment questioned the message sent by her involvement in WWE, citing the associated "violence" and "sex appeal", and her apparent lack of experience in educational matters. At least one speaking Senator opined that disqualification on the basis of professional qualifications would set a dangerous precedent.

might be a starting point. Either that, or a more direct citation of individual quotations does seem in order  Begoon^talk 18:36, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate your attempt to recast. However, even your recasting the is problematic; the quoting of "violence" and "sex appeal" makes it look as though the opposition actually used that phrasing, and we do not have source that indicates so. Also, you cite senators when none of the quotes we have are from senators, and the articles appear to be talking about the objections from representatives (she only had one opponent in the Senate). And if we're going to talk about "one speaking senator" (actually a rep), then we shold be naming him... but I don't think such a statement from a single rep, unless he is otherwise of import, really adds to this. So I would suggest shortening it down to "The State Senate approved her nomination by a vote of 34-1 and the House by 96-45, with some opponents expressing concerns that the nature of her WWE activities would send the wrong message." --Nat Gertler (talk) 19:21, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Oops - My mistake with Senators and Reps - not my political system - that's my excuse :) Personally, I'd still like to see the balancing statement about education, to avoid giving the impression that WWE was the only reason for opposition. Fine with everything else - and I can't argue that a source attributing "violence" and "sex-appeal" directly to a speaker (rather than the editor of the piece) should be included if that is to be in the text  Begoon^talk 20:34, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

What's her name?

In the lede, we say her name is "Linda Marie Edwards-McMahon", while in the sidebar we say "Linda Edwards McMahon". Which is it? --Nat Gertler (talk) 02:34, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Political career

As Linda McMahon U.S. Senate campaign, 2010‎ exists, the 'Political positions' section, campaign logo, and offshore drilling photo for this campaign now belong in that article instead. I moved the External links about her campaign (which I added recently) to the new article, but I wanted this on the Talk page. 'Summary style' means one or two sentences should be sufficient to cover the current status of her current campaign, but the rest of it should be in other article. Otherwise, the two articles should be re-merged, with most of the election information moved into United States Senate election in Connecticut, 2010. btw - I just updated that election article, replacing TBD with Linda McMahon's name. Flatterworld (talk) 12:38, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I say "good call" for the most part, but I would still keep a link to her campaign website in the external links section of this article as well since her candidacy, win or lose, is still a major item in her life and as a public figure. Plus, if she does win, Senator McMahon's term in the Senate would become a large component of this article, if not its own sub-article.

I would also have to say "no" on incorporating most of "Linda McMahon U.S. Senate campaign, 2010" with "United States Senate election in Connecticut, 2010" at the moment, as it would potentially skew the article's focus around McMahon and not all the other candidates, namely Richard Blumenthal. On Blumenthal's own article (as well as on those of McMahan's primary opponents, Rob Simmons and Peter Schiff) there is not a great deal of information about their Senate candidacies to begin with, so it would be hard to present complete, comparable information about them on the "United States Senate election in Connecticut, 2010" article when little information is available to start with. In other words, I doubt anyone will ever be creating "Richard Blumenthal U.S. Senate campaign, 2010," for example. --Sgt. R.K. Blue (talk) 06:37, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Truths about Linda McMahon for incorporation?

Here is an article that has a lot of valid points that we could include onto Linda McMahon's Wikipedia page: http://www.buyric.com/blog/marcuscyganiak/015-linda-mcmahon-cannot-be-trusted-in-the-us-senate/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.68.130.7 (talk) 18:18, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Pre-GA review

As promised, here is my pre-GA review of this article.

• The lead is too short and doesn't adequately summarize all the main points of the article. It should be closer to three or four full paragraphs.
• "Linda graduated college in three years so she could graduate together with Vince" - source that this was her reasoning
• As previously mentioned, the World Wrestling Entertainment section goes into great detail about issues such as the ring-boy affair and steroid trial, which don't have much to do with Linda. WP:SUMMARY-style should be used here. The details of the issues are located elsewhere, and Linda's article briefly describes the issue and focuses on her involvement.
• A lot of her on-screen roles are written in-universe. It needs to be made clear what is a storyline. For example, the paragraph about the baby, breakdown, and Vince's affair with Trish....someone unfamiliar with wrestling might think that really happened.
• There is a picture about Tribute to the Troops, but it isn't mentioned in the text (unless I missed it....).
• All of her political positions need to be sourced. It is potentially controversial information in a BLP.
• Several of the references need to be formatted with Template:cite web.

Hope this helps. Nikki♥311 19:27, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Contents

There's an awful lot in this article about the WWE. I think those sections should be trimmed or merged elsewhere and only the relevant bits to Linda McMahon included here. For example the ring boy section goes into an awful lot of detail. A couple sentences noting her role in it woul dseem adequate to me. Freakshownerd (talk) 15:07, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I put a lot of work into making the page easy-to-understand and inviting, rather than making it impossibly in-perspective and 100% Linda McMahon. Trust me when I tell you that this page would be absolute garbage if her time in WWE was written without some perspective and background. You wouldn't even have bothered to read the page if it was like that.--Screwball23 talk 03:31, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

This is a criticism that this article has faced repeatedly, Screwball. I've said it, Nikki said it, Freakshownerd said it - the people who read the article have repeatedly found this material something to trip over. It's time to recognize that. --Nat Gertler (talk) 03:40, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes and no. The people who tell me the on-screen roles are too in-perspective are 100% correct—I am a wrestling fan and I have difficulty following the storylines when they are written in that trimmed-down, Linda McMahon-centric format. If you tried reading through it, you know it's near-impossible to get anything useful from there. I can tell you for a fact that you probably wouldn't want anything to do with this page if it was written that bad. Especially because of the amount of media attention, I know this article is being searched by people who are more familiar with her political run than her WWE career, and I believe it is short-sighted and a bit narrow-minded to assume people will know what the Monday Night Wars or the Ring boy affair are. I want this to be a reader-friendly article, and I know that can't happen if the page is written like most wrestler careers are here on wikipedia.--Screwball23 talk 03:59, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is saying that we shouldn't say what the ring boy affair was, merely the depth of the information should only be what is needed to make it clear what Linda's involvement was. If the ring boy affair is of genuine import, it should have its own article which can be cross-referenced by people who need to know more about it; uncertainty as to whether it's out there somewhere is the main reason why I didn't already edit much of it out. As for describing what she did in character, I'm not sure that's even needed in an article lie this; I cannot speak to the wrestling articles, but other actors' articles don't go much into the plot of what they appear in. --Nat Gertler (talk) 05:00, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

suggested edit on ring boy section

In February 1992, Tom Cole, a young WWF employee whose job was to set up the wrestling ring, alleged publicly that he had been sexually molested by several company executives. According to Cole, he was close to filing a multi-million dollar sexual harassment suit until Vince and Linda McMahon met privately with him and promised that the alleged perpetrators would be fired, with Vince persuading him to accept two years of back pay (roughly $55,000) and his job back while Linda comforted Cole and emotionally connected with him, saying he was like a "son" to her and offering to pay for his college education.

