Talk:Vince McMahon/Archive 2

Protected
I have protected this page. There is too much nonsense going on on this article about his "death." Vince McMahon did not die tonight. It's storyline. This article is a combination of Vince the wrestler and Vince the head of WWE. Because of this, we cannot go around claiming him dead just because the storyline says so. Metros 03:40, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

It really doesn't matter if this is kayfabe or not, full protection should not have been enabled. This is a current event (in WWE storyline or in real news).
 * Well that's why I protected this. So people can discuss what to do from here.  What should be stated in this article about the event?  We cannot add a death date to his infobox or state a date of death, this is a severe breach of WP:BLP guidelines.  Metros 03:42, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * It's clearly kayfabe as nearly everything else that happens in wrestling. The nature of the wwe article confirms it.  WWE would genuinely be concerned about it if it were real and would give details about the body being taken to the hospital and what not. Borrada 03:50, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed totally with Metros and Borrada. Just like with any other biography, had Vince McMahon actually been killed by a car bomb on live television, it would require appropriate verifiable sources. Briguy52748 23:59, 12 June 2007 (UTC)]]

I'm not talking about declaring someone dead, but there was a section dedicated to the "Limo Incident" or "Death?" I believe, since it is a current event, it should still be there and/or edited as new information arises.

Perhaps a "Death" section could be implemented in the Mr. McMahon section with quotes in the title.

It could be used to explain what happened and that it is an angle and nothing more. 74.73.249.5 03:50, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I say we don't give this utter bullshit any recognition at all. This has to be one of the stupidest things I've ever witnessed on live television, right next to Lil' Kim's boob popping out at the MTV VMA's about five years ago. But whatever.

UMMM...any avid WWE watcher knows that "Mr. McMahon" has NEVER on screen opened the door of his own limo, making this a staged event. Y else would Coach have not walked him to the car? Or he have a limo driver? Even the nature of the article on WWE.com states the comments foreshadowing this "incident". WWE has accomplished what it set out to do, by gettin you to get up and research VInce and his "death". KUDOS WWE!!!! KUDOS...(72.147.163.136 04:50, 12 June 2007 (UTC))

I never had to get up because my computer is right next to the television. The preceding comment was made by me, the person who made the comment.


 * I'm going to go on record and say I support the protection for this article. I put a statement down below stating that I think eventually, the "limo explosion" angle will go into the article, and it probably will sooner rather than later. And yes, I think there may be a correct way to do this without confusing naîve readers or those unfamiliar with the concept of professional wrestling (more specifically the WWE's style). However, this needs to be given thought, and it may not happen until a couple of subsequent RAW episodes air. Briguy52748 12:45, 12 June 2007 (UTC)]]


 * Probably the best idea; last thing we need is a lot of vandalism on this page now that the character is "dead". AnthonyWalters 15:52, 12 June 2007 (UTC)]]

I agree with three things that were said here: 1) giving kudos to WWE, whether it was sarcastic or not. WWE did accomplish what it set out to do. It got us talking and researching and debating about Mr. McMahon's character death. As crude as the idea was, it was ingenious and obviously worked. ("worked", of course, is meant in more ways than one here) 2) the article should be protected until we get further information from all sources, kayfabe and legitimate, so that we can have a better idea of how to incorporate this thing into the article. Before the article was protected, there was a whole bunch of vandalism, as people were editing this article to interpret it one way, and other people were editing to interpret it the other way… there was absolutely no clarity in the article whatsoever. Hopefully we can figure out how to accomplish it with even more time and information. 3) Mr. McMahon has NEVER on-screen opened the door for himself. Which is indeed a notable change between that incident and all the other times he entered/exited his limo. I think that it could be explained by his insanity gimmick somehow twisting his sense of… well… his sense, period. Which would indeed make it scripted. One question we may have to ponder on for the article in the future, though: you think maybe in order to salvage this little stunt, he'll have to somehow disappear from the public eye as much as possible so as to ensure he doesn't get mentioned in any current manner by WWE? And on that note, you think that somehow may be a quiet surrender of his position as WWE Chairman? 172.162.177.168 03:12, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

With Shane's recent return to television, it's possible, though admittingly unlikely, that this whole plotline could be a cover for Vince to turn over his position to his son. (Sawyer 04:39, 13 June 2007 (UTC))


 * Full protection should not be enabled, no matter how bad people were getting with edit wars. Report them and have their IP banned temporarily. Many people believe Mcmahon to be dead, and there arent any solid sources to say otherwise. Rather, all sources say he is presumed dead, and no body was found. This means that he cannot be confirmed as dead. After watching the clip of it a few times, I noticed the flames began in the front and under the car, so I believe it was staged. Still, remove the protection on the page

we all know he is not dead so calm down 76.223.189.149 02:29, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

