Talk:Vince McMahon/Archive 5

Shouldnt the coma sketch be mentioned? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.222.227.22 (talk) 02:07, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

According to this court data, [6] (page 9), he is Vincent K. McMahon, Jr. but I do not know its credibility.--TÆRkast (Communicate) 21:59, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Anyone? --TÆRkast (Communicate) 22:15, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Is it of any real importance? Usually "jr." is a courtesy title and not part of a name. When the elder dies, the "jr." is dropped. Collect (talk) 22:47, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

It's not really important, but some people are born with the suffix in the end. I just wanted to know if the source was credible.--TÆRkast (Communicate) 22:53, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

And most are not. Again - of how great an importance is it at all? I think it likely he has used it as a courtesy title - but that means very little. Collect (talk) 22:58, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure a considerable amount of people have been born with suffixes, Barack Obama, for example, his birth certificate clearly shows the suffix "II". I doubt this court papers would give him the courtesy title Jr, seeing as how Vince Sr was dead some 10 years before the court case. But the underlying point I seem to be failing to get at is whether this source is reliable.--TÆRkast (Communicate) 11:12, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

In the end, it's not really of paramount importance, but I just really want to know the credibility of the source. Besides, I'm sure many of our articles whose birthname is listed with a suffix aren't wrong in doing so, but as you say, it's of no real significance. Just curious about the source, that's all.--TÆRkast (Communicate) 11:39, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

The source is a "primary source" which gives his name with and without "Jr." appended, and clearly is not an RS that the "Jr." is a name on his birth certificate, or anything more than a generational differention of no particular significance. If a legal document spelt your name as "Tearkast" en passant, that would have no meaning, would it? Collect (talk) 14:10, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

You're right, and it is of no real significance. Thanks for the reply, you've been really helpful. Cheers, --TÆRkast (Communicate) 14:42, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't create info on Wikipedia. I wouldn't know how to start. I am usually reading stories about successful Americans in an attempt to study their rise and learn from their mistakes. I was reading this page and believe in this day and age of financial ups and downs that it's important to keep things accurate.

Vince McMahon's net worth hasn't been updated in a long time. Forbes valued his net worth in Aug 2000 at $1.1B. By July of 2001 it had dropped down to $700M and hasn't returned since. Here is his drop-off page on Forbes: http://www.forbes.com/2001/06/22/billdropoffs_7.html.

He owns about 59% of the WWE Shares, but takes a lower dividend payment per share of 24 cents, whereas all other shareholders receive dividend payments of 36%, which shows he values his investors. That info is here: http://blogs.forbes.com/investor/2011/01/05/wwe-dividend-smackdown-mcmahon/

So if anyone knows how to update that would be great for Wiki users like me —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.1.25.165 (talk) 03:43, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Support I agree that the net worth should be updated, and I made an update using your link. However, I firmly support leaving the $1.1 billion dollar figure so that readers can understand the fact that he was at one time a billionaire, and this was substantiated by Forbes back in 2000. Any removal of the 2000 figure should be considered vandalism because without it, readers would be misled into thinking that he was never a billionaire.

Regarding the shares figures, to the best of my knowledge, his % of company shares is listed in the lead. I do not agree it should be placed there, as he has a long and distinguished history in professional wrestling which should take much more precedence over some current - and easily outdated - stock volume. In any case, it is there, and his personal dividend absolutely should be recognized.--Screwball23 talk 04:19, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Indicating a "negative asset value" seems iffy - as does asserting it is "current" when the source is from 2001. I am rather unsure that any figure is really relevant - he is not one of the wealthiest men in the US, and many with far greater changes in wealth do not have ups and downs listed in their BLPs. Collect (talk) 11:31, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