In 1992, Cole was re-hired and said he was given preferential treatment by the McMahons. Cole said that Linda encouraged him to share any information he had regarding the Federal steroid investigation. (Cole had received subpoenas from the Federal government.) In 1993, Cole enrolled in college at the company's expense. However, after a year of failing grades, he was officially terminated in June 1993. After he filed for unemployment, Linda McMahon repeatedly challenged him at unemployment hearings with a company lawyer. Cole successfully received unemployment benefits from the company until 1995.

In 1993 and 1994, the McMahons filed libel suits against several media outlets which had published Cole's story.

--Nat Gertler (talk) 05:58, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely. You are completely on the money with this edit. I would change one part, just to include the names for reference: In February 1992, Tom Cole, a young WWF employee whose job was to set up the wrestling ring, alleged publicly that he had been sexually molested by several company executives, Pat Patterson, GArvin, and Phillip.--Screwball23 talk 06:13, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Can you explain why? Because I'm not seeing how that contributes meaningfully to our knowledge of McMahon. (And airing named accusations in a location where we would not appropriately go into depth showing any defense or counterclaims they made seems of concern in a WP:BLP manner.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:54, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Pat Patterson (wrestler) has a wikipedia page, as does Terry Garvin. Also, this entire "defense and counterclaims" argument is outright false; there was never any doubt about the nature of the allegations or the names of the perpetrators involved. It is a settled case, and there is no dispute regarding the legitimacy of "who molested the boy" or "what happened". I strongly disagree with any attempt to whitewash this issue or the people involved; read the references for more.

Regarding why it should be on McMahon's page, I want to make the names absolutely clear; no reader should be led to guess or worse yet, assume that the McMahons, for example, where among the perpetrators because names were neglected.--Screwball23 talk 02:31, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I see no sign of a settled molestation case, nor of a confession. Out-of-court settlements generally avoid admissions of guilt. Even the absence of a public defense does not mean that the accusation should be treated as though true. Concerns regarding the McMahons being identified can be addressed by replacing "executives" with "employees". I don't know of anyone attempting to "whitewash" this issue, merely keep this article focused. --Nat Gertler (talk) 02:43, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Vince McMahon

A lot here appears to belong in his BLP, and not here. Can someone explain why material relating to him only is here? Collect (talk) 10:30, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Company history belongs in the article on the company - not in a BLP - tons more is not against WP:BLP Collect (talk) 10:40, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

This is outrageous

The entire section on her Tip-off memo has been removed : It's clear to me that FellGleming is not rational or logical; s/he removed a part of her involvement in the company while deleting other entire parts arguing that they did not fit because she was not directly involved.

This is complete BS, the editor in question is blatantly whitewashing the article, and this is damaging to any future readers of the page. Remember that Linda's senate campaign article has links to the Tip-off memo, and if it can't be posted here, no one will be able to read about it.

FellGleming is completely whitewashing this article to advance a political agenda, which is an abuse of Wikipedia. I don't know how, but I want to have this reported to arbitration/mediation immediately before this editor completely goes off the edge.

--Screwball23 talk 02:00, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Removal of GAN nomination

I'm removing the GA nomination of this article. It qualifies for a quickfail for multiple reasons (unstable, edit wars, cleanup tag) anyway. The nominator has admitted to only nominating the article for feedback (although when given it...ignores it), which is a slap in the face to anyone waiting in line at WP:GAN with a legitimate nomination. Please use peer review instead. Nikki♥311 03:09, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

1993 Steroid Trial

It is true that much of the Steroid Trial info should be repackaged (not removed) into other articles. Please keep in mind that this was hard research to come by, and I had done quite a bit to condense it to this level. I enjoy going through this little by little, and I am not going to argue with someone who is trying to whitewash this article. Please read my statements (and the references) and get a sense of what your views are.--Screwball23 talk 22:48, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

1. Linda became President of the WWF as a legal maneuver to save the company in 1993. At the time, Vince had been indicted on charges he distributed steroids to his wrestlers. This is true, is referenced, and is valuable info. Keep in mind that up until 1993, she was an assistant or co-CEO with her husband, but was abruptly placed into President status during the 1993 trial. The fact that the company, and her husband, were immersed in a steroid trial is valuable.
2. Steroid usage was rampant in the wrestling industry during the 1980s, but after passage of the Anti-Drug Abuse Act, it became an illicit substance. The Act, passed in 1988, made possession and distribution of anabolic steroids a federal crime. Federal drug enforcement agencies collected evidence on the WWF beginning in 1989, using undercover informants to learn of an ongoing drug ring inside the company. The FBI and FDA arrested the WWF’s staff doctor, George Zahorian, in May 1990, after months of undercover steroid purchases from him. On May 27, 1990, they put a microphone on informant William Dunn, a strength trainer from North Carolina, and recorded his conversation with Zahorian during a steroid transaction worth $7,000. After Dunn made his purchase, agents arrested Zahorian and charged him with drug distribution.
3. Zahorian received a trial in February 1991, faced with drug charges carrying up to 40 years in jail. His trial was widely publicized because wrestlers Brian Blair, Rick Martel, Roddy Piper, and Dan Spivey testified, saying they had purchased steroids from Zahorian after 1988. Billy Graham, who used steroids for many years, testified to buying steroids from Zahorian and said he became sterile, had liver problems, and suffered a degenerative bone disease as a result. Zahorian’s lawyer said he was the first doctor to be charged under the Anti-Drug Abuse Act and had no way of knowing the law had changed. He was found guilty in 1991 of 12 counts of drug distribution (8 for steroids, 4 for illegally-prescribed painkillers) and was sentenced to 3 years in prison.This is valuable info, and should be moved, not deleted. If an appropriate place (or even a new article) can be found, I will happily let it go.It is valuable, and it should be repackaged (not removed)
4. In 1991, Vince announced that the company would begin testing its wrestlers for steroids. Two wrestlers, The British Bulldog and Chris Walker, were suspended in May 1992 for violating the policy. The World Bodybuilding Federation, a bodybuilding enterprise started by Vince, was entirely shut down as a result of ongoing steroid abuse. Vince was indicted in 1993 on steroid distribution charges. He was charged on evidence from Zahorian's case. During his trial, testimony from wrestlers and drug investigators proved that many of the WWF's top stars, including Hulk Hogan, were using steroids to enhance their physiques. Hogan admitted to using steroids during the trial, saying it had been a part of his training regimen for over 13 years, but Vince never encouraged him to use them. Because of Hogan's testimony, Vince was acquitted of all charges. The jury ruled that steroid use had been an individual choice, not a company policy.

