Talk:Linda McMahon/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Mogul

I find no other articles calling a businesswoman on WP a "mogul." At all. Seems "businesswoman" is a proper term, absent cites which deem her a "mogul." And such a claim would have to be well sourced per WP:BLP, and be in the body of the article as well. Collect (talk) 15:05, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I see no problem with calling her a businesswoman but, for the record, she has been called a "mogul", usually "wrestling mogul" in much news coverage. This google search [1] turns up five pages of mogul references with some false positives where the "mogul" is referring to someone else like Donald Trump or Ted Turner. It's not strictly partisan, as even Forbes called her a mogul in at least one piece. For some journalists, it seems to go with the colorful wrestling background. This NYT piece is typical: A Senate Candidate Accustomed to Being Thrown in the Ring. Abby Kelleyite (talk) 19:21, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

The object is to meet WP:BLP and the general term used is "businesswoman." I found a source which calls here a "b." but I suggest the fact that a source can be found for a poor word choice is insufficient for using the poor word choice in the lede without cite. Collect (talk) 21:55, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

"Mogul" does not contradict "businesswoman"; the word does have meaning, and seems to apply, and can be no less sourced than "businesswoman. And it is used to describe her by sources with as diverse points of view as the Washington Times and the New York Times. We do not need to use the very word in the body text, as the word provides a summary of what is discussed in the article. --Nat Gertler (talk) 23:17, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Whilst I consider the term to be a "claim" per WP:BLP. As it is not cited, nor uesed in the body of the article, the neutral term is preferred. Unless you prefer "b." as the term -[ as I also found it? The fact you can find someone calling her a term does not mean it is the term to be used in a BLP. Clear? Collect (talk) 23:19, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Consult a dictionary and look up mogul. There is nothing controversial about the term. Your whitewashing attempts can be applied elsewhere. --Screwball23 talk 00:00, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Screwball, you contradict yourself with every post. If there's nothing controversial about the term, then how can removing it be considered "whitewashing"? WP requires us to use neutral language, not loaded terms. To the rest of you, I remind you that writing an encyclopedia entry requires a considerably more detached and unemotional tone than your average magazine article. Many people have been described by many terms not suitable for use on Wikipedia.Fell Gleaming^talk 00:08, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

If you are avoiding loaded terms, why are you campaigning for "businesswoman", which treats gender as part of her career, rather than the gender-neutral "mogul"? (And yes, "whitewashing" can take place against neutral terms, when someone is against an accurate description.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 02:02, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

(a) I'm not campaigning for businesswoman. The fact remains that "mogul" carries connotational baggage. (b) I suggest you lookup the term "whitewash". Fell Gleaming^talk 03:03, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Seriously, look up mogul in the dictionary. I don't get your "connotational baggage" issue because there just isn't one.--Screwball23 talk 05:02, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

If you truly believe "mogul" is neutral and equivalent to many other synonyms ... why not use one of them instead? Your insistence on this loaded term contradicts your argument. Further, the "gender neutral" argument is specious, as a gender specific term is always appropriate when used against a subject whose gender is known. It's incorrect only when the gender is unknown, ambiguous, or may vary in the future. Do you believe McMahon is planning a sex change operation? Fell Gleaming^talk 15:10, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

(out) changed to bluelink "business magnate". Collect (talk) 10:57, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Business magnate is fine too. I have an issue with corporate executive because she really was an integral part of the company from the beginning, and arguably was a co-founder of WWE. "Corporate executive" is restricting her strictly to executive duties, which is not true. She really was in management, product licensing, public relations, and even some on-screen roles.--Screwball23 talk 17:08, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Clear Censorship by User:Collect

I recently found a huge censorship job done by User:Collect, who deleted any mention of former wrestler Billy Graham and the fact that McMahon had been criticized for donating to Rahm Emanuel and Democratic candidates in the past.

Collect has edited this article dubiously as well as the Linda McMahon U.S. Senate campaign, 2010, and should be investigated for whitewashing.--Screwball23 talk 20:47, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Count the edits. Eight hundred and ten edits by you. Twelve edits by me. A ratio of about sixty-seven to one. You seem to have made about half of ALL edits on this page. I do not feel that the "wealth" snippet merits inclusion in the infobox - as NO OTHER political article does so. Even for John Kerry, who is far wealthier! You, however, call me "delusional" and I assert aht such is directly contrary to AP:NPA and ask you to redact any such claims as quickly as possible. I suggest that you also reread WP:AGF as well. BTW, I did not remove mention of her contributions if I recall correctly, and such a claim is aberrant here. Further, the use of "tip off memo" I consider POV, and naming a section "Memo to Pat Patterson" is NPOV. No "whitewash" involved at all. Now since you have a 67:1 ratio of edits, I leave it to any outside party to determine who is obsessed here <g>. Collect (talk) 00:46, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Is there a point here? Yes, I have contributed to this page. And yes, in your edit arguments, you have been delusional and especially abrasive. You stated that there was "no support" for inclusion of net worth in the infobox, completely disregarding all opposing arguments, with whom you argued incoherently and simply decided to delete, delete, delete. Read the infobox template. It does not state anywhere that the person must be a billionaire or that political articles are exempt. It states that the subject of net worth be relevant to discussion of the individual, which it most certainly is, given the fact that her personal finances have been an issue in the campaign, and there is a significant amount of attention to the finances of this race and McMahon given the fact that it is now historically the 4th most expensive congressional race in history. Now, you seem to tell me that the infobox should not include net worth because you do not "feel" like it? And you have the nerve to say there are "NO OTHER" political articles with such conviction, when I already can tell you Michael Bloomberg has it? Or the section which has been referenced as "the tip-off memo", is suddenly a POV issue because you "consider it POV".