While obviously not true, there were a number of jokes and references to Vince McMahon wearing a toupee during the mid and late 90s. Does anyone have anyone information on why this was a running joke and where it originated? TheGary (talk) 09:44, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I think it's a little premature, and ridiculous, not to at least include the text "(kayfabe?)" next to the info about VKM being "relieved of his duties". I think it's a little too early to tell whether this is really legitimate or just a small part of a bigger storyline. Someone should correct this oversight, and NOW.216.157.195.66 (talk) 18:28, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Not including the word kayfabe has nothing to do with implying that it's real. The entry explains events as they happen on the the television shows which are already known to be kayfabe. If it happens on TV, it's part of the story, with the exception of a death or major injury. So there's no need to reiterate it every time. If McMahon was really relieved, the information would most likely be listed under his personal life or a separate section altogether. NJZombie (talk) 18:32, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

He's unlikely to be relieved anyway, as the real-life majority owner of the company, as it points out in this article. Otherwise there would've been SEC filings, corporate releases and all of that, which, again is unlikely to happen. This is just part of a storyline.--Tærkast (Discuss) 11:17, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

As the majority owner, I do agree that he probably is not relieved of his duties, but it should be made clear one way or another. I do believe that the children (which includes Triple H, his son-in-law) will eventually take over more operation of the business, but as long as he is alive Mr. McMahon will have some involvement. However, his real involvement should be mentioned along with his kayfabe duties. --Reverend Edward Brain, D.D. (talk) 21:36, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

McMahon's position as the current Chairman, CEO and Chairman of the Executive Committee of WWE is made clear in the article's introduction and it's a given that the events from the show are fictional. It's not the first time a story like this happened. For example, we don't explain that Ric Flair being a "co-owner" in 2001 was fictional. If we're going to note this even as kayfabe, we might as well start making that same note on each and every wrestling event that occurs. NJZombie (talk) 22:11, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

There are several mentions of Vince McMahon owning a Camaro, none of which cite a reference. I believe it is an attempt to portray that car as "redneck." Unless there is a cite, the references should be removed.

Adevine39 (talk) 17:12, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

 Done. I have no idea if this is true, but I've removed the mention per WP:BURDEN. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 04:35, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

No billed height/weight? Even though he's mostly a businessman rather than a professional wrestler, people like me (wrestling outsiders who're just passing through) and fans alike expect to see those stats on any pro wrestler's page.

98.217.75.153 (talk) 05:07, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

 Not done If you can provide that information and a source for it, someone can add it in. But otherwise the people who answer protected edit requests don't necessarily have any subject knowledge. Sorry that Wikipedia doesn't have the information needed to assist you. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:52, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

You could always, you know, not answer the request if you don't have any subject knowledge. Not to harass you or anything, but it just seems illogical to do anything different - I'm sure there's at least one editor with a 4+ day old account and knowledge of professional wrestling who can handle this article's edit requests.

I didn't provide figures because I don't know and I can't find an official source. I figured an editor watching this page would be more likely to know.

6'2", 248 pounds is a common figure, but none of the sites I've seen that give those numbers provide a source for them, e.g.

http://prowrestling.wikia.com/wiki/Vince_McMahon,_Jr.http://www.wrestlinginc.com/wi/profiles/50/vince-mcmahon/http://www.wrestlerbiographies.com/wwe-legends/history-and-biography-of-vince-mcmahon

Same problem with this site, which puts him at 6'2", 220 pounds:

http://www.onlineworldofwrestling.com/profiles/v/vince-mcmahon.html

And with this page, which puts him at 6'1", 242 pounds:

http://cagematch.net/?id=2&nr=784

98.217.75.153 (talk) 03:29, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Not done: As Tom Morris said, the edit request template is used for when you have a specific, sourced change you would like someone to make to the article for you - you're intended to have done the work of researching and sourcing, and provide that information and request a specific change so that someone with the correct permissions can then just add/change the article. The template is not intended to be used to attract subject matter experts, and won't do so because it doesn't work in a way that would alert such people. It looks like the sources are contradictory on the issue of his height and weight, so no one is going to be able to make a change to "add his height/weight" based on this request. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 18:35, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Look, this is just ridiculous pedantry. This is a pro wrestler's page and as such should include height and weight, simple. Billed heights and weights are often ludicrously false (why they're referred to as "billed" in the first place), so a ballpark figure is fine. I'm interested in adding information to wikipedia, not the formalisms of templates. I'd add 6'2", 248 pounds per the three sources I gave above and a variety of others if I had an account, but I don't have one. The sources I posted above are about as reliable as you're going to get given the topic at hand - I was just hoping that somebody could point to official WWE figures. We're not exactly counting valence electrons here - there is plenty of wiggle room. If you don't want to put a finger on a specific weight, a weight range will do just as well, at least until an editor can find an official WWE source. As for height, the only variation in the sources is between 6'1.6" and 6'2".