Vince's trial and changes within the WWF are a significant part of McMahon's career.

Again, to engage in a productive discussion, avoid personal attacks, please cite the individual paragraph you wish to discuss, and above all else, remember that deletionists are always the last people to learn things on Wikipedia. After a piece of info is deleted, new visitors usually lose all hope of learning that relevant info.--Screwball23 talk 22:48, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

The fact that this information was "hard to come by" is irrelevant. A lengthy section on Zahorian's trial might (or might not) be worthwhile in an article on the WWF, but it is severely out of place in an article on Linda McMahon, especially since all the events you're alluding to took place years before she even assumed control of the company. This material is not only out of place, it seems a WP:COATRACK, designed simply to smear McMahon by association. We must abide by WP:BLP in all such cases. Including it simply because you "cannot bear to let it go" is a pointless objection. Fell Gleaming^talk 22:58, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Be willing to open up and listen here. I am willing to compromise. Your arguments are becoming less and less sincere: according to you, the only sentence up there would be the fact that she was made president in 1993. Period. --Screwball23 talk 23:19, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

If you wish to discuss sincerely, don't claim that editors have stated things they have not. However, we should also note that Linda did not become instantly involved in the company the moment she became president; can we have clarification on what she was doing in the days before that? It would go to the question of relevancy. --Nat Gertler (talk) 23:26, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

The main problem I'm having is how this material adds anything whatsoever to the article, or our understanding of Linda McMahon. None of the sources have implicated her in any way. Given that, it appears to be a clear-cut BLP violation to have a lengthy discussion on illegal steroid distribution in an article on a person who has never been involved in such a crime. Fell Gleaming^talk 23:36, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi Fell Gleaming. I came here because I saw your post to WP:BLPN, and I care about accuracy in BLPs. My own take is that the information presented about this provides relevant context, but I don't read it as in the leastways damaging. It's six short sentences of factual information that's extraordinarily well-cited. It just seems like relevant factual information about her company, to me, nothing more, and certainly nothing inflammatory or that represents a BLP violation, as I see it. My reaction is pretty much to yawn over the information, actually. Honestly, it doesn't seem in any way improper or any kind of slur on her character to me at all. You've a perfect right to your opinion, of course, but maybe you'd think about coming back to this in a few days? If you still feel it's damaging and improper at that point, then by all means fight the good fight, but you might also see it a little differently with a little more distance, too. Just my two cents. Best,  – OhioStandard (talk) 12:53, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

It all looks a bit like coatracking to me and not really anything as regards this persons actions. Off2riorob (talk) 13:02, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, OhioStandard. First let me say what you're seeing now is the redacted version -- the original wasn't 6 sentences, it was around 30 sentences worth. What's there now is much closer to acceptable. My take on the original text is three-fold. First, I don't see the value of such a lengthy discussion of Zahorian's trial to an article on Linda McMahon, even if it wasn't damaging. Secondly, I think statements characterizing a company letter firing someone -- and explaining the reason why -- as a "tip off memo" are in any way neutral. Third, a lengthy section on illegal steroid usage does bring up a "guilt by association" issue. If we insert into the Barack Obama entry a list of people convicted of corruption, that's going to imply there's some relevance of that information to him ... even if a careful reading on the content makes it clear there is no real connection. Fell Gleaming^talk 22:30, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

No - we are covering her work experience, and part of that work experience is being a high-level executive in a company that was facing investigation over such matters, a company she helped found in the first place. She wasn't only involved in WWF when she was a figurehead, and this situation also shows much what she was dealing with in terms of public perception when she became a figurehead. --Nat Gertler (talk) 06:53, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Nat, I have no problem mentioning an investigation of the 'company. But this section isn't about that -- it's a detailed section on the investigation, trial, and conviction of a person who used to work for that company. Does the trial of a peson who used to work for Microsoft belong in an article on Bill Gates? No, of course not. Fell Gleaming^talk 15:48, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Fell, I can tell you suffer from an ego that won't give. I'm man enough to negotiate, all you need to do is be willing to listen to others and do the same. Unless you have ulterior motives, I recommend you do your due diligence as a wikipedian and start negotiating rationally. It doesn't have to be an all-or-nothing battle.--Screwball23 talk 03:55, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

At least 2 other editors beside me have reverted your same changes. I suggest if you want to get some traction on these, stop attempting to subvert the consensus process and explain to us why you believe this material is relevant, neutral, and inline with BLP guidelines. Fell Gleaming^talk 17:36, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Why don't you actually do some hard work for once and try to defend your garbage arguments? Talk about how you think the page is biased and not relevant. Talk about how whitewashing the page will help her campaign, and will give you a feeling of success because you made it impossible for anyone to develop any opinion, good or bad, because they just don't know anything about her. Talk about why her page should be "clean", and the circumstances surrounding her appointment to President are not allowed - it was a legal manuever, and if you actually read the references, you would learn that. Talk about how you want to crush thousands of future readers' chances of learning anything from this page because you decided to trash another person's article. I see your edit history. You never contribute to anything on wikipedia. All you do is hardline deletion, and use any policy you can make up to defend yourself. You're incredibly slimy and insincere. I'm reporting this and I'll get a right-minded administrator to stop your path of destruction in your tracks.--Screwball23 talk 01:50, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Why this page should not be destroyed

Check the page Barack Obama There is a section on the BP Oil Spill, and Obama's handling of the Oil Spill. it was a significant part of his presidency/public image. According to FellGleaming, who thinks anything that can be interpreted as negative (even if it's cited and referenced), like the McMahon article is ( and which even he admitted to), it should be deleted.

Well, check back at the Barack Obama page. The material is still there. The fellGlemings of the world haven't had success demolishing that section of his presidency. It states plenty about Obama that is not so nice. Did you know that it acknowledges that there is criticism that Obama may not have responded as proactively as possible? Or -shock- that Obama's actions and the spill's developments are stated in regard to his presidential actions?