This is not about your feelings, so quit the nonsense arguments. And now, in your desperation, you want to attack me because of the # of edits I have made? Get it together man.--Screwball23 talk 01:54, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Kindly read Michael Bloomberg and stop the claim that his worth is in his infobox! And drop the personal attacks once and for all. Thanks. Collect (talk) 12:34, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Jeez, take a chill pill buddy. Maybe you should take some time to collect yourself. Either way, there are articles with net worth, and no one is losing their mind over it like you have. Check Carl Paladino if it'll make you happy. I don't see why you have such a vested stake in this, because the idea that net worth doesn't extend to politicians really is nonsense.--Screwball23 talk 17:12, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Chill pill? I do not recall that it is I who made claims which were not valid about wealth being in infoboxes <g>. I have absolutely no 'vested stake" in this at all. And it is up to you to show that net worth is routinely found in political BLP infoboexs. So far you have not done so. Thank you most kindly. Collect (talk) 18:07, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Why is this here? It is clearly PA and expressly verboten on article talk pages. JakeInJoisey (talk) 01:45, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

The editor who has nearly a thousand edits here seems to think NPA does not apply to him. Sigh. Collect (talk) 12:32, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

What are you talking about? I have to stand up for the people on this talk page who you badmouthed, arguing endlessly that net worth is not good for inclusion; later you had the audacity to claim that there was "no support" for its inclusion. I'm sorry, that's not right. And in my mind, if someone can argue with multiple people and later deny that they even existed, that is delusional.--Screwball23 talk 17:12, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Um -- kindly show me where I have called anyone an epithet. Net worth can be in an article, if properly sourced. So far, you have shown no likelihood that political articles have it in infoboxes. You have even asserted names where you say the wealth is in the infoboxes - but it is not there. As for "delusional" - next usage goes to WQA for sure. I would prefer you simply redact such. Collect (talk) 18:07, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Amazingly enough - Paladino had his net worth inserted a grand total of a day ago. Not relevant there either. Collect (talk) 18:11, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Ok, so according to you, net worth has to be in an article for over a year in order for it to be a valid example? Man, you have been making up standards as you go along. There are many reasons why McMahon's net worth are relevant, but you haven't been listening. I'm sorry, but this latest excuse you put forth just doesn't carry water. Your arguments have more logical plotholes than a low-budget B movie.--Screwball23 talk 18:23, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Check it out...now, Collect is taking this out on the Carl Paladino article--Screwball23 talk 18:26, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Eh? Just being consistent - as I would in any political BLP of anyone. A one day insertion in an infobox is scarcely compelling evidence for your claim that political infoboxes generally contain net worth! <g> Collect (talk) 18:31, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

You made up a convention, that politicans' BLP should not have net worth listed (which you never explained, but insisted endlessly was the policy despite a complete absence of any stated policy). Now, when I provide any counterexample to you, you are going to take it upon yourself to deny it is relevant (which again is completely your opinion, and without any consensus), you refused to acknowledge it (because it was only on for a short time, which again, is your opinion), and then you decided to delete the net worth there, for no other reason than to spite me and to try to prove yourself right. All you are doing is making up a policy and hunting for ways to prove yourself right. That is absolutely bogus. That is abusive editing.--Screwball23 talk 18:41, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Show me politician BLPs using the broad array of material in [Template:Infobox person]] . In fact, the net worth line includes specifically if relevant. Also includes dozens of other potential factoids -- but "net worth" is not in the normal candidate infobox at all. Template:Infobox_candidate does not include "net worth". Collect (talk) 19:22, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Net Worth

I still haven't heard one cogent argument for including McMahon's estimated net worth in her infobox. If she were notable for her wealth, it would be a different matter. Adding this appears to be coatracking, in the vain hopes it will make her somehow appear unsavory to certain readers. Fell Gleaming^talk 02:48, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

You are assuming bad faith and are making accusations that are completely unreasoned. I have yet to see you make any coherent argument as to why her net worth is not relevant or should not be on the page. As for your belief that including her net worth will somehow make people see her negatively, I find that to be unfounded and unreasonable. No one with any common sense would delete Steve Forbes/Bloomberg/Ross Perot's, etc. etc. etc. net worth from their page because it might not make them look good. It's an encyclopedia, and people have a right to read objective information. Your opinions and speculation about what people should and should not know about McMahon is censorship, and censorship is not allowed here.--Screwball23 talk 00:44, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Oops, you have policy in reverse. An argument is required for why a fact is notable, not why it is not. You cannot prove a negative. In addition to overriding consensus, you have continually failed to state any reason why you believe her net worth (one site's estimate of her and her husband's net worth, actually) is in any way relevant enough to put within an infobox. Fell Gleaming^talk 10:21, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Actual cite gives her worth as being over $36 million, as far as I can tell. If we use it, it should be in the body only and we should use the lowest figure from the cite. Collect (talk) 10:31, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Another cite lists it as "over $50M". The one Screwball is using is a range, and much higher. I have no problem with listing the higher range in the body of the article, where it can be explained it is an estimate -- and an estimate of her joint worth with her husband, not her personal worth. It's simply not notable enough by far for an infobox entry. Fell Gleaming^talk 11:00, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

First, her net worth is of interest is because she's self-financing her campaign. According to the latest Open Secrets data:

PAC contributions.........................$0 (0%)
Individual contributions...........$26,282 (0%)
Candidate self-financing...$22,082,070 (100%)
Other....................................$2,399 (0%)
That's notable. (John Kerry's 'wealth' was irrelevant because it was actually his wife's and she did not choose to finance his campaign.) I would say 'net worth' belongs in the Meg Whitman article for the same reason. Second, and more importantly for Wikipedia, this is not just a 'politician' article, it's about her whole life. That certainly includes her business success, and net worth reflects that. She is notable for many reasons, and it's disingenous to pretend her business career is suddenly irrelevant to her notability. If true, that would mean deleting this article and redirecting it to the campaign article. btw - I would suggest including a range of estimated net worths. Obviously her campaign spending has affected the total, so that should be adjusted for, depending on the 'time of estimate'. Flatterworld (talk) 13:54, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you!! Flatterworld, I have to absolutely thank you! FellGleming and Collect have no rebuttal for this, and I thank you for exposing their nonsense. I don't understand what their problem is or [why they want to block all of wikipedia], but they certainly have no merit on this page. I also do not see why FellGleming believes the net worth must be a solid figure rather than a range. There is no policy that states that, and that seems to be another attempt to make up policy that does not exist on wikipedia. --Screwball23 talk 16:02, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

3RR

Screwball, you've violated 3RR multiple times and received notices from about 5 different people on this article in just the last couple weeks alone. Please self-reverse your last revert and try to reach consensus on these contentious issues before reverting. Fell Gleaming^talk 03:38, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I have yet to see you even ATTEMPT to initiate consensus on the issue of net worth, the titling of the Ring Boy Affair, or the Tipoff memo. All you have done is mis-used policies and scare tactics.--Screwball23 talk 00:46, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Try WP:AGF. Collect (talk) 01:39, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Consensus exists, Screwball. Count the number of editors who have disagreed with you on this. I see five. Further, unlike you, we're even suggesting a compromise approach -- list the information in the article body, where it can be properly qualified. You, however, refuse compromise, override consensus, and violate 3RR to continually reinsert. Very, very poor editing practice. Fell Gleaming^talk 11:02, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Nonsense. I have never seen you compromise on anything. Everything you've done has been delete, revert, delete. If you really were interested in compromise, you would practice what you preach and actually put info on the page. You obviously would never put her net worth on the page because you want to whitewash the page as much as possible. And as far as assuming good faith, you two are both the worst violators of that guideline that I have ever seen!!! Every single piece of info that you want to whitewash, you have deleted entirely so no one could read it. And then you had to accuse me of coatracking or violating POV without any rationale!!! You have absolutely refused to discuss any important issue - the tip-off memo, the 2007 federal investigation, the ring boy affair, all of your petty bad faith editing has led to this page being blocked. And as someone who did hard research to bring this page up to par, you've royally offended me. No one had any major problems with this page for months before you guys decided to bring along your path of destruction.--Screwball23 talk 15:19, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

"I have never seen you compromise on anything. ". My compromise position on the net worth issue was to include the material in full in the article itself. That's more than a fair compromise, given you've failed entirely to show why its anywhere nearly notable enough for an infobox, and the utter lack of any other politicians who have same information in their own infoboxes. Fell Gleaming^talk 15:28, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Screwball, it wasn't just Collect and FG who were responsible for my choice to request full protection for this article or for the admin's choice to do so. I understand that you may have felt tag-teamed here, and I don't disagree with much of what you say, above, but you were edit-warring as well. If the admin had looked into it more closely, there would have been more than a couple blocks handed out, and I doubt you'd have escaped unscathed yourself. I suggested at one point that Collect and FG should just leave this article alone until after the election, at least, and they've disregarded the suggestion. I think all three of you should leave it alone, actually; you're all far too hot-and-bothered over it, imo, to discuss it productively.  – OhioStandard (talk) 15:59, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

more than 2 dozen

Iterations of "wrestling" are in the article. I suggest that may, in fact, be sufficient for readers to connect McMahon with "wrestling." Collect (talk) 23:27, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

RSN

Got a pretty definite "no way" when a query was posted about using "Counterfeit Hero" and "kayecorbett.com" as reliable sources. The source is not WP:RS, and the claim is not even directly supported by the source, and the claim also runs afoul of WP:BLP to boot. Collect (talk) 20:32, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

What are you talking about? First of all, you obviously did not read the material, because it is in there. Second, there is no discussion here, so I don't see why you are making up consensus again.--Screwball23 talk 23:34, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Look again Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#www.kayecorbett.com.2FCounterfeit.2520Hero.html Nil Einne (talk) 07:00, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm sooo glad she lost the election. All those millions of dollars of her own money she spent on the election she could have spent it for health insurance for the wrestlers. They really screw the wrestlers over. I stopped watching wwe when I found out she was running as a do what I say - not what I do republican. All she wanted to do was to give more tax breaks for the rich. Greed —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.178.63.86 (talk) 05:58, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Page protection of 16 September 2010

I requested that this page be fully protected because the edit warring here was ridiculous. There's nothing seriously wrong with this article in its current state, imo, and I think there are three editors who would do well to just agree to leave it alone until after the election. That way no one will get blocked, and you can put your time to more productive activities - hopefully not to more midterm-election articles, either! This is not a battleground. Anyway, think about it. Do you all really want to spend your time the same way, going forward? It's not as if any of us had an inexaustible supply of the stuff, from what I hear.  – OhioStandard (talk) 02:10, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

The real issue is overriding of consensus. I see myself, Jake, Collect, Siafu, and Off2RioRob all in apparent agreement on the infobox issue, yet Screwball continues to violate consensus, 3RR, as well as basic BLP policy for excluding contentious material. Fell Gleaming^talk 02:54, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Here is an example of a candidate infobox from the relevant template documentation page. It should be noted that none of the template examples presented utilize "net worth". As this is a BLP and the referenced "net worth" infobox incorporation is contentious controversial 14:24, 18 September 2010 (UTC) and in dispute, shouldn't the "net worth" entry be removed pending consensus resolution of the issue? JakeInJoisey (talk) 13:07, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Further that the template for candidates does not include that factoid. Collect (talk) 13:23, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

It seems consensus is pretty clear on this. Should we put in an edit request template, or an unprotect request? Fell Gleaming^talk 13:36, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Looking into this a bit further, guidance for requesting an administrator edit ({{edit protected}}) to a fully protected page contains the following...