If I had acted sure of myself and only provided a single source instead of exploring the topic and providing 5, you'd have made the change. See the thinking trap there? 98.217.75.153 (talk) 02:29, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Luckily for us, you didn't. You're wrong in saying that a ballpark figure is okay--we include reliable information, and when we don't have it, we don't include anything. If we want, we can include multiple different answers with multiple sources...but is there really some benefit to that? Qwyrxian (talk) 06:50, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not "wrong." Verifiability, not truth. Published sources that are all reliable in so far as American professional wrestling is concerned all say either x or y, and mostly favor x over y (in this case, 6'2", 248 pounds). Therefore, "x[cite] or y[cite]," at least until something better comes along. Considering that half of this discussion is about a number that's different for every single human being depending on the hour of the day it's measured, this shouldn't even be an argument. Moreover, do you omit a birth or death date in a biography if there are conflicting historical accounts? It's a rhetorical question, clearly; "date x or date y" is the obvious solution that's used time and time again.

The point of page protection is to prevent vandalism, not to provide an excuse for registered users to act supercilious toward IPs about wiki policy or question the validity or usefulness of constructive contributions. The way you use "we" in contrast to "you" is telling, Qwyrxian. Regardless, the point is this: any wrestling fan looking up Vince McMahon is only looking for a rough idea of his physical size and nothing more. That rough idea can be conveyed with multiple figures from multiple reliable sources or, as I suggested, a range based on the same data. To answer your question, yes, there really is some benefit to that. You may be an "immediatist," but I am not. Linda McMahon's page gives her net worth in 2010 as $156-400 million, based on a single source. Is that useful or accurate in any particular sense? And it's not apples and oranges: there's no meaningful difference in deriving a range from multiple secondary sources. It's only 'synthesis' or OR if you normally speak entirely in tautology, or can only quote sentences spoken previously by somebody else. I really don't see the problem here. 98.217.75.153 (talk) 08:08, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

 Done. I've added the 6'2", 248 lb statistics cited on http://www.wrestlinginc.com/wi/profiles/50/vince-mcmahon/ Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 18:05, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I see nothing of the WBF in here... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.235.45.16 (talk) 23:27, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

"Actor" should be removed from the opening paragraph has Vince McMahon has no acting credits to his name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.207.207 (talk) 17:17, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

"Mr. McMahon" is a fictional character who has featured prominently for 15 years on the longest-running and most-watched cable television program in world history. The role is played by Vince McMahon. What more does he have to do? Voice the character of "Dirk McMahon" in three episodes of Stripperella? InedibleHulk (talk) 20:35, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Please change CEO (1980-1993,2009-present) to CEO (1980-1993,2009-2011) because Vince was relieved of his duties as CEO in 2011 by the current CEO,Triple H (HHH;Hunter Hearst Helmsley;Paul Michael Levesque)He has made only one appearance on a WWE event since,and that was to tell Paul that he was relieved of his duties as WWE RAW general manager (current GM,John Laurinitis.)--Mchammerphd123 (talk) 18:46, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

That infobox is refering to the actual legal CEO of the real world company. Note the corporate website [7]. Storyline changes in CEO do not reflect the real life control of the actual company.--Cube lurker (talk) 18:56, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