It is hypocritical for anyone to say that the McMahon article cannot acknowledge what has been referenced, stated, and significant. It has been stated in multiple sources that there is speculation that she may have brought about the PG rating in WWE for her own political gain. Billy Graham said it, multiple places it has been said. Acknowledging the fact that speculation exists is neutral. It is not the same as saying with outright bias that "Linda McMahon altered the rating of WWE before she ran for..." or guilt by association which would look like "Linda McMahon was CEO during the PG change, which she said was beneficial for..." I am merely advocating that the speculation be acknowledged.

--Screwball23 talk 02:22, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

And? Seems that this article is now being used for an absurd amount of coatrack about steroids, sex, and even her persona on TV in scrioted events! Collect (talk) 10:30, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

If you think her persona on TV is explained in absurd detail, check Vince McMahon.--Screwball23 talk 16:54, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Please read the article: WP:WAX. Fell Gleaming^talk 17:01, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Tip-off memo

Why shouldn't McMahon's tip-off memo be stated in this page?

The truth is, there is no answer to this question. It is referenced, informative, and historically significant. Was it political fodder? Sure, Rob Simmons used it against her big-time. But McCain's statements bashing Chelsea Clinton are on his Wikipedia page, and I'm sure some douche would be more than happy to whitewash that controversial episode of his political career. John Kerry's statements about "ending up in Iraq" are on his page, and I would argue that it wasn't even a significant or long-lived issue. But for some reason, the tip-off memo was deleted against the long-standing consensus of thousands of editors who had seen and read this page for months. The idea that somehow the tipoff memo should be deleted is BS, and the editors advocating the deletion of that memo/action should have no place here.

Again, the deletionists who visit this page are convinced that they are the consensus. Make your voice heard about the tipoff memo, because it should be on this page.--Screwball23 talk 02:33, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Though we've covered this ground already, I'll respond again. Any company that finds an employee is under investigation by the FBI is going to terminate that employee. In many states, termination requires formal notice of the reasons for termination and, even where its not legally required, most companies do so as a matter of policy to avoid potential civil litigation. So not only was this notice in no way notable, but your casting it as a "tip off memo" which in itself implies malfeasance, is a clear attempt to tie an uninvolved party into Zahorian's legal troubles. Fell Gleaming^talk 15:31, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

The memo was a very big item in her political image, and as far as "malfeasance", "tipoff memo", and "uninvolved" goes, you are again painting this into a whitewashing game. I am making it clear that she did give a memo to fire Zahorian. True, her defense was that she was required to give notice. But again, if you read the references, that reasoning was given in 2010 during her political campaign. It was given by a WWE spokesman, not McMahon, I might add. Many references have called it a tipoff memo, which it was. It simply tipped off Zahorian to the fact that an investigation was going on. That's indisputable. --Screwball23 talk 16:43, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree. The specific instructions in the memo to alert the employee are highly relevant. Thundermaker (talk) 18:24, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Why? Fell Gleaming^talk 19:03, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Guilt by association

Again, I want to stress that posting info on the actions that McMahon underwent as President/CEO of the company (tipoff memo) is not wrong. Other pieces of info, like the ring boy affair, involved her, as she interacted with the boy and he gave a long interview detailing his experience with Linda during the ordeal. It is also noted that these are vital parts of her public image and are highly relevant to the article. McMahon's claim that Ted Turner was enabled to steal away big name wrestlers is a historical argument that she has made, and is an accusation that she made about a competing business. This is all game for an article.

None of these sections create "guilt by association". "Guilt by association", which has been misinterpreted to disastrous consequence, simply means that something that is off-topic should not be put in because it creates damage to the Biography. An example of a guilt-by-association piece would be something like a list of the wrestlers who have died throughout the duration of WWE. That would have no place on this page.

However, the tipoff memo, the ring boy affair, and PG-rating all are neutral, well-referenced topics that should be discussed. Not mentioning them would be outright whitewashing. That would be like removing any part of George Bush's presidency that could possibly make him look bad. The fact that unemployment went up during certain parts of his presidency is info that people should be able to access. The fact that he was criticized for actions during the Iraq War or Hurricane Katrina is also included in the article on George W. Bush. The same should be said for criticism aimed at McMahon for the change to TV-PG. Or her tip-off memo. I don't understand why including McMahon's tipoff memo is considered a sin, but Robert Byrd's memo regarding segregation policies and the KKK is not.

I would like to see FellGleming grow a pair and try to do those articles the same disservice he is doing here.--~~

Oh my gosh! She talked with the ring boy! Hate to tell you this, but that sort of connection is classic coatrack! Collect (talk) 10:28, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

First of all, if you read the interview of the ring boy, Tom Cole, you will see that he details many of the McMahons' actions as a very important part of his decision to not sue. Again, if you read the interview, you would see that there is a lot going on. Secondly, she did not just talk to him. She appeared at his unemployment hearings to challenge him during his applicatoin for benefits, she encouraged him to share information regarding the ongoing 1993 steroid trial/other molestation cases, and most importantly, she build an emotional connection with him, saying he was like a son to her. He, in turn, confided much in her. --Screwball23 talk 16:50, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Screwball, your argument is classic WP:WAX and thus invalid. I also ask you again to refrain from the personal attacks on article talk pages; it is an actionable violation of Wikipedia policy. Fell Gleaming^talk 15:18, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

This is not at all an argument that other stuff exists. It is a simple reality that politicians' statements and actions, whether controversial or potentially negative, are still kept on wikipedia. It is hypocrisy for you to impose your standards of outright censorship here when other statements, such as John Kerry's, are elaborated and explained in great detail.--Screwball23 talk 16:50, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Lots of coatracking is a bad idea, keep the content where it belongs, this is her personal BLP and the other stuff belongs elsewhere. Off2riorob (talk) 15:26, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Ring Boy inclusion

As there's been some confusion on where editors, stand, please vote here whether you believe this section should be included, excluded, or included in a more concise form, along with any reasoning why:

Editors Voting to Include:

Editors Voting to Exclude:

• FellGleaming: Highly tangential, scurriluous, appears to be coatracking. Attempts to imply a connection between a criminal, highly prejudicial act (child abuse) when the subject of the article did nothing more than speak to the victim. Fell Gleaming^talk 23:03, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Editors Voting to Include (Concise)

end section

This is not a matter to be "voted" on, as Wikipedia is not a WP:DEMOCRACY. The article does not paint Linda as causing the situation; it does discuss her dealing with the situation, showing something of how she performed her duties as an executive. I suggest you review WP:COATRACK, as this doesn't qualify; it's not using the article on McMahon to really talk about child abuse or some such, but using the article on McMahon to talk about McMahon actions. As stands, it has I believe two sentences not covering McMahon's actions, and those are necessary to give context to to the ones on McMahon (and which is in alignment with editor Nikki311's suggestion that this be summaried and focused on McMahon's involvement. --Nat Gertler (talk) 23:46, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Nat, this is a standard means of conflict resolution and helping to establish consensus. As for the coatracking charge, when scurrilous material is included not to inform the reader, but simply to denigrate the article's subject, that clearly qualifies. I still haven't heard any reasonable explanation of how "ringboy" is significant to McMahon's life-- and so far, a majority of uninvolved editors agree. You'll get more traction for your position if you can answer that objection. Fell Gleaming^talk 03:42, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