This template should be used only to request edits to fully protected pages that are uncontroversial or supported by consensus. If the proposed edit might be controversial, discuss it on the protected page's talk page before using this template.

You commented earlier that the content in question "violates"...

...basic BLP policy for excluding contentious material.

Upon reconsideration, I don't believe that to be a correct representation of BLP policy. Contentious material CAN certainly be included in BLP with appropriate reliable sourcing (and I am amending my earlier comment to strike "contentious" and substitute "controversial"). As this edit would certainly be "controversial", that would appear to preclude an admin sanctioned edit pending discussion "...on the protected page's talk page". More to come, but I wanted to clarify my position on that point. JakeInJoisey (talk) 14:20, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

There is no consensus, FG. You and Collect are two of the three editors who just caused this article to be have to be shut down for edit warring, and you just awarded him a barnstar for his behavior here. State your opinions as your own, by all means, but I don't see that either you or Collect are in any position to make pronouncements as to whether there's a legitimate wp:consensus for a change you previously edit-warred in favor of. It would be more productive if you'd just say what you want to say, and would refrain from invoking the word so often and so erroneously to ignore contrary opinions from other editors.  – OhioStandard (talk) 15:37, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

See my comment above on the Net Worth controversy. I'm all for consistency in politician articles, but obviously some fields are more relevant to some people than others and imo the net worth of a self-financing candidate ($22m so far) is important as an indicator of what percentage of her wealth has she been ready to spend on her campaign - and how much is left. As for the template, if the field 'works' then it's considered to be 'included'. Just because it's not in the example given doesn't mean it's never supposed to be used. Flatterworld (talk) 14:00, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

There are larger issues here. First, the net worth is not an official number, but simply an estimated range. Further, there are other sources that give differing numbers. Also the estimate isn't even of her own personal worth, but of the joint worth of her and Vince McMahon, which makes this a potential BLP violation as well, unless all those qualifiers are carefully explained. While you can do that in the body of an article, its frankly impossible to fit all that into an infobox. Fell Gleaming^talk 14:18, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Exactly, Flatterworld. McMahon made her wealth a central issue the moment she announced her intention to spend so much of it to try to win a Senate seat. Of course her wealth is a salient factor in her biography; it's one of the things that makes her notable, and it improves the article to populate the field. She's obviously not ashamed of her fortune; I fail to see why any editor here should be. And a BLP violation, FG? No one said so the multiple times you presented this article at the BLP noticeboard, so I think that particular line is played out. But the bottom line for this section is that there's no consensus to either unprotect the article or to ask an admin to make FG's preferred edit. Further discussion about net worth belongs above.  – OhioStandard (talk) 15:41, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

You're still not getting the issue. We all agree the material belongs in her biography, the question is whether or not it belongs in her infobox. The material in question is an estimate, from a range of different estimates, and not even her own personal worth, but the joint worth of her and another person. Further, given she's just spent at least $22M of that, that range of estimates is -- even if it was correct at one point in time -- certainly not correct today. In the article itself, we can address these concerns. In an infobox, its presenting as a definite fact, which is misleading and inaccurate.

Editors Siafu, Collect, JakeinJoisy, and Off2Riorob, and myself have all expressed concerns with the same material. Read the comments above. Fell Gleaming^talk 16:07, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

So work out the material here. If and when there's consensus, it can be moved to the body of the article. First things first. Flatterworld (talk) 17:24, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

That's probably the best thing anyone has said here for a good while. This page has been on my watchlist for a while, since I posted here a few times. Screwball - you are definitely letting this whole thing overwhelm you, and it's not good. Other participants in the edit war - lay off - it's neither big, nor clever. Protection will be good for a while to let things simmer down. However, please also remember that there's an essay that says that reverts for the reason of no consensus are bad, bad, bad. It's an essay, so not policy, but I agree with it, and think it has relevance here. I'll be back in a minute with a link to that, it eludes me for the moment.  Begoon&#149;talk 17:44, 18 September 2010 (UTC) adding: Ah, here it is: WP:DRNC  Begoon&#149;talk 17:52, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I'd also like to draw attention to what is official Wikipedia policy, which is that consensus is not unanimity. Fell Gleaming^talk 18:21, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

That's a good link too, I agree with the sentiments. I won't comment here again, other than to say - for *****'s sake get over yourselves, all of you. It's an article on a website, not the Dead Sea bloody scrolls. Have a nice day.  Begoon&#149;talk 18:48, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm so glad this BS lost and the infobox is all well and good. I still remember how 4 months ago, I had Collect and FellGleming abuse every policy they could to stop me from adding the net worth to this page. It's been depressing to work with these editors ganging up together, but I guess common sense finally won the day ... the net worth has been there on the infobox, and last I checked, it still is. Collect's attempts to screw up Carl Paladino's page didn't work either.