What to put for the article
Clearly this is a big part of the Mr. McMahon character what happened tonight on RAW. For now, I think a little backstory as to what led to it followed by a brief explination of the explosion will be satisfactory for now until more WWE shows have aired to give more exposition for this angle. For all we know, he could show up on ECW tomorrow night without a scratch on him.Kyle C Haight 03:47, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * What we should do is just state that on the June 11, 2007 episode of WWE RAW, Vince Mcmahon stepped into his limo during the end of the broadcast. Upon stepping into said limo, it burst into flames. WWE.com has presumed him dead. Killswitch Engage 03:51, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I think that what was put before, about the summary of the episode (Appreciation Night, people dissing him, and the limo explosion) should be listed under "controversy - involvement in storylines" Socby19 04:15, 12 June 2007 (UTC)Socby19
 * We put nothing. Read this: Tails0600 21:45, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Eventually, I'm sure this article will include the "limo explosion" article in some way. At this point, all I have seen are the Wilkes-Barre Times-Leader and a similar article from The Citizens' Voice, which I have (elsewhere in this page) recommended for reference; at this point, I've no idea if or how the Associated Press or other mainsteram media will cover this. More suggestions on how to address this in an encyclopediac article are in the thread below. (A side comment: I am surprised at the volume of comments about the "limo explosion," whether it was real, how did it happen, etc. While this is great, let's try to keep on the topic of how should this storyline be incorporated into the article, if at all). Briguy52748 22:04, 12 June 2007 (UTC)]]
 * Besides, if he had died, why wouldn't they update this: ? Tails0600 02:33, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I think for the time being we should wait some more time and try to obtain more data on the subject. We could implement a small part stating "Limo incident - Mr.McMahon presumed dead" and report the story line, but, to add anything beyond that, I think it would be better to wait since we have no clue what is the purpose of the story line. There's a "family statement" due to air today on WWE.com, maybe we can get something there, let's wait and see. If not, I suggest waiting for additional development on this issue before we do anything else. FireStormSnake 13:33, 13 June 2007 (GMT -01:00)

Separate articles?
Considering recent, ahem, events, would it be feasible to create two separate articles, one on the character and one on the person. This has been put into place for Stephen Colbert (the real person) and Stephen Colbert (character). This way we can keep kayfabe and real life separate. On the other hand something like this could create too many articles, such as the real life Brooklyn Brawler or something, but Vince is established enough to merit an article for each of his personas: Vincent K. McMahon, real-life businessman, and Mr. McMahon, kayfabe autocrat. --  Valley   2   city   ₪‽ 05:23, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * You could that for every wrestler, though. That would be bad --Maestro25 05:32, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

And it would be confusing.LindsieandLance 05:43, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

this would make a lot of sense due to the fact that the gimmicks of most wrestlers are already incorporated into their articles while vince's is a little ambiguous on the distinction between the vincent kennedy mcmahon and "mr mcmahon" personas


 * This would have to be done for every wrestler article with a gimmick. There is no point in that. D4S 01:59, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Not necessarily. With the possible execption of The Undertaker, no one in the WWE has a gimmick so different from their real life personna that has been in effect as long as the Mr. Mcmahon character. Most wrestlers' gimmicks can easily be encorporated in their articles. However, with Vince, his onscreen character is so vital to the day to day programs that it could warrant its own article. (Sawyer 04:45, 13 June 2007 (UTC))


 * I also believe that the Mr. McMahon persona should be separated (markedly) from the real person in this article. Perhaps moreso than any pro-wrestling performer, Vincent K. McMahon's public and private identity is muddled. And, unlike other wrestling performers, the man and the character are both signifigant and/or encyclopedic. Diligent Wikians should be attempting to clarify where the one ends and the other begins, rather than promoting the (widely evident) confusion. 64.111.226.34 05:12, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Another observation: in terms of in-ring exploits, Mr. McMahon, who has played an onscreen role for the better part of a decade, is covered much more briefly than many WWF/WWe characters elsewhere on Wikipedia who spent less time on that stage. By the looks of all the notes on this talk page, this appears to be the result of broad-stroke removals of character-related detail. In defense of chronological accounts of wrestling storylines (here and elsewhere), please consider pro wrestling as a similar product to other serial television dramas and the characters portrayed in them, where summaries of every episode are common on Wikipedia -- even expected. Mantic 05:50, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Example of something that can result in being confusing: There are few people "Mr. McMahon" hates more than Triple H. However, in real life, Triple H (real name:Paul Levesque) is married to his daughter Stephanie. This on-camera hatred has continued well over a decade though they have a friendly familial bond off-camera. You can't keep both things in one article, even in different sections as it would be contradicting information. --  Valley   2   city   ₪‽ 08:03, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of where this goes
I do think that there should be some kind of mention of the episode on the page. The only reason I ended up here was to see what Wikipedia had to say, as I most frequently come here for current events. That Wikipedia appears to have nothing to say at all is very disappointing to the regular Wikipedia visitor like myself. Let's try to get a very safe and conservative sentence put on the article to recognize it at least happened, and then tag it as a current event so that it is not presented as an unchanging fact.

It should be tagged and mention of this kayfabe "death" should go under the "Controversy" section, seeing as, particularly in the post eddie guerrero world, doing a "death" angle is going to be controversial.69.9.31.137 07:20, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

There is more to life than Eddie Guerrero's death, so people should walk on egg shells because he died? Ugh...people sometimes --Fr3nZi3 08:06, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I know this isn't a forum and personal feelings have no place, but I had to put in another viewpoint to the above. It doesn't offend me because of Guerrero, but the ECW show tonight with the "Dedicated to the Memory" thing and the "dying" on the show thing... It just reminds me too much of the Owen Hart thing. I guess it offends me because of this, not because of Guerrero. Then again...maybe the 7-year rule is in effect. ha. Sorry. That was out of line, I guess.

Why no mention of his character's presumed death in the article?
Obviously no sane person believes Vince McMahon the person is dead. Also we don't even know if his character is dead. But this article should mention this event. It should state that according to the official WWE website, the McMahon character is "presumed dead" and in fact, they are mourning him at WWE. If Harry Potter were "presumed dead" at the end of a book, it would be a big enough event to put into the Harry Potter article. (note I don't read Harry Potter or know anything about it, so that's not a spoiler, Harry Potter is not dead, just making an example) It won't let me add anything to the article, so someone else please add something like...