It seems bettewr now its trimmed, I would trim it a bit more as it is overly detailed and is a bit coatracky imo also. Its one employee from thousands and thousands being given undue reportage. Off2riorob (talk) 10:33, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Somewhat unsuspectingly, what was actually written here was considerably different than what was in the cited source. I've now aligned it with the politico source content, and removed the non:RS. Fell Gleaming^talk 12:02, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

FellGleaming, your claim about "the majority of uninvolved editors" does not find quick grounding in fact, at least not at the Administrator's Noticeboard discussion (I'm not sure all of what WP:FORUMSHOP may have taken place), where GeorgeWilliamHerbert merely made a general policy statement, TFD notes "It is not clear to me that the content violates BLP", where the only BLP-crossing edits Balloonman specifies are related to the steroids, where OhioStandard objected to your edits, and where Petri Krohn noted that the desire to delete sections "may be resentist and unencyclopedic". --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:32, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

It was a bit clearer on the BLP board, but given some other editors have now chimed in on the ANI board, consider that claim retracted. Fell Gleaming^talk 17:55, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Whitewashing --AGAIN-- in regards to the Ring Boy Affair

In a recent edit by Fell Gleming, s/he has completely deleted the statement that the McMahons filed libel suits against media sources which has published Tom Cole's story. Fell Gleming deleted the statement, saying that [since "the WWE" filed, and not the McMahons, no mention of this should be made (the typical BS)]

As it was originally referenced, before Fell Gleming killed that link, the proper reference was clearly given to Tom Cole's interview, which stated from his firsthand experience that the McMahons filed libel suits. The interview, which Fell Gleming has coincidentally removed from the page, is below: [4]

--Screwball23 talk 02:30, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

First of all, the McMahon's didn't file suit, the WWE did. Secondly, you're still overreaching for any potential negative hint you can drum out. How is this at all relevant to Ms. McMahon's life history? Remember that at least two editors here don't believe the Ring Boy incident itself even belongs in the article. Now you're trying even more tangential angles. Fell Gleaming^talk 02:54, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Two editors? What are you talking about? Defend your points, and stop trying to claim consensus as the save-all defense. And read the damn reference for once. Geez, do I need to baby you? You clearly need someone to explain the policies to you, you don't read the references I provide for you, and you seem to be forgetting that wikipedia is not censored. Tom Cole explicitly stated that the McMahons went after the media sources. And yes, they ran WWE. --Screwball23 talk 03:02, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Where is the 2007-2009 steroid investigation?

I had one of the best sections on WWE's drug policy there. There was even a federal investigation on that. Linda McMahon had been in for official testimony. That was good material, and it was very relevant to both her executive duties, the status of the company, and it was a major issue on the campaign trail. Does Fell Gleaming have a reason why it is not there? --Screwball23 talk 02:55, 5 September 2010 (UTC) Check the Bill Gates page and you will see that Bill Gates#antitrust litigation controversial pieces of his company career are included. It is completely hypocritical for someone to leave all of McMahon's charitable work in while completely censoring her involvement in the company's 30 year history.--Screwball23 talk 03:09, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Tom Cole in 2010

The 2010 quote from Tom Cole is misleading; again, according to Politico, he hung up on reporters when contacted by the press.

In an email also quoted by Politico, Cole wrote " I'm sending a check to Linda's campaign fund this evening. She is after all my favorite type of Politician...Fiscally Sound. As a life long Republican I hope she wins.”

The statement was supplied by Jerry Devitt, the WWE lawyer, on Tom Cole's behalf. Certain people should read their sources more closely. --Screwball23 talk 02:44, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

How do you believe that's misleading? The claim was printed by Politico which, as a reliable source, is presumed to have fact-checked it for accuracy. Had it not actually been an email from Cole, they would have certainly issued a retraction. If you're going to start challenging Politico as a WP:RS, you're going to lose half the article. Fell Gleaming^talk 02:56, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

...And I'm sure you'd love to be the one to take half the article... No, what I'm saying is that the email was provided by the WWE on Cole's behalf. It went to Devitt, who emailed it to the press. Read it again.--Screwball23 talk 03:11, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

What exactly is your point? Politico fact-checks their articles. If it wasn't Cole's statement, they wouldn't have printed it as such. Fell Gleaming^talk 03:17, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

The claim is fully supported by the cite. Period. Collect (talk) 13:17, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Tom Cole

Screwball, you reinserted this text: " After he filed for unemployment, Linda McMahon repeatedly challenged him at unemployment hearings with a company lawyer. Cole successfully received unemployment benefits from the company until 1995.", sourcing it to a Politico story at [5]. I don't see this anywhere in the source. Please address. Fell Gleaming^talk 03:04, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

No, it's in the reference.[6]--Screwball23 talk 03:14, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

A self-published newsletter not under independent editorial control is not a WP:RS. Further, even if it were a RS, you're misrepresenting it, by presenting something Cole (purportly) accused Linda of as verified fact. Please self-revert this; it is a clear BLP violation. Fell Gleaming^talk 03:16, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

According to you? You've been making up policies again and again. Why is it a clear violation? Do you even know what you're talking about? Seriously, the interview quotes Tom Cole in the first-person. I know you probably didn't want to read it, what with your agenda and all, but it lays out the entire Ring Boy Affair in good detail. Of course, you would rather say WWE filed the lawsuit and that gives no one any right to read about that, right? Or, while you're at it, you want to disqualify Tom Cole's testimony that he was challenged by Linda McMahon personally when he applied for benefits. Oh, and what was that nonsense you put out there about how it should be called "harassment" instead of "molestation"? The guy was fondling a 12 year old boy's feet for god's sake!