It's a small victory over wikipedian arrogance, and I'm happy. :-) --Screwball23 talk 04:46, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Political positions

I moved the political positions to her campaign article, where I feel it is more relevant. Many first-time politicians have their campaign developments and their platforms on wikipedia pages, which often becomes more promotional than encyclopedic. By placing it with the campaign article, I am giving it the proper context and historical perspective. These were political positions, but they were staked entirely during her 2010 campaign. Barack Obama's positions are well-separated from his biography, and if this page is going to be anywhere near FA status, I think that is an excellent model to follow.--Screwball23 talk 05:27, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Demur. This article is not so long that long-standing material needs to be deleted. Firther, I note that, at this point, you are the sole editor seeking "magnate" in the article. Seek a consensus before any such further change. The editor who relied on the source did so out of valid BLP requirements. Thanks. Collect (talk) 13:12, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Collect, all you have ever done is delete things because according to you, they did not have "consensus." I know you fight with every editor you can, and routinely abuse policies and canvas on Project boards to get your way, but I am telling you straight up that there is no reason for you to change the word. Magnate is well-referenced, and furthermore, you have never gone on to defend your use of the word entrepreneur, which I think is too general and does not fit her as well.

Also, the political positions of other politicians are routinely separated in separate pages and by their political campaigns, if they have separate pages for them. An example is John McCain's political positions during his 2000 and 2008 presidential campaigns, where the platforms he campaigned on remained part of the campaign articles. This is good practice because a person reading about a biography can learn about her life, while a reader reading about her campaign can read her campaign platform. It can also be argued that the Linda McMahon page does not provide enough context for her political beliefs, which I might add, were ONLY stated during her 2010 campaign. They were not inherently a part of her life, and the same issues and positions may not be relevant in the future. Her entire economic policy, "Getting Connecticut Back to Work", for example, was drafted by John Rutledge and were written explicitly to thwart the economic slowdown. I do not see why a policy that was written by a policy maker she hired during the 2010 campaign to draft a platform she ran on during the 2010 campaign should not be in her 2010 campaign page.--Screwball23 talk 18:30, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

WP policy requires consensus. Not I. All I do is point out that the policy is clear - even if you make 28 times as many edits to this page as I do. In fact, nearly twenty times as many edits as the second most active editor on the article. Collect (talk) 18:43, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Ok, good. So where is your consensus to delete all the information?--Screwball23 talk 18:46, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Copyedit

Enjoy.

Thanks. Note that one editor seems solely responsible for the anti-consensus edits at this point. Collect (talk) 13:10, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Magnate

magnate: a person of great influence, importance, or standing in a particular enterprise, field of business

Linda McMahon is more than just an entrepreneur. She and her husband have reached a very high status within the wrestling industry, and their status should be recognized as such. Collect has never given reason as to why he believes the word magnate is not good, and seems to think that being the one to revert an edit makes him the "consensus giver". This is ludicrous and delusional.--Screwball23 talk 18:16, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

!. The editor you should be yelling at would not appear to be me. All I did was state that to insert the word requires consensus. The word was changed by Lfstevens, not I, and you reverted him. I simply asserted that your revert now requires a consensus which is quite lacking. It appears that you assert that you make a "consensus of one" on a BLP. The revert was by you at [2]. My total edits on this article amount to 30. You now have 854 edits on this article. I would suggest that a ratio of more than 28 to 1 is a tad high. Indeed, some might even say more than a tad high. Collect (talk) 18:40, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

What are you trying to say? I should be like you and delete 10,000 pages rather than add information and develop a single page? I don't see why can't just say why you don't want the word, but instead find it up to you to keep count of how many edits I make to a page.--Screwball23 talk 18:50, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Huh? I am not a "deletionist." I have not "deleted 10,000 pages." I have started articles, and added to several hundred articles listed at AfD, have sourced a hundred or more unsourced BLPs, have been active in several other Wikiprojects (including Strategic Planning, Wikiversity, Simple, and others), have been active in bringing up articles to GA standards, have been active in XfD discussions for many hundreds of articles, have have been active in editing and discussing policies, been active at the Help desk, etc. And all you can do is attack me personally? Amazing! Collect (talk) 19:09, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

BTW, you gave a Barnstar to the editor who added the word for his edits here. Are you going to berate him? :) Collect (talk) 19:11, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

This fight appears to be much ado about nothing. I celebrate both of you for working so hard. Given your strong opinions, I recommend using the talk page to reach agreement on changes before editing the article. I find the gym to be a better place for working off frustration than the web, but that's just me. Please remember that you won't be the last to edit this article. Castles in the sand, etc. Cheers.

Lfstevens (talk) 19:26, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Collect, you are not getting it. All I've seen you do is delete and claim that my edits have no consensus. But the only person who has come out and given any problem is you. And you haven't even had the guts to state what your problem with the material is, only that I need consensus to put something up. According to your convoluted logic, anyone who puts a change on wikipedia needs to ask for consensus first. And your only definition of consensus, since you say I am "anti-consensus", is that you don't agree with it.

Your claims about how great an editor you are has shown absolutely no weight here. You are attacking me personally, trying to use the number of edits I make to a page against me. Why? Why is that relevant to this discussion? You won't answer that because you can't answer that. Your attempts to get Lfstevens involved are also equally disgusting. I thought the copyediting job Lfstevens did was excellent, and I understand Lfstevens wanted to adhere to the reference that used the word novice. I do not agree with the use of that word because following the convention, all politicians who have run for office only once should be called novices. And when does someone stop being a novice? Either way, I don't need to agree 100% with someone to commend them for a job well done. I also want to remind you that I asked Lfstevens for his/her opinion regarding the move for political positions, and was given a go ahead. Your accusation that I removed the political positions without consensus is an outright lie. I have not seen you ask for any consensus on whether it should be moved back, all I see you do is attack me personally. You are an absolute hypocrite, and if you have a problem with me, just come out and say it.--Screwball23 talk 19:39, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps the WP:NPA was insufficient. Repeat The edits you reverted were by an editor to whom you gave a barnstar Clear so far? You seem intent on making personal charges when none belong on this, or any other, Wikipedia page. Ever. Collect (talk) 20:51, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Clear on what? You need to read my response above, because you obviously didn't.--Screwball23 talk 22:32, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Read WP:NPA. Cheers. Collect (talk) 07:24, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Consensus request