"On the June 12th 2007 edition of Raw, Mr McMahon entered his limo and it exploded, in kayfabe.  They did not show him leaving his limo.  The official WWE website is currently stating that the McMahon character is presumed dead."

That's all you have to do. Edward4321 19:19, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I definitely agree. While I'm sure the exploding limo is staged, it clearly is still clearly a huge, significant event when it comes to Vince McMahon as a fictional character.  Since the article discusses both the actual real life biography of McMahon and key moments of his fictional biography, this event deserves mention in the portion of the article that talks about how he portrayed himself on his television shows.  Dugwiki 21:57, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Perhaps it would also be prudent, when you do get around to adding Mr. McMahon's current explosion/incineration angle into the article, to cite the striking similarity to the legendary "Who Shot J.R." cliffhanger of the 1980s soap opera Dallas (more recently repeated on The Simpsons). 64.111.226.34 05:12, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Right now, it is way too soon to tell whether this angle will play out as a spoof of "Who Shot J.R.?" or "Who Shot Mr. Burns?" That's why I recommended elsewhere in this (very long) thread that specific article updates on the "limo explosion" storyline — however tempting they may be, aside from copyediting — be very limited in the coming weeks, and then made only to fit the goals of Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling and policies/guidelines of Wikipedia. I'm sure that some mention will be made about similiarities, if any, along with any other parallels there may be with pop culture/real life events at some point in the future, but now is not the time. Briguy52748 12:36, 14 June 2007 (UTC)]]

I was wondering why there is no coverage on his death in reliable media source. I could not find anything in local and in national media source that is not affiliated with WWE. Bobby Hall 14:32, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * That's because he's not really dead, it's a storyline. Bmg 916 Speak 14:35, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * As noted elsewhere in this discussion thread, there were two media reports from Wilkes-Barre area newspapers explaining that the explosion was taped prior to the show and that Vince McMahon is indeed alive. Such has been noted in the article and properly sourced. Briguy52748 12:36, 14 June 2007 (UTC)]]


 * PROOF HE WASNT IN THE LIMO! FOUND ON WWE.COM!

http://www.wwe.com/shows/raw/special/mcmahondeceased/ go to the 3rd picture. Light fills the middle of the limo before flames get to it, and the is no one in the limo.
 * That is not sufficient evidence, or a good source for that matter. We should focus on outside sources. Cristo39 20:48, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't belive that Mr. Macmahon is dead because when they showed the WWE Headquarters, the WWE flag was at half-staff, and the United States flag was supposed to be half-staff if he was really dead. http://www.wwe.com/inside/news/mcmahonmourning06122007
 * Inglewoodplz 13:03, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Update from Local Print Media
http://www.timesleader.com/news/breakingnews/20070612_12wwe_breaking.html Done. 72.226.196.12 20:43, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * That's hardly a credible source. --Maestro25 20:57, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * You're kidding me, right? It's the newspaper from the area.  They are the ones with the best access to the site of the "murder" and the police and firefighters who "investigated" the "crime."  Metros 21:00, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Check the link again. They updated it. I can not believe that there are people out there above the age of 13 who think this is real. Legendotphoenix 21:07, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I think the point of the newspaper articles — in mainstream media, which as I understand Wikipedia policy is acceptable to use per WP:NOR — was that there was a certain segment of the population who saw the USA Network broadcast of the limosuine explosion and presumed Vince McMahon was unable to escape (rather than thinking, "hmmm ... must be some sort of stunt"). I have added more thoughts below about ways this can be acceptably incorporated into an encyclopediac article, not some kayfabe b.s. Briguy52748 21:51, 12 June 2007 (UTC)]]

Soooo hes pressumed dead isnt hee well this truly makes a fact about security i know its all false but who cares what if it was a carbomb from the terrorists come on people lets make a big deal about this Spread the word that it was a terrorist attack!!! we've got to put a stop to wwe fooling people come on!!! we need security in tv shows spread the the word so this can become a big deal about terrorist attacks

Why the hell would we spread that it's a terrorist attack? IT WASN'T! There is sufficient security in TV shows, what are you talking about? WHY should we "put a stop to wwe fooling people"? That's what pro wrestling has done for years... it's not changing now! One Fried Egg 20:56, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

vince isn't dead.we all know the truth.so play along with the storyline.the articles been updated so stop messing with it!!!Lopeyter 01:49, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

"By God!"... If it was real... Do you think they would have kept the camera on the burning wreck for another minute?! I mean.. Come on! It would have gone to black/technical error immediately. (Ref. the Owen incident). 194.18.165.5 13:36, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

What I will put in this article
Based on suggestions above, this is what I propose to add to this article:
 * On June 12, WWE aired a segment at the end of RAW that featured McMahon (in character) entering a limousine moments before it exploded. The show went off-air shortly after, and WWE.com reported the angle as though it were a legitimate occurrence proclaiming that McMahon was "presumed dead."