I think we should split the "Professional wrestling" section into its own article, titled Mr. McMahon, having the kayfabe character in that article and Vince's real-life persona in the regular article, due to length. There is precedence to this, as Stephen Colbert the real-life person and the character he plays of the same name on The Colbert Report have separate articles. Thoughts? Jgera5 (talk) 04:26, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Several times, his last name, McMahon, is misspelled as "McMannhon". Please fix it. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bob07731 (talk • contribs) 01:11, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Fixed.--Licourtrix (talk) 03:39, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Why has Vince got two pages? Is it because it would be too long if it was just one?--Mjs1991 (talk) 14:21, 9 June 2012 (UTC

I divided them up due to length, yes. The "Professional wrestling" section alone was over half the article. I split the kayfabe interpretation of Vince McMahon into the new Mr. McMahon article while keeping the real-life aspects of McMahon in this article. There is precedence to this on Wikipedia, as Stephen Colbert the real person is a separate article from the character he plays on The Colbert Report for similar reasons. Jgera5 (talk) 23:02, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

It makes no sense though. What next, seperate articles for Triple H? John Cena? The Rock? Vince McMahon is no different. I think they should be merged back and have suggested as such. TJ Spyke 20:35, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Not only should the other page be moved back, but if the only reason it was moved was because it's too long, it should be shortened. I know people like to throw every detail they can find onto wikipedia pages, but that's not what wiki's for. Bare bones details like "For the better part of the year he maintained his heel management charcter feuding with" and a list of who he feuded with is more than enough when compared to the page plus long details offered for single episode appearances. Smokachu 10:36, 3 September 2012

Merge Completely agree with the comment above. Kjscotte34 (talk) 18:36, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree to merge it back.WWEJobber (talk) 02:28, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Merge it back. I agree too.Nomelck (talk) 03:32, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Emphatically Merge it Back Vjmlhds 18:25, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Oppose I oppose for now. Right now, it's too long. Corn cheese (talk) 01:28, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

• Merge after cutting about 60%. If a reader isn't interested in the Wrasslin' section, they can easily skip it. But readers wanting to know about it shouldn't have to wade through everything he's ever done on TV. Just the highlights, and feud overviews. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:57, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Strongly Oppose Quite frankly, I think this whole poll sparks up a much bigger concern here at Wikipedia and that is the glaring eccentricity with professional wrestler based articles ON A WHOLE: When the real name of a professional wrestler is looked up, one should NOT be immersed with an article, chocked full of information based only upon the fictitious, storylined wrestling character and/or career of a wrestler. The individual's wrestling career and character is but one mere aspect of them and should not cover 95% of the article, but this is the format used on just about all Wikipedia articles based upon professional wrestlers. It follows the exact same logic as not having the Jaleel White article focus predominately on his Steve Urkel character; rather, there is a separate article for Steve Urkel. Steve Urkel was Jaleel White's on-screen character, but that wasn't Jaleel White, the man behind the character. In most articles based upon people, we learn about their: childhood years, early years, how the star started out in the industry, personal trials and tribulations, etc., but we simply aren't learning any of these in articles based upon professional wrestlers because they're dedicated to facts and figures relating to their professional wrestling careers or characters. It makes no sense to me as to why these professional wrestlers don't have separate articles as between their major wrestling gimmicks and their real lives. And I think the suggestion to merge and truncate the information relating to their gimmicks is futile because if a gimmick or professional wrestling career is a major success, it deserves the proper attention with its own article(Example Steve Urkel). It's just shocking that if people want to know about Mark Calaway on Wikipedia, they're inundated with facts about The Undertaker gimmick. You're certainly can't get much about Mark Calaway the person from this article: The Undertaker. 173.0.254.226 (talk) 02:43, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

