Talk:Vince McMahon/Archive 4

Ring Names
Are Vinnie Mac and Vincent Kennedy McMahon really ring names? Vinnie Mac is simply no more than a nickname. And, Vincent Kennedy McMahon has never been a ring name, just McMahon refering to himself as that. $\mathfrak{s}\mathfrak{a}\mathfrak{v}\mathfrak{i}\mathfrak{o}\mathfrak{r}$ $\mathfrak{s}\mathfrak{e}\mathfrak{l}\mathfrak{f}$$\mathfrak{.}$$\mathfrak{7}\mathfrak{7}\mathfrak{7}$ 02:54, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Death
Hey he might be dead, you know, I don't think he's been seen since you know what so...  Kala  jan   17:33, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It was a storyline.--Truco 21:55, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Biggest possible facepalm* I feel stupid saying this, but all this is WP:Speculation.  § imon KSK  21:58, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

LOL he might be after tonight Mon 19th jan I think it should be added his return didn't got very well and it seemed like randy had "seriously" hurt him. Obviously not comment on a condition because a) it looked and seemed scripted and b) no info from wwe for reliable sourcing hope this helps and source was monday night raw —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.10.231 (talk) 04:26, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

In Hospital
During a WWE event, he was assaulted by a wrestler. Condition is unknown. Powerzilla (talk) 18:41, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

It was kayfabe.  ←Kala  jan→   19:54, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Comments about Montreal Screwjob
I'm creating this section to hopefully solve the edit war over the information added by ToonIsAloon. Information like that (controversial info about a living person) has no place in Wikipedia due to WP:BLP. Furthermore, that much detail belongs, not in this article, but in the article about the Montreal Screwjob due to WP:SUMMARY. The MS article, is not only about Hart, and the event itself, but also about McMahon. The McMahon article is long enough as it is, so employing Summary Style is preferred here. Besides, the wording violates WP:POV. If you think "The following night on Monday Night Raw, McMahon approached the audience with a light hearted / gentleman approach, but nonetheless was despised worldwide by wrestling fans", for example, is neutral, you are dead wrong. Plus, some of the info is already presented in the article, like the fact that the incident led to him becoming the Mr. McMahon character (see Vince McMahon) and the feud with Stone Cold (see Vince McMahon). Why repeat info in an article that is well beyond the desired article length already? Nikki♥311 20:14, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Irish-American?
Shouldn't Vince be listed as "Irish-American" opposed to simply "American"; considering how it's common practise on wikipedia (see African-American, Italian-American)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.76.35.135 (talk) 22:10, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Format?
I really don't understand the layout here. First it lists his storylines like all wrestler's articles should, but then it explains his character and lists storylines after that. Why are the pre-2001 storylines and post-2001 storylines separated like that? It makes no sense. Ive Cena Nuff (talk) 17:30, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Ditto. Tony2Times (talk) 20:41, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

wwe champion
it lists mcmahons accomplishments as being wwe champion. this is completely wrong. this is why wikipedia is a poor source, mcmahon has never been wwe champion. absurd.

in the intro it lists him as a two time world champ and one time wwe champ. this is utter lies.
 * Try checking the sources cited in the article. Both statements are true and backed up. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 00:17, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I have checked the sources, and it does not back this up. And, from my own knowledge, I am absolutely certain that this is not true. Mcmahon won the ECW title, not the WWE or World Championship. If you actually check the source you would see this. This should be changed immediately, he has never won either the WWE or World title.

You must be sarcastic, because everyone knows Vince won the WWF Championship in the later 90s. Try looking here.--WillC 11:07, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd like that to note that that source WAS indeed cited in the article. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 14:48, 24 September 2009 (UTC)