Does this look fine? Metros 21:14, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

It looks fine to me, but as far as where it goes, I suggest under "controversy, involvement in storylines" Socby19 21:20, 12 June 2007 (UTC)Socby19
 * Yeah, that's precisely where it was going to go, in the storyline section. Metros 21:21, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

"even going so far" doesn't sound neutral.
 * Fixed, how's that look now? Metros 21:29, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Good. Looks fine. Definitely should go under the "Mr. McMahon" section though so it can be made clear that the character is presumed dead not the actual person.-- bullet proof  3:16 21:32, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Also, if you could add a slight back story of the 'depression angle'. "Even going so far" wasn't me, although I do agree with it now that I read it more carefully. I would put "...it were a legitimate occurrence, proclaiming that McMahon was 'presumed dead' within minutes of the incident". Socby19 21:32, 12 June 2007 (UTC)Socby19

I think anything that is added would need mainstream media sourcing. I have found two such soruces. One is at The Citizens' Voice (article titled WWE's McMahon still alive after W-B Twp. 'explosion'), the other from the Wilkes-Barre Times-Leader (Vince McMahon’s hoax goes up in smoke). Both explain the background behind the stunt and contain non-kayfabe comments from WWE and township (i.e., non-wrestling) officials, and acknowledge that fans from across the country have called to see whether what they had witnessed a live explosion and a man unable to escape the burning wreck. This is easily done, I'm sure. I'm sure references to the "live, breaking news" stories about McMahon's supposed demise at [wwe.com] would have to be added for illustrative purposes. Briguy52748 21:34, 12 June 2007 (UTC)]]

Okay, after some tweaking I have this:
 * On June 11, WWE aired a segment at the end of RAW that featured McMahon (in character) entering a limousine moments before it exploded. The show went off-air shortly after, and WWE.com reported the angle as though it were a legitimate occurrence proclaiming that McMahon was "presumed dead." The explosion was staged the previous day and the real Vince McMahon was not killed.

Thoughts? Metros 21:45, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

The filming of the previous day shouldn't be mentioned. If I were able to edit, I would add: "On June 11, WWE aired a segment at the end of RAW that featured McMahon (in character) entering a limousine moments before it exploded. The show went off-air shortly after, and WWE.com reported the angle as though it were a legitimate occurrence proclaiming that McMahon was "presumed dead within several minutes. " I would also add a back story of the depression angle, but I'm not sure the best way to put it in words. Socby19 21:53, 12 June 2007 (UTC)Socby19
 * Socby19 — At some point, the fact that the "limo explosion" was pre-taped, then spliced into the live footage (to pull off the illusion of McMahon's "death") will have to be included in the article. Not necessarily now, but at some point; if not here, certainly the kayfabe article or other appropriate article. Briguy52748 22:07, 12 June 2007 (UTC)]]
 * I put the real world spin of it in there only because there are going to be a ton of "he's really dead!!!" comments in the article when this gets unprotected. Adding those references will (hopefully) help to deter some of that.  Metros 22:12, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * In addition, this article needs to put into context what's real (it was a stunt to advance a storyline) and what's fiction (Vince is dead); the kayfabe article (which also needs work, could help complement this). Someone who is a lot better than I am at this will no doubt go in and discuss the segment that aired on the June 12 RAW in a real world context, and life will go on. Yes, we'll still have to be on the lookout for marks who truly and honestly beleive that a man was incinerated by a car bomb on live television, and we editors will need to continue to patrol this article to erase inappropriate statements ... but working together, the article will be written appropriately, revised as the storyline and real-world fallout (if covered in the national media; it hasn't as I write this) unfolds over the coming weeks/months/years, and life goes on as we turn our energies to other articles. Briguy52748 23:45, 12 June 2007 (UTC)]]

I think the two people mr.mcmahon turns around to look at needs to be mentioned. Atleast I believe WWE will make them out to have a huge part in it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.117.21.141 (talk • contribs)
 * No speculations please.-- bullet proof  3:16 05:04, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Create second article for fictional character
There's an article about Jerry Seinfeld and an article about Jerry Seinfeld (character). It's an elegant prototype solution to the Vince McMahon fact/fiction problem. I like this idea. Although it should be noted that Seinfeld was a character on a sitcom, while some people for some reason (which is really beyond me) actually believe that the character and the real person are one and the same. However, that doesn't change the fact that those people are very mistaken, and I think this solution is actually perfect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.215.161.71 (talk • contribs)

I agree this should be done for all wrestling personas. Personas are characters that are played by actors. Too many articles are ruined by the grey area between fiction and fact. (203.222.110.46 01:40, 13 June 2007 (UTC))

If we do, I suggest we have the article about the persona be Mister McMahon, to reflect the "character name", and keep Vince McMahon about the non-screen individual.--Bedford 02:04, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


 * This would have to be done for every wrestler article with a gimmick. There is no point in that.--  bullet proof  3:16 02:11, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

No it wouldn't. Vince is the head of this huge company (the WWE) but also plays a character on the company's tv programs. This is not like a smaller wrestler or anyone. Vince is basically "wrestling" today. I think there should be a separate article about the real man and the character.

I agree. Jack Shephard has his own page, completely separate from Matthew Fox. People forget, WWE is a television show just like Lost. And just like Lost it has characters. Mr. McMahon is one of the longest running characters on television and deserves his own article.

The way I see it is that, you either put in this article that he is dead or make another one saying he is dead. But continuing with the long running character thing then you have to make one gfor guys like Kane and Stone Cold. Both have died and been arrested respectively.