Does anyone oither than Screwball23 support this edit: [3]

Does anyone other than Screwball23 support this major excision of material [4] Collect (talk) 02:01, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Anyone who spends $50 million over two years on a campaign for the U.S. Senate cannot fairly be called a "novice" politician. I don't like the word "magnate", but some concise way to disclose her preeminent position in professional wrestling needs to be included in the lead, and I can't think of any other word that suits better. "Entrepreneur" is certainly insufficient. Hers is a position of hegemony, of almost-monopoly, and that needs to be disclosed in the lead. If you two ( Screwball and Collect ) could come up with some concise way to do that, without equivocation, I'd prefer that to "magnate", but no suggestion comes to mind for me, at present.

Re the removal of the political views she espoused during her last campaign, I see the value of having those in the campaign article that was created, but since they're probably (?) fairly stable, it seems appropriate to have them in this article, too. If she runs on a very different platform, subsequently, i.e. if she disavows or downplays some of the "planks" from her previous platform in her next political campaign, the section about her political views in this article could be updated.  – OhioStandard (talk) 11:57, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

"Novice" means "new" and "inexperienced" - it has absolutely nothing to do with how much money is spent. Unless, of course, you can show me a cite which says "Wealthy people are not novices at anything"? Besides, I would note the removal of the political positions violates a major rule of WP - that editing histories must be preserved. I fear you forgot that legal ossue? Collect (talk) 12:56, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Are you perhaps under the impression that your prolific use of boldface lends weight to your statements? It doesn't. It's just annoying, like writing in all caps. I, for one, would appreciate it if you'd refrain.  – OhioStandard (talk) 18:18, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Another case of attacking the editor and not the points raised. Thank you most kindly. Collect (talk) 19:36, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Ok, so point to the policy for why boldface is helpful. By the way, before you accuse everyone of personally attacking you, check the section above. You never addressed any of the points I made above, but decided to attack me and Lfstevens instead. Remember, people with glass houses should not throw stones... :-) --Screwball23 talk 19:45, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Boldface is part of the Wiki markup system. Arguing about is is singularly irrelevant to the purposes of this talk page. Note also that I attacjked no one, and specifically made no attack on Lfstevens in any way whatsoever. Collect (talk) 22:25, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Attacked no one? You continually talked about my number of edits to anyone who would listen, and posted that to Lfstevens in lieu of any material-related discussion. It happened again on the noticeboard and I still don't see why you chose to make that a part of the discussion. And instead of stating why you liked the word "novice" or "entrepreneur", you got personal and started making the discussion about the fact that I gave Lfstevens a barnstar.--Screwball23 talk 03:54, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I'd agree with the removal of "novice." The New York Times, during her campaign, reported that she had a long trak record of political activity/lobbying to reduce regulation of WWE activity (and, not incidentally, remove various health/safety protections for wrestlers). There's more to politics that running for office. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:36, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

NYT

The NYT reference given in the lede calls her a "chief executive" and does not use the word "magnate" at all. As it is improper to use a source to back a claim which it does not make per WP:BLP, the word has to go. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:43, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

[5] zero results in past month. 56 in entire archives. For "executive" in archives, 1350 results. 7 in past month alone. 24:1 ratio. Seems conclusive from here. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:15, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

A robotic search of terms does not conclude anything. Your search is biased, because you wanted to use executive, which doesn't even refer to her every time. I did an accurate search [6] and saw 2 listings with chief executive and Linda mcmahon, only 1 was referring to her, and even that one never said "professional wrestling chief executive". The reason being, and listen here, because if you don't listen to this, your future conversations with me are guaranteed to be a rehash of your broken arguments : the term "professional wrestling chief executive" is grammatically incorrect, and is a merge of two terms (see WP:SYN. She is a magnate, and contrary to your reading, she was called a professional wrestling mogul, which is synonymous with magnate. Don't forget the fact that magnate is a lasting title, one that better fits her position in the industry, whereas chief executive was but one of many titles she had.--Screwball23 talk 02:26, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Try the news search where 13,500 articles use "executive" in news articles on her ... and only 56 used "magnate" and not a single use of "magnate" is found in the YT source. Read again about sources on Wikipedia and how important it is in BLPs that sources be used accurately. You will find in the last month exactly and precisely zero uses of "mogul" in articles with her name in them. And 66 in the infinite archives. Or still well less than 1/20 of the uses of "executive." Now s to the NYT - it uses "mogul" a total of four times including Blog entries. And "executive" in more than two hundred individual articles. And "chief executive" more than one hundred and fifty articles. I think the ratios are clear enough. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:46, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Should professional wrestling even be included in the lead? Her position as CEO largely involved the day-to-day operations of the actual company, and less involvement in actual storylines, unlike Vince. How about "Linda McMahon.... is an American businesswoman and politician"--Tærkast (Discuss) 18:36, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Fine here. Collect (talk) 18:44, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