You're forgetting one huge detail. This isn't a sitcom. It's not a drama, a comedy, or even an action program even if the writers try taking it in that direction. We're talking about professional wresting. In professional wrestling, people ARE their characters, wether they want to be or not. You can't get much about Mark Calaway from his wiki article beyond his wrestling career because for the better part of the last 20 years his wrestling career defined his life. When he was active he was on tour 300 days a year. In his private life he might have been Mark Calaway, but as mark Calaway he did nothing notable to warrant a wiki entry. If you want to learn more about the man, write a documentary. Buy his book (I think he has one). Talk to Ken Burns about making a PBS film. Do independent research. That is all your prerogative, and it goes well beyond wiki's intentions.Wiki's intentions are to take notable people, places, concepts, ideas, etc. and give a bare bones description of why they are notable. Even personal details, like a person's private family, isn't exactly part of wiki's intent despite the general acceptance. In thinking about how to design a wiki page for a pro wrestler, one would do best to think about other forms of pro athletes. Their careers are their lives as well, but it doesn't define who they are as a human being. No wiki page will define who any person is as a human being. But what it will do is give you an overview of what his career was about, why he's notable within his job field, how that's impacted the world on the whole, and notable accomplishments outside of his job. Then perhaps a paragraph or 2 featuring the names of his or her spouse and/or kids. That's it. That's what's notable. And that's all.Finally, to end this once and for all... name one single thing Vince McMahon has done to make himself notable in ANY way that did not DIRECTLY involve the WWE. Merge. Smokachu 8:36, 9 October 2012

I'm not forgetting anything. What difference does it make if it's not specifically a "comedy, action drama, or sitcom"? At the end of the day, these "gimmicks" and the on-screen events they get into, whether it be in a sitcom setting or WWE ring, are just one mere aspect of that person's life and scripted aspects at that; thusly, these "gimmicks" should be treated as such: GIMMICKS; not, treated as synonymous with the real-life person playing the character, by focusing the article 95% on the character. Also, you stated that these WWE athletes do nothing else noteworthy outside of their major professional wrestling characters. All right, fine, well if that's the case (which I highly disagree with), then the real-life articles would simply be shorter, as exampled here: Josh Saviano. But you just don't say, "Look, all Josh Saviano has done that's noteworthy is his Paul Pfeiffer character, so we're going to focus his Josh Saviano article completely on his character from beginning to end and his very first appearance as Paul Pfeiffer to his very last appearance as Paul Pfeiffer". That's ABSURD and because it's absurd, we don't follow that format here on Wikipedia or in any other spectrum. Well... except wrestling. The wrestling section is the odd men out, following this absurd format. And btw, despite the fact it's irrelevant to your argument, I think it's patently false to imply that most wrestlers have done nothing else noteworthy beyond their major wrestling gimmicks. Vince McMahon being able to have a complete separate article is a prime example of that. And Mark Calaway has done movies, TV shows, been involved in controversies, competed in other wrestling leagues, etc. The extensive match-by-match information of his Undertaker career should be covered in a separate article dedicated to The Undertaker gimmick, period 173.0.254.226 (talk) 04:07, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

You didn't even address what I claimed you were forgetting. I will state it in more simple terms. These are not actors. They are athletes. Your comparison would be valid if these people played several notable roles in several shows. They don't. But even as such when an actor is notable within a show, a dissertation of everything they did on the show is overkill, and not wikipedia's intention. Your comparison would be more apt if you had compared a wrestler to an athlete. We'll take Jeff Kent for example. He's notable, he's had a wonderful career. By your suggestion, using the WWE page as the model, the page would need work if it didn't have the stats for every game he played in, he should have separate pages for every team he played for, and maybe even a separate page for the TV star he's attempting to become. Smokachu 7:29, 15 October 2012

• Merge back - reduce if needed but no need for two seperate articles. Arguments that "he's an actor" does not fly, since - he's a wrestler, what they are doing is different enough to for it to have it's own standards. The split is against that standard.  MPJ -US  02:30, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

For interested parties, this editing dispute and it's cause is a small example of a much bigger issue that's currently being debated here at Wikipedia. That issue is: should "biography of living person" articles, which is what this article is listed under, focus on the living person or the living person's fictional character? To me, the logical subject of a "biography of a living person" article is none other than the living person themselves. It's not called a "biography of living person's fictional character" article. And what with all the information that's typically highlighted on wrestling gimmicks to the point its outweighing everything else by leaps and bounds, separation is only necessary. For these reasons, I have called forth an immediate review of the Wikipedia wrestling section as it's the only section on Wikipedia using the quirky subject choice for "biographies of living people" articles. Please provide your input here where the discussion is ongoing. Thank you! 173.0.254.226 (talk) 13:44, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