 * So go ahead and 'do that.' I can understand having a seperate article for Stone Cold and Steve Williams, or for Vince McMahon and Mr. McMahon. But there's a line that we'd have to draw somewhere, and *I* think it should be when the lines between the two actually become blurred. Like in this situation. For example, I'm sure there's no confusion in the article for Marty Wright, so he can stay on one page. Similarly, I'd say there's no confusion between Kevin Nash and his onscreen persona. But in a situation like this, I'd say there's a significant amount of people who could possibly be confused between the two. I say we do a vote or some shit. 71.162.59.253 07:05, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

All I say is that we shouldn't have this debate. We could yank a lot of kayfabe out of this article in seconds if we did one, like the 'Kiss My Ass Club' reference and other elements which only refer to the supposedly deceased. Let's make this article talk about the real man, and put all the fiction where it deserves to be. 81.106.2.6 17:43, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Even if a new article were to be created to describe Vince McMahon's on-screen character, the article discribing the businessman would still require some mention of his kayfabe character. Although relevant content would be truncated and/or edited into a scholastic context, the "Mr. McMahon" character he plays on television, notable feuds (e.g., Stone Cold Steve Austin) and storylines are still an important part of his biography. Briguy52748 17:50, 13 June 2007 (UTC)]]

I agree that there should be two entries for vinnie mac. One for him as the buisiness leader family head and real life person and one for his on-screen character. I realise that in the short term it would mean more work, however, in the long term it would probably be beneficial to both the casual reader and the wrestling enthusiast to separate the "fact" from the "fiction". This work of a presumed death is a very good example of why this change needs to be made. Hope my argument makes sense! Sparkyboi 20:11, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I defintally agree with this idea. It will defintaly clear up this mess about Vince's (presumed) death. Ding03 Dingv03 06:19, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I support the idea of two articles. --Dravenfrost 23:30, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

One thing that needs to be considered if you want to seperate this article is McMahon is well known for his on-camera attitude wherever he goes he is always in character. the only time besides 1997 when he was nice was when Eddie Gurrero died. Furthermore the fudes with WWE superstars and Managers where real as can be. Hulk Hogan has stated that he and Vince never got along in real life. The most absolute thing EVERYONE should know about WWE is that even though it is fake the rivialries CAN be real but put it in a storyline. if this does not reminde you of Owen Heart then is should remind you od Edie Gurrero's death because WWE has been know to put real (or in this matter fake) deaths in the stroyline. now I guess the story that BBC said about McMahon's real death is false right? you guys might see me as a troll but in all reallity you NEED to menton Eddid's death was a stroyline on HIS page thank you for your time

storyline alert
I put in a note with the "limo explosion" that it was a storyline, seperate reality from the "Kayfabe events" of the WWE - make it obvious that it's a storyline. It needs to be stated here, Wikipedia is a dictionary which isn't written "in kayfabe" just like we don't have Star Wars "written in the Universe" type of articles etc. Modify it or whatever but seriously if it's mentioned on the article we have to make sure it's clear that we're talking about a storyline here.MPJ-DK 08:54, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I've added a reference to the Kayfabe bit, and removed a large portion of text copied from WWE.com. Cactusrob 09:53, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * What a mess. All reverted until someone can find a better way to approach it, many people confused on whether its fake or real and the way the article was written (especially the first line) was just false. Rewrite it and MAKE IT CLEAR, along with the previous attempts that it is PART OF A STORYLINE. - Boochan 10:10, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I would suggest listing it as a subtitle in controversy, making it clear that it's a storyline and not real. - Boochan 10:13, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Leaving something there (with refrences) is going to be better than nothing, otherwise it will just be added again, in an even worse way. I'd say leave what was there and work on that (move it, clean it), but don't get rid of all the mentions. What was there CLEARLY stated it was kayfabe. Cactusrob 10:24, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * With the reference to the "limo explosion" storyline now added, I would be very selective/cautious (what's the right word here?) about adding week-to-week updates. Clearly, there will be storyline developments (e.g., "suspect" development, kayfabe interviews with "investigators," etc.) and on-air commentators, wrestlers, etc., acting as though a legitimate death had occurred, and the temptation will no doubt exist to add every detail of what happens (which of course is not only unneccessary but goes against Wikipedia policy and the agreement of the Professional Wrestling project). I'd say unless it is really groundbreaking or such, I'd limit the edits for now. The fact that the "limo explosion" storyline resulting in the kayfabe "death" of Mr. McMahon has been added (and a clear distinction that it in fact is just a storyline) is enough for now, save for perhaps a generic statement about commentators and others (in kayfabe) continuing to act as though it were a legit death. (Whew, I'm all kayfabed out!) Briguy52748 01:14, 14 June 2007 (UTC)]]