You guys are disregarding her magnate status within the wrestling industry. A magnate is a person whose wealth and influence is derived from a specific field, in her case, professional wrestling. The idea of saying she is just a businesswoman is ludicrous considering the McMahon family is renowned in the wrestling world as synonymous with WWE. I also can see from Collect's response that he is disregarding my discussion completely...This is not about some manipulated google search based on "executive" and "McMahon". This is about the accuracy and grammatical correctness of her information. A person, as I discussed above, can be a "pro wrestling magnate", but a "chief executive" was but one of her many titles within the company. She was also called the Prez, CEO, Biz Mgr, Negotiator, Product Manager, etc. etc. None of those titles are even significant given the fact that she is removed from the industry now, but her status as a magnate, that is, someone whose wealth and influence has been derived from an industry, will remain.--Screwball23 talk 02:05, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I understand what you're saying, but businessperson is a more accurate reflection of her many positions within the company. Also, consider this, Vince McMahon, there is nothing in the intro at least that describes him as a pro wrestling magnate, which he obviously is. He's been chairman of the company for more than 30 years, as well as president and CEO, which reflects that of a businessperson. I'm not doubting Linda's status, but just the way in which it's described.--Tærkast (Discuss) 11:53, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

TaerkastUA, I appreciate what you're saying here, and you obviously have an understanding of what a magnate is. However, I need you to put yourself in my shoes. You are telling me that Vince McMahon should not be called a magnate, even though you personally believe he should be. Are you saying that I am supposed to support a convention you don't even believe in? How can I get through that? Honestly, that, to me, feels like having someone tell me to abstain from alcohol/drugs/sex even if they do. I am telling you, because I've seen Collect and other editors use this passionless, unreasoned argument about "consensus", and then, realizing they didn't have a firm reason, they try to build consensus based on other articles, or google searches, or based on the opinions of multiple forum boards, all in some vain attempt to claim "consensus" without ever stating why a term is not good. Don't be that guy. It cripples learning and openness for a person to go through the WP:OSE argument. I have put out the definition of magnate, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with the term magnate. There are references backing up her description as a magnate, and I feel it is important to have precise and accurate wording in the lead. I can see you're an open-minded editor, and you have indicated that you are not doubting her status, but have a few misgivings about how its described. You are already aware that the McMahon family has significant wealth and influence from its place in the wrestling industry. Now, that does not justify calling them robber barons. I am not advocating anyone call her a tycoon or a multi-millionaire. However, she is notable for her position in the wrestling industry. Her net worth, which Collect similarly wanted to remove, also was derived from pro wrestling. Businesswoman just isn't an accurate term. It doesn't give a person the credit that a 30 year career in an industry would merit. It doesn't distinguish someone who started 10 different failed enterprises in their basements from a person with a name synonymous with an industry. It also becomes difficult for someone hoping to understand Linda's role in the wrestling industry to find that she was a simple businesswoman, and that the status of magnate, that is, someone who has achieved a prominent place in an industry, somehow eluded her, while there are references supporting otherwise. I want you to remember that it does readers a disservice to eliminate factual information, and her magnate status, much like her net worth, is not under doubt.--Screwball23 talk 02:24, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, I understand your position, and hopefully we can come to some sort of agreement here. I didn't make the proposed edit to the actual article, because I believe everybody should be happy with the final wording.--Tærkast (Discuss) 11:30, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Many people - one view. "Magnate" is not in the source used, "chief executive" is found in most of the news sources. So far, only one editor holding firm for "magnate". Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:32, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Collect, you are still being evasive. You agreed with magnate not long ago, and there is no dispute about her status within the wrestling industry. Your attempts to bully and isolate editors is not a strategy - be genuine and come out with a reason why you changed your mind about this and decided to start this entire discussion all over again.--Screwball23 talk 03:42, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

You have zero support from others for your insistence on "magnate," The source cited does not say "magnate." Seems that is sufficient, indeed. Read WP:NPA before caling me a "bully," Cheers. Collect (talk) 07:26, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

cite which does not say anything attributed to it

http://www.journalinquirer.com/articles/2010/09/03/page_one/doc4c80f1564e99e965394771.txt 

is the ref given for As President and later CEO of the company, she negotiated business deals, launched wrestling merchandise, and signed wrestler contracts.

None of which is found in the cite given whatsoever. As a result, that cite is grossly misused in a WP:BLP

Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:44, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

The article clearly says she signed wrestler contracts.--Screwball23 talk 17:53, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

And the "negotiated business deals" part? "Launched wrestling merchandise" etc.? Where do you find THAT in the cite you proffered? Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:56, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Face the facts - you said "none of the info is found in the cite whatsoever". I just pointed something out to you because you didn't read it. Apologize and be civil.--Screwball23 talk 18:00, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Try NPA - the cite does not say "As President ..." at all. All the rest is SYNTH in any case. WP:BLP is violated muchly in this article, and I trust others will see it. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:06, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Ok, so first you say it wasn't in the article whatsoever, and you were so sure about that, you neglected to even read the article. Then, you put your statements in BOLD because that somehow makes your voice more likely to be heard, right? Then, you say that an article must have word for word, the exact same phrase that is in the wikipedia entry. Are you under the impression that wikipedia is just a copy and paste of other sources? If not, I suggest you read about WP:BLP for yourself before you blow any more hot air on me or any other editor you choose to harass. --Screwball23 talk 22:03, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Infobox

I have switched back to a "Person" infobox in the article. The change was made to "Office holder" on October 9 2011 by 98.14.238.125 with no edit summary or talkpage comment for justification. The office held by Linda McMahon was for approx. 1 year and in no way carries higher notability than her lengthy business career. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 19:24, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

SmackDown! Your Vote Campaign

should this have it's own article? what wrestlers/"superstars" are affiliated with either party? --99.101.160.159 (talk) 00:52, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Bias