I do not see a "Bigger Issue" than what is here, 2 people oppose the merge, one due to size - the other is you. At the project page there is one person advocating the whole "they're actors" thing - again it's you. Does not seem like a big issue to me, more like a personal taste issue from one person.  MPJ -US  00:14, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Actually three people oppose on this talkpage, but let's try not resort to the "he agreed with me so that makes me right" and "only this number agree with you so that makes you wrong" logic to support our positions. Let's also not turn this into a debate of "big issue" versus "not big issue". It's all a bunch of squabbling, bickering tactics that throw off the debate focus. Let's keep the focus strictly on topic. Topic of debate is as follows: Is the logical main subject of a "biography of a living person" article, which is what this article is listed under, A.) the living person, or B.) the living person's fictional character they play/have played, with this information presented in the form of timeline of when it appears/has appeared? Again, to me, obviously the living person.173.0.254.226 (talk) 03:10, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

The article is about the real person, the Professional Wrestling Career section of the article is about their character (except when explicitly stated to be legit). Pretty simple. I think it's fair to assume the average reader knows pro wrestling is an act, and wouldn't believe McMahon actually arranged his daughter's kidnapping or wrestled God in a tag match. Sure, there will always be some imbeciles, but Wikipedia can't pander to them. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:48, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

But we have one "imbecile" right down below, who doesn't realize it's an act though. He says it's not an act. It's the whole theme of his arguments as a matter of fact. I do understand what you're getting at, that the fictitious character is about the living person, which is true; however, it's not the living person as a whole, it's just one feature of the living person. I feel when one mere feature of a living person can be elaborated on in such great detail that the focus is no longer the living person as a whole, it's deserving of it's own article. Usually, if we have a great deal to add on a subtopic of a major topic, a separate article that highlights that subtopic is linked to the major topic.173.0.254.226 (talk) 04:28, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Well 1 opposed due to lenth - but I stand corrected, the guy that originally split it opposed the re-merger, the other guy opposed due to size. Excuse me if I do not count a guy that did not state anything in anyway related to your arguments. And I am sorry that I so totally underplayed the number of people agreeing with you by 100%. You say Living person as if that validates your "They're actors" argument. What we describe is that person's JOB and what they do "on the job", and that job is described by the standards determined for all people with that job, since that job is in clear view of a ton of people we get plenty of reliable sources. No bickering from me, no tactics - Just stating the fact: these articles are formatted based on the general format for people who have the same job. Let's make articles better, not just move information from one place to the other, that does not make it better, just "different" - I want to work on "better" not "different". And InedibleHulk hit it on the head, the articles are about the "real" person, the "professional wrestling career" section is about their job.  MPJ -US  04:04, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Really MPJ, enough with the "professional wrestling is not an act" nonsense. I don't know how old you are, but if nobody ever told you that what goes on in professional wrestling is not legit then you're on your own with that one bud. I have no time to try to convince someone that there's really no such thing as a supernatural, morbid character that takes issue with wayward souls. And InedibleHulk has just acknowledged this as well, so you can stand corrected yet again. 173.0.254.226 (talk) 04:38, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Don't use my name like that, or delete my comments. For a guy calling people imbeciles and all this other petty shit, you're hardly in a position to play the civility card on this softball. If I was trying to insult you, you'd know it. Anyway, I'm not calling MPJ an imbecile or agreeing with you in any way. Don't pretend I am. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:26, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Well there you go again - I never said it was not an act, I said it was their job, not a competition, not a sport, nothing like that - a job and that is what we describe in the articles - the living person and that person's job. We describe in the format appropriate for that specific job just like we would for a scientist or a professional football player (who's job it is to play football) etc. So thank you for the condensending tone you took, really helped make your point didn't it?  MPJ -US  04:46, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