Again, read the reference and quit the blatant promotional work.--Screwball23 talk 03:33, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I read the entire article. I suggest you reread WP:BLP. BTW, primary sources and material not related to the subject of a BLP do not belong in a BLP. Collect (talk) 13:32, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Obviously, you didn't read the reference, because Linda McMahon was mentioned many times in that article. And your idea that this is not related to the subject has fallen short many times already. If you think the fact that Cole said he was going to vote for her in 2010 is relevant, I don't see why you think the fact that Cole said he was challenged at unemployment hearings in 1993-1994 by Linda herself is irrelevant. Seriously, you're not kidding anyone.--Screwball23 talk 15:01, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Untitled

In #RFC - Net Worth below, the issue is whether sourced net worth information is proper for inclusion in the infobox of a politician. Abby Kelleyite (talk) 21:47, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Ring boy affair

The 1992 Ring boy affair was a significant event in WWE's tumultuous 1991-1994 period, and McMahon's actions during this period have been cited and referenced. There are people who want to whitewash this paragraph (and have, viciously and without any regard to anyone else) because it is potentially bad for her image. I don't understand why this editor sees right to destroy this page but won't take off the controversy section on the John Kerry page (which was only a statement, whereas this is a serious legal matter that she was involved in personally) or doesn't see any reason to attack the Mel Gibson page, which is loaded with material much worse than this. I also want to make it clear that there are people who would love to put info implicating McMahon in the absence of a company drug policy for 10 years, for buying an election, for letting wrestlers die, etc. etc. There are many worse things that could be put on this page, Linda McMahon, and now after all my hard work to keep this page relevant, cohesive, easy to understand, and neutral, I am being portrayed as a POV villain by some nutjob who can't understand Wikipedia policies.

The ring boy affair is significant, and I want editors to support me in my lonely attempt to salvage it on this page. Step up and have your voice heard, or else, someone with poor intentions can easily damage this page for good. Remember, silence from you will result in "consensus" built by those who have nothing better to do than delete and distort.

All you need to do is answer truthfully: Should the 1992 Ring boy affair and Linda's actions during the affair be covered? Explain your position below. Thank you!!! --Screwball23 talk 02:04, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

My point has always been that it should be mentioned...just not in such excessive detail. Here is an example of a re-write I would make:

Main article: Ring boy affair

There isn't much detail at this link yet, but the excessive detail on the Linda McMahon page could go here, or the link could go somewhere in History of World Wrestling Entertainment, with the info located there.

In February 1992, WWF employee Tom Cole came forward with allegations he was sexually molested by company executives when he was 13 years old.[32][33][34] He made claims that a wrestler attempted to seduce him and that he was fired when he refused.[33] According to Cole, he was close to filing a multi-million dollar sexual harassment suit until Vince and Linda McMahon met privately with him and promised that Garvin and two other offenders would be fired, with Vince persuading him to accept two years of back pay—roughly $55,000—and his job back while Linda offered to pay for his college education.[33][35] In 1992, Cole was re-hired, and in 1993, he enrolled in college at the company's expense. However, after a year of failing grades, he was officially terminated in June 1993.[33] After he filed for unemployment, Linda repeatedly challenged him at unemployment hearings with a company lawyer. In 1993 and 1994, the McMahons filed libel suits against several media outlets which had published Cole's story.[33]

Is it whitewashed? No. Is it shorter and more to the point? Yes. The focus here should be on McMahon and her involvement. If someone wants to know more, all they have to do is click the link and find the information wherever we decide the more appropriate place to move it is. Nikki♥311 03:35, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Ask Mr.Blumenthal how he got a boy who's father had passed and had worked hard to get into Harvard admission pulled for a singular underage drinking incident by threatening to pull his family's powerful support from the school...what a nice guy..I guess he thought he never made a mistake...can he say vietnam! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Antiurbanrenewal (talk • contribs) 12:13, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Screwball's continued attempts to reinsert problematic material against consensus

Myself, Off2riorob, and Collect all seem to agree that the "ring boy", "tip of memo" and related material is irrelevant, if not outright coatracking. Why are you persisting in attempting to reintroduce it? Fell Gleaming^talk 16:39, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid that is a false description of my own position, is not a description that matches with Nikki311's comments; I have not fully reviewed the comments of the others. You may wish to take caution in claiming your beliefs to be the beliefs of others. --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:01, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry Nat, after this reversion of yours of Screwball's edits: [7], I thought you were in agreement that the material was problematic. I'll remove your name from the list. Fell Gleaming^talk 18:16, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm glad to announced that this type of lunacy by FellGleming did not survive consensus and the page has been destroyed from his cold, agenda-carrying grip... ;-) Screwball23 talk 20:16, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

RFC - Net Worth

Folks, "net worth" is a common infobox element for businesspeople. In fact, the example used on Template:Infobox person is Bill Gates, and "net worth" is one of the fields they show there. As this article is about a businessperson, and the material is sourced, it's quite appropriate here. --Nat Gertler (talk) 13:54, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Bill Gates is noted as super-rich. VERY FEW business BLPs have "net worth" in the infobox. The examples I found were all over $1 billion - which is not the case at hand. Even fewer political BLPs have net worth in the infobox. Not even John Kerry, the richest US politician apparently. There is no reason for it to be in the infobox here. Collect (talk) 14:08, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

There's plenty of reason for it to be there. If her notability is as a successful businesswoman, then that is a measure of the degree of her success. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:18, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Net worth is a very subjective thing and very fluid and likely to be quoted differently my different sources, imo in this case is not noteworthy for the infobox. Off2riorob (talk) 14:26, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Almost everything in an infobox is able to change. In this case, we have source, and we date it, which is commonly done with net worths. --14:39, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

We have many infoboxs and anything can be added or removed. In this case I don't support it as having any value in the infobox. Off2riorob (talk) 14:46, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

You don't support it? That's a rationale? Boy, you've got a lot to learn. The fact is, her self-financing—and her personal wealth— is a major part of her campaign and her public image. Don't forget, people that are not wiki-censoring pro-McMahon nuts read this page too. They should be allowed to learn about her, and if her net worth is known, and its a major part of her public image, people should have the right to read it.--Screwball23 talk 14:56, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

This article is not part of a campaign. Nor should a desire on anyone's part to influence any campaign be tolerated. You appear to have claimed that net worth is routinely found in BLPs. It is not. The only examples are of billionaires (you claimed Steve Forbes' infobox has his net worth - it does not). As for calling other editors "nuts" please read WP:NPA and WP:AGF several times. Thanks! Collect (talk) 15:00, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Reply to user Screwball1123 - No I don't support it and neither do a couple of other editors here. Please keep your comments on the content and not the contributors. I have nothing to learn from you that is for sure. Off2riorob (talk) 15:03, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, we should have you educate us on McMahon, by deleting everything about her that could remotely seem bad for her image. --Screwball23 talk 23:59, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Net worth is useful NPOV info. It should be added to other politicians (where sources exist) rather than deleted from this one. It could make a useful Request For Comment topic if no consensus opinion is reachable. Abby Kelleyite (talk) 19:41, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, added to the article and explained correctly, as regards personal and business claims has some kind of value, adding it to the infobox unexplained is valueless, net worth is reported differ4ently by different organizations and is so fluid as to have no encyclopedic long term value at all. Off2riorob (talk) 19:46, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Unexplained? So your argument has changed from "it's against consensus" and "it doesn't belong in a BLP" to now "it is unexplained" and "too fluid". Hmmm...Since it is cited, that should mean it has explanation as to the figures, and if it's too fluid to have "long-term value", I guess the best solution is to date the info. Or, if you want to end your hypocrisy, you can take the issue of "fluidity" to all the other pages stating net worth. Either way, all the problems you could make up have been solved.--Screwball23 talk 23:59, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