The section on the 2010 senatorial run reads a bit like a Linda McMahon campaign pamphlet. While its not necessarily oozing with bias, the facts that it chooses to present portrays an overly positive view of the women. For example, the section spends a great deal of time elaborating on the republican primary, which she won. However, it only devotes one sentence to the actual election against Blumenthal. Being as she is the highest spending senatorial candidate to lose in history (http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/07/21/us/politics/top-senate-fund-raisers.html?ref=politics), this needs more detail then a line that says "McMahon defeated her opponents and faced Richard Blumenthal in the general election, losing by 11%.". The section also portrays her opponent Rob Simmons in a harsh light. 184.187.188.40 (talk) 15:27, 21 July 2012 (UTC) Logan Phillips July 21st 2012

"Tea Party Favorite"

This is claimed based on a straw poll which found that "Out of 54 votes cast, McMahon received 15 and Schiff, 14." One single vote out of a few dozen does not turn one into a Michelle Bachmann-like Tea Party darling. In any case, WTNH New Haven directly contradicts the claim, saying "The Tea Party groups' first choice was author and financial advisor Peter Schiff, but he was trounced in the primary... she seems to distance herself from some Tea Party views."--Brian Dell (talk) 09:59, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Tom Cole

I have removed the sub-section on Tom Cole as I believe it violates the BLP (in addition to many other problems). This sub-section seems to have problems with undue weight, a lack of notability, and topicality. It is all about Cole and says basically nothing about McMahon. Moreover, it was based almost entirely on one article from Politico. What do you guys think? Lesbianadvocate (talk) 18:17, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

There was an interview with him from 1999 that has been cited in the article. Please read it because there is a lot of mention of Linda McMahon in there. In fact, in the interview, he mentioned the fact that Linda appeared to unemployment hearings with a lawyer and challenged him when asking for unemployment payments from the company. Were you aware of that?--Screwball23 talk 19:03, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Before your vacation, this was discussed multiple times. You did not get consensus backing your view. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:48, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Your "you don't have consensus, so give up trying to talk facts" argument is old and plaid out. It's abuse of your administrator privileges, and I want you to refer me to an impartial board that will moderate this issue without bias. My only hope is that you, as a loyal wikipedian, will be willing to help refer me to the right board.--Screwball23 talk 01:00, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Please for God's sake read WP:NPA. WP:BLP, WP:RS and WP:NPOV. And I suggest you also red about the fact that socks are banned when used to imply you are two people. Cheers. Collect (talk) 03:18, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Again, your citing policy doesn't give you a free ride to sidestep an actual discussion. It's old and played out.--Screwball23 talk 05:28, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Note: Screwball23 and Votevotevote2012 are now both indefinitely blocked for socking. Collect (talk) 12:00, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Recent censorship

There has been a lot of recent censorship on this page by Lesbianadvocate. The points Lesbianadvocate are making are moot:

• The paragraph about Linda's memorandum to Pat Patterson and the resulting media coverage was very significant during her campaign. A lot of ink was spilled and a lot of attention was given to this issue during her campaign in 2010. The blatantly false accusation that "this has nothing to do with McMahon" is absolutely not true. It was written by McMahon, and had a lot of attention given to her during her campaign, as well as during the time. It is very important to understand the fact that the company faced a steroid trial that completely changed the perception of the wrestling industry at the time, and nearly threw her husband in jail. The time of her ascent to President of the company (although I recognize her roles were very much intertwined with her husband) was formally done in 1993, at the height of the steroid trial. Lesbianadvocate has no grounds to delete this, simply because he/she does not like the idea of McMahon appearing dishonest. It is not our job as wikipedians to censor the truth. I would expect User:Collect who has been editing wikipedia for decades now to understand that, but I don't see his rationale for wanting this out either. Simply put, Collect came up with the "Tom Cole" article as it is in its current form now; why he would backtrack and flip-flop now just to completely delete the entire section is beyond me.

• The steroid investigation of 2007 was also very significant because it was a public relations issue, with Linda McMahon upfront. She was asked during her campaign about the investigation, and a quote from that interview is posted on the page. The number of news articles that looked into this during her campaign made it a significant issue (as well as the Benoit murder-suicide) as to how she ran the company during her tenure. The separate file of the congressional investigation is actually a free file because it is from the U.S. Government, and it is fine to permit it to be here. It always was fine to be here, and Collect never made a fuss until now. Again, User:Collect never made an issue of this for months or even a year that this page has been on, but he is backpedaling now and is coming out against it. For what reason is beyond me.--Screwball23 talk 18:51, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Sorry Screwball, attacking another editor is never going to win you a consensus. Ever. Your vacation should have taught you that. Collect (talk) 20:49, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

You call this a discussion? I just laid out factual information (including the fact that you contributed to the Tom Cole section and the article as it is now, only to backpedal) and you personally attack me for taking a "vacation". I want to know who to appeal to, because your behavior now is beyond abusive.--Screwball23 talk 21:10, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

I do not need to attack anyone. And you should note to others exactly how many article edits total I have made to this article, and how many you have made. Cheers. Collect (talk) 03:20, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

I apologize for the sloppiness there - I am only here as Screwball23, and I don't want any confusion on that. Look, I have no interest in engaging in a protracted edit war for no reason. Tell me the appropriate board for us to have a moderated discussion, because you are not discussing this logically - the number of edits does not matter, and I still see no discussion of the content itself coming from you. I will report you for administrator abuse if you don't come out and tell me the appropriate board.--Screwball23 talk 05:25, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

You used both names in editing the article. You used both names in editing the talk page. You used both names on Polish-American vote. You certainly appear to have gotten blocked indefinitely. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:02, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Linda McMahon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110725095942/http://investor.shareholder.com/wwe/ReleaseDetail.cfm?ReleaseID=47479 to http://investor.shareholder.com/wwe/ReleaseDetail.cfm?ReleaseID=47479

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:47, 28 February 2016 (UTC)