MPJ, you deny that you said wrestling is not an act, but unfortunately it sits right here on the internet for all to see, where you've used it as your supporting argument multiple times before hinting at the same argument above as well. On the page in question, you've said "the biography of living person" article should focus on the fictional character on basis that it's not 100% an act, not 100% "fictional" which is one of the words you used. I say to you if you're hell-bent on believing that supernatural, morbid character is wholly or even partly legitimate, you're on your own with that. I will unfortunately be disregarding all your further comments on the issue though as your logic is rather naive, you're denying your comments, and then flipflop arguments where it's convenient to you. 173.0.254.226 (talk) 05:18, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

So I am an imbicil? Can I ask you if a fictional act ever broke your back? tore your ear off? blew out your knee? they put on characters, they try not to hurt each other, but they are physically in there throwing each other around - that is why it's not 100% fictional, it's not CGI or a cartoon. So name calling, belitteling on your part? I believe that indicates that the actual discussion is over, your arguments are irrelevant now.  MPJ -US  10:56, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

It's spelled "imbecile", not "imbicil"; "belittling", not "belittleling" lol.173.0.254.226 (talk) 17:13, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

OOOH you got me good there, pointing out spelling mistakes is a sure fire argument winner. Thank you for demonstrating that the conversation has run it's course, I am off to add or create instead of rearrange.  MPJ -US  22:41, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to drag this back to the issue at hand for a moment. Real or no. Doesn't matter. the term "Kayfabe" makes the reality of it moot. Wrestling presents itself as being real. It presents it's characters as real people competing in real matches. Whether or not those matches are scripted is irrelevant. In terms of comparison, look at the Harlem Globetrotters. All notable in their own right, many notable as athletes either before or after being a Globetrotter. So should their globetrotter character have a separate page? While you muse that one I'll ask has anyone actually LOOKED at both the Vince McMahon and the Mr. McMahon pages? Everything in the Mr. McMahon page is still in the Vince McMahon page anyway. Redundant. Forget merge. Just delete Mr. McMahon's page. Smokachu 7:34, 15 October 2012

It would make more sense to have this info in the existing Professional Wrestling section, rather than tacked onto the bottom. This is standard for all wrestler articles. My cut/paste functionality is severely limited on my PS3, so can someone else fix this? InedibleHulk (talk) 12:52, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Fixed, BROTHER. Anyway, I support Smokachu. Mr McMahon's article is redudant, everything is mentioned in the Vince page. --> Delete Mr. McMahon! Starship.paint (talk) 09:44, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Oppose merge I split them up for a reason, and I did leave reasonable time on discussing on splitting the articles up beforehand. Like I said, Wikipedia needs to be more consistent. Jgera5 (talk) 05:59, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

This is the only pro wrestling personality with two articles. If you're looking for consistency, you're going the wrong way. Four days isn't a reasonable time for discussion, especially if nobody notices you've proposed something. In the future, please use a formal proposal/Request for Comment or announce your intentions at the Pro Wrestling Wikiproject. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:27, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Judging from the way he was stretchered out of the arena after Raw last night, I think it's clear that this is a storyline injury. If anyone is suspected of having a broken pelvis in real life, the first thing the paramedics do is to immobilise the persons back completely. All they did when taking him out of the arena was tie him down with 2 EXTREMELY loose straps, and he was moving and writhing the entire time. Any objections to stating it's a storyline injury in the article? douts (talk) 21:54, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

No, the fact that it happened during an angle with the "loose cannon" who previously "broke Triple H's arm" says it all. We should probably find a more independent source for the claim than the website pushing the angle, though. Could confuse somebody. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:53, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Then again, we usually only specify when an injury is legit, not the other way around. The wrestling section should be assumed to be in-universe, by default. Virtually all of the stuff in it didn't happen to the person, only the character. Vince McMahon, the character, does indeed have a broken pelvis, just like he "held his own in a brawl against Punk" or "fired Laurinaitis". You know? InedibleHulk (talk) 22:58, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Good points, I'll leave it as it is then. douts (talk) 01:09, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