The use of kayfabe
I'm getting a bit concerned with the the sprinkling of kayfabe all over this document. My understanding of kayfabe is that kayfabe is the maintaining scripted behaviours, or supporting worked activities (e.g. maintaining a feud when one actor is injured). There should really be a distinction between kayfabe /worked events and real life events. As far as I can there are two options. One as mentioned above splitting Vinnie Mac into two (read above for my comment on that) or two using some way to highlight kayfabe/worked events in the text. I would welcome more discussion on this issue as Vinnie Mac is currently rather a mess (the article that is - figuritively rather than literally!) Sparkyboi 20:11, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * It's pretty Simple as far as I can see. There is a Mr. McMahon heading so keep all wrestling character stuff under there (death, firings, wrestling moves and accomplishments, feuds) and keep everything else (personal, harrasment, professional career) elsewhere. Cactusrob 21:18, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Fact and Fiction Zones
I think that what should be done is a typical timeline-esque setup (generally done with other wrestler's Wikipedia entries) with the top 'zone' for FACT (true, NOT kayfabe) and then the bottom zone for FICTION (false, kayfabe)events (i.e., his 'death'). Anyone else agree? 75.68.132.121 14:13, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Totally agree. I don't think there's need for two articles, just one well organized one. Cactusrob 12:59, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Another request for a "Mr. McMahon" page
Some people have said if we do it for McMahon, we'd have to "do it for every wrestler". This is not true. For the most part, most wrestlers don't have anything interesting enough that they would need a seperate article for their "real life" persona. McMahon is different. Vincent K. McMahon inherited his father's wrestling company and built it into what it is today, he is a businessman. "Mr.McMahon" is an insane charic..characture...however you spell it...of himself. Putting his "death" on this page would be silly, but it would fit in on a page that also mentions his hatred of Steve Austin. him being the mastermind behind The Ministry, etc. Thoughts? --Smart Mark Greene 04:12, 15 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, the "we'd have to do it for every wrestler" is a foolish argument. Only a handful of wrestlers are notable for anything outside of the ring; and in the case of most of these (like Jesse Ventura) they did their non wrestling stuff before or after their wrestling career, making it easy to write their articles. McMahon is different. That's why his article is so difficult to write and why it's the mess it is; he's had a notable storyline going on in the ring while simultanously having notable one going on outside of it for 30 years; we all know both need to be covered. By shoving them all into one article we get a hodgepodge that doesn't make sense, and the dilemma of having a guy dead and alive at the same time. (By the way, where is the source that verifies he's alive, as it boldly says at the top of this article. Are we just assuming so?) Celedor15 04:03, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I think as far as making two seperate articles for every wrestler, there are only a few that need two seperate articles, and that is because except for a handful of wrestlers not much is known about their "real" life. Im in favor on a second article for Mr. McMahon. Fisha695 04:56, 15 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Agreed that few professional wrestlers — if any — require a separate article on their kayfabe characters. Even if a new "Mr. McMahon" article were created to cover the major feuds, wrestling accomplishments, etc. of Vince McMahon's kayfabe alter-ego, the main article covering the real-life promoter would still require at least some kayfabe content, given that his competition in the wrestling ring and decision to play a ficitonal "evil boss" on television are important parts of his real life. Briguy52748 22:22, 16 June 2007 (UTC)]]

University
The college Vince attended is "East Carolina University" not "East Carolina State University". Stunnaman2k5

Article Seperation
Why can't we separate McMahon's article into a 50/50 thing. Ken Shamrocks page is seperated into MMA and UFC then into Pro Wrestling. Why don't we do that for Vince. Like "As a Businessman" and "As a Character". It would help as far as creating another article is concerned. You can just edit the one we have into two parts. That way we can include his death as a major event that it is and heave stuff like the XFL. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.247.21.121 (talk • contribs)

So you are proposing; announcing the death as real, writing an article about Vince's private life for which we have no sources (which we do for his on screen life), deleting stuff about the XFL, and all while you have a total of 17 edits and an IP, and never sign your posts. I think you're over reaching. Darrenhusted 13:01, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * What?!? No, he is proposing splitting the article to "Real Vince" and "Character Vince". It's not that difficult. By heave I assume the user was referring to moving it, not deleting it. And referring to the amounts of edits the user has is rather unnecessary, and makes you sound rather elitist, and is not the type of attitude that will encourage editors. Cactusrob 17:38, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Click on the contribs button for the above editor, he has yet to edit an article with anything constructive. The only issue for a split is the fake death angle, other than that the article already makes clear the difference between Vince and Mr McMahon, in fact there is a heading "Mr McMahon", so I cannot see what 209.247.21.121 is talking about. Darrenhusted 18:17, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I've gotta say, this split is starting to seem almost essential to the health of this article. Both Vince McMahon and 'Mr. McMahon' have lived lives that warrant Wikipedia space (within the realm of PW articles, anyway). It's either two separate articles, as discussed above, or a clear distinction between two sections of this one. Fatjabba 17:57, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * On top of which, this article does not even include the notice that it's subject is the biography of a living person right now -- only that it refers to a fictional work. I don't know if a clean split is possible, either way, but so long as Wiki authorities are using this conflict to prevent the development of a complete article (primarily via deletion of chronological summary of the character's onstage career), this is a problem. 64.111.226.144 11:36, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * What someone should do is write out the new article and propose it to Wiki. This really needs to be a separated article.  One half being Vince McMahon, and what he has accomplished in terms of the WWE and other business ventures.  The other half being Mr. McMahon, the evil boss we all know from WWE tv; the evil boss who do anything to let himself or the bad guy win.  The only issue with that might be that McMahon was a nice guy at the beginning when he was on TV. Foodmaster 08:04, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I think having a separate article for the character played in the storylines is a good idea. There's a precedent with Stephen Colbert and Stephen Colbert (character). This situation is extremely similar. Croctotheface 10:21, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Article no edits
So why can't we edit this article?
 * Its temporarily protected to avoid troll edits, about the death storyline Cactusrob 15:46, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Reliable Sources
If you want some reliable sources about the death go to. --Sha0000 11:00, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, as reliable as any dirtsheet can get, surely? Fatjabba 16:45, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Additions to the Article
Unfortunately, the article is protected from editing. I was thinking about adding a section about the "death" that talks about the memorial shows, and any other storyline related occurrences. Anyone agree? Tails0600 17:54, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Reaction on Smackdown
Should it be noted in the controversy section that the reaction to the "Moment of Silence" for Vince's fake death at the beginning of Smackdown (as well as the following "dedication" segments) were met with incredible hostility from the crowd? It might be worth mentioning, considering that this angle is in the Controversy section. Sir 0rion 22:57, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Can someone tell me why everything moved to Atlanta? the limo is trashed there and the "Federial Agent" made his statement on WWE.com in atlanta, so I was wondering what is so important about Atlanta?