How exactly would you solve the problem of the information being unexplained in the infobox? The only solution, to my mind, would be to explain it, which would involve a great deal of cluttering text in the infobox. This is a real problem, and not one to be snarkily dismissed. siafu (talk) 15:50, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

• Comment What is contained in the infobox and the criteria for inclusion there is not the same as what is contained in the article proper and the criteria for inclusion there. Given that, it seems unjustifiable to me to put Ms. McMahon's net worth in her infobox since it is her history with professional wrestling and her political aspirations that have made her famous, not simply her wealth (a la Bill Gates). This information should certainly be included in the article, but not the infobox. siafu (talk) 15:05, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

• Comment Hello there! I'm Deep Purple Dreams, an uninvolved editor who came across this discussion on WP:ANI. I thought I'd give my two cents on the matter. I think that net worth is an appropriate thing to display in this article. The information is not defamatory, nor is it untrue or poorly sourced. Whether it's routinely found in other articles is irrelevant, as I see nothing in BLP policy requiring BLP articles to conform to one another. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I see nothing in the BLP policy that contradicts adding net worth to an article. Feel free to quote for me the exact passage that would prevent the inclusion of this material, but I just don't see anything. For the above reasons, it's my position that net worth should remain in the article. Deep Purple Dreams (talk) 16:46, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

The contention doesn't seem to be about inclusion of net worth in the article at all, but it's inclusion specifically in the infobox (the box on the right with basic information on the subject). siafu (talk) 16:50, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. An Infobox is a summary of the most pertinent information about the subject. Bill Gates, for instance, is known for being the one-time richest man in the world; his net worth is therefore appropriate in his infobox. For the vast amount of other subjects how, their net worth is far less notable. Fell Gleaming^talk 17:22, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

It still seems to me that it's acceptable, though. At least, there's no clear reason as to why it should not be present in the infobox. Deep Purple Dreams (talk) 23:43, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

What standard are you using for inclusion? If the standard is that "its pertinent to the article", then why not put a summary of all the information in the infobox? Further, when presented in a vacuum, the figure most certainly is misleading. Firstly, its not her net worth, it's the net worth of her and her husband combined. Secondly, the figure itself is simply an estimate. If McMahon is elected and then publicly discloses her net worth, we'll have a hard figure, but for now, the only thing we know for sure is that it is over $50 million (the max. amount required to disclose under candidacy rules) Fell Gleaming^talk 23:51, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

She's a businesswoman, so it makes sense to include NW. Not only that, but there's not a good reason not to include it. We can note it as (estimated) so that readers understand that it's an estimate. It's a pertinent factoid that's great infobox material. Deep Purple Dreams (talk) 13:18, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

As essentially no non-billionaires have the info, might it be possible that its relevance is in doubt? Collect (talk) 14:40, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Just because the information is lacking in other articles doesn't mean it should be lacking here. Limiting information because other articles are incomplete seems like the opposite of what Wikipedia is trying to do. We should be trying to make articles more complete, not less complete. Deep Purple Dreams (talk) 15:38, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

you're still arguing the wrong question. The "information" in this case is a just rough estimate, and not even an estimate of her own personal worth, but joint worth. Further, its not what she is notable for. You still haven't explained why it should be in her infobox, which contains the most notable elements about a person. Do you feel we should put her shoe size in the infobox also? What about her favorite color? "Completeness" is not the touchstone we use in this case. Fell Gleaming^talk 15:46, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Taking it to absurd extremes like "shoe size" doesn't really convince me of anything. I think that someone who is a notable businesswoman should have her networth displayed, just like a football player might have his height and weight displayed in an infobox. These details are pertinent to why they're considered a notable businessperson. If she was notable for having the world's largest feet, then perhaps shoe size would be appropriate; but that's not the case here. Even the article lists her first as an "American corporate executive." Her NW might be a joint figure, but the WWE was between Linda and her husband, so that's reasonable and expected. To make things clear, when I look at an infobox, I want to see relevant factoids about a person. If someone is doing research on Linda McMahon, what do you think they'd be searching for? It will probably have something to do, at least tangentially, with the WWE and having a networth up there would answer the question as to how successful she was with the WWE at a glance. It's useful and appropriate for the article. There's no real reason not to have it. Deep Purple Dreams (talk) 16:09, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't much care whether it's in or out but what I do care about are the rationales offered to support a position. You said...

Taking it to absurd extremes like "shoe size" doesn't really convince me of anything.

What SHOULD convince you of something is Wikipedia precedent for infoboxes which, if the information reported by exclusionists is correct, seems to indicate that net worth is the exception, not the rule. JakeInJoisey (talk) 01:01, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

There also seems to be some conflation here between "including information in the article" and "including information in the infobox". Not all information in the article makes it into the infobox-- doing otherwise would constitute a replication of the article and would defeat the purpose of the infobox. There is no question here of whether or not to include this information in the article text, the issue is whether this is one of the most salient and notable points about the subject that a reader would benefit from being presented at-a-glance. siafu (talk) 15:48, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

It really lends itself to inclusion because it's a figure, not a piece of prose. Deep Purple Dreams (talk) 16:09, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

A shoe size is a figure. Her weight is a figure. The number of cars she owns is a figure. Are you suggesting we should include material in an infobox not because its relevant to our understanding of the subject, but simply because it easily fits? Even worse, her net worth doesn't easily fit, not when to be accurate you need to state its an estimate of joint worth, not an accurate measure of her own personal worth. Fell Gleaming^talk 16:13, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I answered your concerns above in my above post. Deep Purple Dreams (talk) 16:17, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I think we can agree that not all figures are deserving of inclusion in the infobox. Why is this one, which as mentioned is inexact, lacking precise definition, and potentially misleading, important and salient enough to be placed there? IMO the infobox should contain a minimum of information, in order to preserve the utility of the box and the notability of the information it contains. If you want me to agree, you'll have to make a case for why this particular piece of information, and not just every quantifiable figure, should be included. The fact that it is not included in other articles is relevant to this question; in determining what figures are important for businesspeople it is informative to see what has been deemed important by other editors, who have presumably held similar discussions in the past, for other businesspeople. Given that such a survey shows that in general, net worth is NOT considered important, relevant, or accurate enough for inclusion in the infobox, it is necessary to present some strong reasoning as to why it should.