From what I'm seeing online, he's actually going to have hip surgery, and the Lesnar attack was done to write an injury angle for him. Apparently, he's had hip problems for a little while now, and this is the explanation, similar to CM Punk's knee surgery after Ryback attacked him. I'm not changing anything on here, but we should keep an eye on the news. Kjscotte34 (talk) 19:45, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

It's kayfabe. It's to set up bringing Triple H back to the table to demand his payback. They have done the stretcher thing many times, This is another case of injury angle to write Vince out of the TV character so he can have surgery on his hip, That he has been meaning to schedule for a number of years. WWE.com report it as a true injury, generate hype, Triple H comes back in a week or so demanding to face Lesnar again and bingo match II on. People take this business far too seriously. 87.115.91.110 (talk) 10:20, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

I was sure myself it was kafaybe, just wasn't sure whether it should be mentioned as such in the article thats all. douts (talk) 15:12, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

"McMahon first met the promoter for Capitol Wrestling Corporation, his father Vincent J. McMahon, at the age of 12"

   He met is father when he was 12?????  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.239.250.100 (talk) 08:45, 12 November 2013 (UTC) 

He met his father when Vince Jr. was 12. He's a McMahon, not a McFly. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:58, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I may have just overlooked this in the article, but why isn't there a injuries section? Vince has been injured a few times on the show and not in kayfabe. In a 2009 airing of Raw, Randy Orton kicked Vince in the head, and although it was a planned thing to ignite the feud between The Legacy and McMahon/Triple H, Randy came out in an interview and said Vince got a concussion and a black eye from the attack. I can give a link to a video that supports this if needed. --Matt723star (talk) 18:07, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

A section for injuries isn't typically (or at all) used in other wrestler articles. Injuries are just noted in the body, as they happen chronologically. But yes, this article is missing even those. There's also the famous ring entrance where he screwed both his legs. Any injury you'd like to add with a reliable, copyright-legal and clear source would be good. Which video are you considering? InedibleHulk (talk) 01:20, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

I can't remember the title off the top of my head but it's an interview Randy Orton gave on radio I believe, and he mentions he, quote, "kicked the shit out of Vince's head", and left him with a bruised eye and a concussion. I'll look for it and send it here. I got it! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uVJq21gYlho it's at the 25:30 mark. --Matt723star (talk) 16:36, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

That works, if you'd still like to add it. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:03, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

that section is totally missing the WBF (Word Bodybuilding Federation), which has its own wiki article. McMahon founded it and promoted several professional bodybuilding contests (featuring well established and internationally well know professional bodybuilders) over the course of 2 years that the WBF was active. that along with the nutrition-line called "ICOPRO" that was also founded by McMahon, under which nutriotional supplements were marketed should definitely be added to the business ventures of Mr. McMahon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.181.132.23 (talk) 08:03, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vince_McMahon,_Sr. This article mentions that Vince Sr had an earlier son called Roderick II but it's not mentioned in the Vince K McMahon article nor in the McMahon family article. Perhaps it should be added? 2.99.44.196 (talk) 09:14, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, makes sense. Doesn't seem like they were ever "really" brothers, just biologically. But worth noting. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:07, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

McMahon's name should not be listed as "Vincent Kennedy ('Vince') McMahon, Jr." Since, as noted in the disambiguation link above, his father was Vincent J. McMahon and he is Vincent K. McMahon, he is not a "Jr." (Even though business colleagues may have referred to him that way at various times.)

Random (talk) 06:43, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Vince K. McMahon is the son of Vincent J. McMahon, so this means he is the Jr. Your friend, Billy (talk) 19:04, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

I have copied the below edit request from Talk:Vince MacMahon. I am assuming good faith on the part of the nominator and at this time have no comment on the merit of the request. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 23:54, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Please change net worth from the current $1.4B to $750M.

Source: ^[1]

Alternate Source

PS: I'm new to editing articles, so please help me out and let me know if I made a mistake or to in the process. Thank you.

Sguzinski (talk) 21:45, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Done Mz7 (talk) 00:18, 17 May 2014 (UTC)