The Protection
editprotected I would like the article UNBLOCKED so I can do real edits and why that kind of thing on the Article it's self--   Hornetman16   23:01, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Request for page (un)protection is that way. Cheers, ➪ Hi DrNick ! 23:57, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

WHY?
Just wonderin but does anyone know the reason why his character has been killed off? Is it to give him a relief from the pressure of being on screen or is it to make more money through yet another controversial storyline? I think it would be good to have a mention of this in the article--Duality344 23:10, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I reckon he needed a rest from the wrestling for a while. He is probably resting at home, watching everybody get upset over his "death" --Sha0000 02:44, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

My take is that following all the badmouthing in the appreciation night, he wanted to get some sympathy. So he faked his death and would suddenly show up again when everyone had said that they really liked him, and that he would be missed. But we'll probably never know, since the angle is supposedly cancled. 194.18.165.5 13:41, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Because...
The owner/president of USA Network (Sci-Fi as well) was complaining about the current drop in ratings of the Raw show. Therefore they created this story to get hits to the website and interest in the shows. Even lay people who don't watch wrestling were coming up to me at work asking about what happened. Also, this is the reason behind the somewhat lop-sided draft and why most "good" talent, or at least promising talent, went to Raw.

Unprotected
I have reduced the protection level to semi-protection (preventing IPs and accounts less than four days old from editing the article) becuase the news now seems pretty clear about his death and I'm hopefull that we can edit it productively. If protection is necessary again, please make a request at WP:RFPP or WP:ANI, the latter for a faster response. In both cases, keep it brief. Thanks.--Chaser - T 06:32, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Storyline
I think the reason he was "killed off" should be put on the article. It's an important piece of information that can be used to help people distinguish between kayfabe and reality and therefore could clear up a lot of confusion. That is if anyone has a viable source... --Duality344 14:18, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I just added it. If anyone feels its worded wrong or out of context feel free to change it.--Duality344 23:09, 22 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I have removed it. At this point in time, it is pure speculation. No one, except those involved with the storyline, knows for sure why they "killed" Mr. McMahon. - Deep   Shadow  23:51, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I know this seems weird, but they keep saying "Presumed Dead" on WWE.com, which is why I think they're going to bring him back.....Mjtwh 22:56, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Vince McMahon appeared on camera at the beginning of the RAW show tonight paying tribute after Chris Benoit's death. MichaelBlankley 00:05, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I really think that his appearance should be noted if anything is written into the article about the Mr. McMahon angle. --Raderick 04:30, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Nevermind, I see that it was already mentioned.
 * Reports are that they are canceling the assasination storyline because of the recent events. 194.18.165.5 13:22, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Protection tag missing
I note the article is still protected against non-registered edits, but there's supposed to be a tag that goes at the top of such articles and it appears to be missing. 68.146.8.46 13:48, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Vince Not dead
I heard someone saying that they seen Vince talk about this whole thing with Benoit, is it true?The Cleveland Browns are awesome! 14:30, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Real Death of Chris Benoit
Vince came out and announced it hafter he was supposed to be "dead" that sohuld be mentioned in the fake death section

McMahon Death Angle not over


this link doesnt mention anything to do with the angle so what makes you say its over?--81.129.49.55 16:16, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

How about the Mr. McMahon 1945-2007 image? 71.172.69.32 16:17, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

The wrestling observer reports say that it's over. The Hybrid 16:30, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I read that too. Bout a half hour ago, RIP Vince 1945-2007 was up on the RAW page, but it appears to have been taken down. I guess they're not sure what to do at this point. 71.172.69.32 16:39, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Trust me. It's over. When McMahon showed himself in the center of the ring on an episode of RAW (dedicated to Chris Benoit) in front of undoubtedly millions watching and declared that his "death" was a storyline, it was over. Andariel Halo


 * will he ever reveal who would have "killed" him? ♥Fighting for charming Love♥ 17:49, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Probably not. They may not have determined that yet. You can never tell with the WWE. The Hybrid 17:52, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Speculation that it may not be over. Near the bottom it talks about the continuation of the angle. Then again, it appears they haven't edited it since sometime Monday before the news of Benoit. Mike 19:57, 26 June 2007 (UTC)


 * well vince isnt shy about using death for storylines and he could just pretend that the raw 3 hour tribute never happend (they preted Bobby Lashly was the first to brake the Maserlock it was Cena and he put Masters in a Master lock} . ♥Fighting for charming Love♥ 21:27, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Granted, I don't know who their source was for this information, but in reading the news on Benoit, the Associated Press claims that the Mr. McMahon death storyline is over. (At the bottom of the linked article) 71.215.135.235 01:29, 27 June 2007 (UTC)


 * This comment applies to any of the "Is the 'McMahon is dead' angle" still on - unless we can get verifiable word (from a reliable source) that the angle has been dropped, I don't know (or see) how Wikipedia could state that the angle was ended. Perhaps this has already been covered by McMahon's (real-life) appearance on the June 25, 2007 RAW (the Chris Benoit Tribute episode). Briguy52748 20:17, 27 July 2007 (UTC)]]

Firings
Paul Heyman was not fired as GM of Smackdown. He quit after being drafted to Raw in the 2004 draft. 24.89.69.22 21:41, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

vince
made another public anouncement

Vince still dead
due to the recent events unfolding in the benoit case the wwe seem to have ignored the fact that they held a memorial service to him and are seemingly continuing the mc mahon death storyline. Information on this can be found on the wwe official website on the preview section of the smackdown! page.(near the final paragraph)--81.152.114.229 02:16, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