I think in this discussion there has been a good deal of beating around the bush on this subject, in that the actual reason this is contentious is becase Ms. McMahon is reported to have sunk a good deal of her own money into her political campaign and some people find this to be improper. Frankly, this doesn't seem to be enough reason to stick this piece of info in the infobox, especially since it comes with all this extra baggage (i.e., the reason people think it's relevant), and is better placed in the article proper where the issue can be more fully explained. siafu (talk) 16:20, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it's safe to assume that other articles have had similar discussions; it's even more likely that nobody thought of putting in net worth into those articles. Either way, I don't think it's fair to use other articles as precedent because no such concept exists on Wikipedia when it comes to articles. We'd also have to guess as to why NW is not displayed, and there's no solid foundation to make those guesses.

But I do understand your position here. It seems that your concern is that it's imprecise and could be interpreted in different ways. I think that if it was noted, perhaps in a footnote, that it's an estimate and it includes the networth of both Linda and Vince McMahon, that would satisfy your objections to the inclusion of this material in the infobox. Then there would be no possible confusion. The reason why I promote the inclusion of this figure in the infobox is that it's relevant to her notability and it makes for good infobox material. She's chiefly known for her work with the WWE, so her networth is directly linked to that. Those who are researching Linda and the WWE would likely benefit from that material, thus serving the purpose of Wikipedia. Whether Linda sunk a lot of money into her campaign just isn't relevant, in my eyes, to the discussion of networth. Everyone knows Linda has a lot of money; the WWE's commercial success is well-noted even among people who haven't watched wrestling. (I'm not a wrestling fan but even I know that pro wrestling is big bucks.) It's not going to come as some shock to find out that she's got a lot of money when she's the co-founder of one of the most well-known national wrestling organizations. It's just pertinent, relevant information. Deep Purple Dreams (talk) 16:37, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Again, you haven't explained why it should be in the infobox. Anyone "researching the WWE" is going to read the article, not just scan the infobox. And BLP requirements prevent us from putting a misleading figure in the infobox, under the justification that "it will be explained elsewhere". Any reader who fails to read every footnote is therefor going to be misled. The material needs to be accurate and, if it must be qualified, it has to be done so where the original reference is. To report them accurately requires something like, "source XYZ has estimated the joint net worth of Linda McMahon and her husband to be between AAAA and BBBB, while another source has placed it between CCCCC and DDDD, whereas McMahon herself has only officially disclosed a net worth of YYYY". Now, do you REALLY think a phrase like that belong in an infobox??? Fell Gleaming^talk 16:50, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Judging by the all-caps and excessive punctuation at the end, I'm getting the impression that you feel strongly about this. I just want to lay it out right now that my intention isn't to ruffle anyone's feathers about this topic. Anyway, if someone doesn't read part of the article, of course they may be misled. That goes for anything, not just networth. As I've said earlier, I think that certain types of data (especially numerical data) are great infobox material as long as they're relevant to the subject's notability or the topic of the article. That's why I think it should be included in the infobox. Deep Purple Dreams (talk) 16:54, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Whoa, you didn't get the point. We must write BLPs so users do not get misled. If they don't read the entire article, they may miss some facts yes -- but they cannot be misled about the facts they've already seen. For instance, you cannot write in the lede of a BLP that a person was accused of murder, then ten paragraphs deeper down, you explain the person who made the accusation later retracted it, admitting its false. Material that must be qualified has to be presented in sequence, not elsewhere in a footnote somewhere. Finally, your statement that McMahon is notable for her net worth is false. She's notable as the founder of a company, and for her Senate campaign -- which are both noted in her infobox. There are literally thousands of people in the world with net worths larger than her, none of which have a Wikipedia entry. Net worth is not in itself notable unless you're in the top thousand or so individuals. Fell Gleaming^talk 17:10, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I suppose I don't see why it's misleading. I don't think that a networth estimate is anywhere close to an accusation of murder. Deep Purple Dreams (talk) 17:18, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

From a quick search [8] (skip down past the results with Net Worth in the actual title), it does seem that many discussions about net worth have taken place; my assumption I think is rather justified. Additionally, from those discussions, it seems clear that the definition of net worth is quite nebulous and difficult to pin down, as we had also assumed. In this case, a footnote seems insufficient; by putting a figure up directly in the infobox we are, in some sense, attesting to its authenticity (or at least, its verifiability in an uncontroversial sense). Footnotes are for referencing and clarifying things that are not essential or directly relevant, not for explaining inaccuracies, imprecisions, and speculation. A footnote in an infobox seems appropriate in this sense only when it's referencing an item that is essential (e.g., a person's name, as happened at Genghis Khan), not for a contentious inclusion like this. The information will still be there, and it will be provided in an appropriate context wherein the problems with it can be fully laid out. siafu (talk) 18:40, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Deep Purple Dreams. The accusation that mentioning net worth is coatracking or carries some type of negativity is outright nonsense. There is a reason that the template for a person's infobox includes net worth, and with the constant mentions of McMahon's wealth and her campaign focus on the growth WWE during her career, the placement of her net worth is especially relevant to this page. This page has suffered greatly from closed-minded deletion, especially by those who didn't even gain any consensus when they decided to completely take out the info. --Screwball23 talk 20:27, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

The infobox is generalized for use with all biographical articles; the reason net worth is included is because there are some people who are notable primarily, or in some cases only, for their wealth. This does not seem to be the case here. Also, no one has argued that her net worth should not be included in the article, so the "constant mentions" argument does not seem to me to be very compelling either. Her notability is, and remains, a result of her affiliation with WWE and her political campaign. siafu (talk) 01:33, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

• EXCLUDE (provisionsal) - While inclusion may be seemingly benign on its face, there is evidence that both sides to this discussion have acknowledged the notion that inclusion may be perceived by some as pejorative. Unless demonstrated otherwise, Wikipedia precedent appears to argue for exclusion from the infobox. A compromise incorporation in the article itself seems equitable provided that there is sufficient RS to satisfy WP:V/WP:UNDUE that her wealth is notable and relevant. JakeInJoisey (talk) 14:02, 16 September 2010 (UTC)