The Smackdown! Page was not updated after the Benoit case as I think the preview page had that information before the events culminated about Benoit (since Smackdown is filmed on Tuesdays along with ECW). It would be plain silly for the WWE to continue the "Death of McMahon" angle as he has made public appearances on WWE Programming including the June 25 episode of Raw and the June 26 episode of ECW. >Schism08 02:26, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

http://www.wwe.com/inside/news/chairmanbenoit I'm not sure. Heres a link to Vince basically stating that the show must go on.--Duality344 02:31, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, thats the announcement that he gave at the beginning of the ECW program today. Still, the appearances by Mr. McMahon lead me to believe that they would probably not go through with the angle, I mean, who would buy the angle after two appearances by the man the WWE are proclaiming to be deceased? Plus, it's been about 50 minutes into today's ECW broadcast and there was no mention of the Death angle and nothing related to Mr. McMahon on ECW (besides his announcement in the beginning of the program). >Schism08 02:50, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, I was just looking around on the WWE website for McMahon's profile page, and couldn't find it. So, I did a search for "Mr. McMahon" and noticed that upon clicking some of the articles about him being "presumed dead," I got nothing but a "Not Found" page. Perhaps this is a clue to the end of the angle, or perhaps they just decided to delete/move the articles. Link9999 03:45, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, the most likely reason for that is that they're probably just moving files around the site. Interestingly, when he "died", his profile acted the same way, with the "Not Found" page. Anyways, I think that even if his "death" storyline does not continue (which it will not), McMahon probably wants a break from the public eye and will not be seen as much on WWE programming. >Schism08 06:49, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

For those who want to answer this question for themselves before Smackdown airs on Friday, I suggest you find the spoilers for the tapings and see what happens. Seems pretty clear to me where they're going with the angle. Mike 14:25, 27 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah, you heard absolutely nothing on either ECW or Smackdown about Chris Benoit or Mr. McMahon. I'd say it's safe to say that it's over. 63.215.27.139 20:54, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I didn't see smackdown yet (TiVoed) but I'm pretty sure the storyline is over. I read rumors from somewhere (I know, not the best source of information) that they were going to, for the forseeable future, have the murderer be Linda McMahon but then bring in Stone Cold as the ringleader. Actually, now that I typed that, I realize that The Ringleader was a previous persona of Steve Austin... Anyway, I think the storyline is dead seeing as Vince was in the center of the ring this week. That doesn't mean that it wouldn't be fun to make him dead again, seeing as the WWE is going to do everything it can to avoid talking about Benoit ever again. Just pretend that it was actually someone in a McMahon mask that came out last week. Weirder things have happened in wrestling and, anyway, nobody believed he was dead in the first place anyway except for gullible marks.  Valley 2 city  06:00, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Slightly OT but his old name was actually the Ring Master. --67.68.155.222 00:47, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

New photo
Perhaps a new free-use photo should be used to replace the existing one. I make this suggestion because of Vince's new hair-style since WrestleMania 23. There is the existing ECW champion photo that could be used, but, perhaps someone has a more "universal" free-use photo? Unless of course, you don't believe that a new photo should be instituted. Please, post what you think. Kyle C Haight 12:18, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, if there's a free use image of what your trying to request then its fine!!! But, the original image will just have to do!!!! --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 02:11, 30 June 2007 (UTC)


 * OMG so many exclamation points!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! *lol* - anyway, if you can find a good quality free use image, than we would be more than happy to replace the current one with a more modern picture of VKM. Cheers, The Hybrid 02:44, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

His Age?
In that Forbes article it stated he was 55. I think it was source 13 or 14 that said it. Tyeman64 03:11, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind. I didnt realize that source was 7 years old.Tyeman64 03:16, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

About the "Vince Is Dead" angle...
According to What would have been the outcome of the McMahon death angle?, "Dave Meltzer is reporting that the conclusion of the McMahon death angle would have saw Vince McMahon returning to television to reveal that he faked his death. Believe it or not, last week’s Raw would have featured a false arrest of Linda McMahon." So, McMahon would be revealed NOT to be dead and Linda would have been arrested, although, they might still have that happen on the June 2nd edition of RAW. 24.7.217.221 16:45, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * June 2nd? --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 01:39, 03 July 2007 (UTC)

no longer a character
mr.mcmahon has not appeared on wwe tv in a few weeks so is it safe to say the mr.mcmahon gimmick is over? §UB619! 04:01, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Hell no. Mcmahon has been known to disapear for a few weeks or months and then rear his head back into story lines. He isn't gone yet.

Education
There is no mention of whether or not Vince attended college. I remember a "shoot" interview between Vince and JBL in '05 where Vince mentioned that he went to East Carolina University (JBL asked which Ivy League school he attended, and was dissapointed with Vince's answer). I checked the notable alumni wiki page for East Carolina and Vince wasn't mentioned. Does anyone know if this is Kayfabe? THX-1138 18:39, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Vincemcmahontrial.jpg
Image:Vincemcmahontrial.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 04:51, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Vince McMahon vs. Mr. McMahon
An edit saying that Vince McMahon is no longer refered to as Mr. McMahon on camera was deleted as non notable, but, I wonder if it is so non notable. A lot of talk around here and elsewhere (including a statement to shareholders) was pretty clear in the difference between Vince McMahon the person and Mr. McMahon the character. So, if the character Mr. McMahon is finished, that might be notable. XinJeisan 04:39, 16 July 2007 (UTC)