Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 03:40, 24 August 2010

Biography: Arts and Entertainment B‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography B This article has been rated as B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. This article is supported by the arts and entertainment work group (assessed as Low-importance).

Professional wrestling B‑class Mid‑importance

Linda McMahon is within the scope of WikiProject Professional wrestling, an attempt to improve and standardize articles related to professional wrestling. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, visit the project to-do page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to discussions.Professional wrestlingWikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestlingTemplate:WikiProject Professional wrestlingProfessional wrestling B This article has been rated as B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Connecticut B‑class Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Connecticut, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Connecticut on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConnecticutWikipedia:WikiProject ConnecticutTemplate:WikiProject ConnecticutConnecticut B This article has been rated as B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

It is requested that a photograph of on the campaign trail activity be included in this article to improve its quality. The external tool WordPress Openverse may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

Upload

On-screen roles

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

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

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

Professional Wikiwashing

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

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

On-screen_roles_of_Linda_McMahon

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Political photos

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

"Edwards-McMahon"?

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

Age?

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

1989 steroid memo controversy

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

McMahon DOESN'T support the carbon tax

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

Here is the full quote.

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

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

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

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

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

Ongoing additions/reversions to lead section

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There are 3 points of discussion here:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

-or-

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hulk Hogan images

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Steroid trial

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

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

"Several politicians"

The page currently contains the text:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What's her name?

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

Political career

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

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

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

Contents

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

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

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

Truths about Linda McMahon for incorporation?

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

Pre-GA review

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

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

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

1. Stuart, Christine (2009-02-25). "House Approves WWE Executive". CT News Junkie. Retrieved 2009-08-21.
2. ""WWE Chief exec. on State Board of Ed". 2009-02-25. Retrieved 2009-08-21. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |web publisher= ignored (help)
3. Greta Van Susteren. (2009-02-25) "SHOW: FOX ON THE RECORD WITH GRETA VAN SUSTEREN" 10:40 p.m. Fox News Network

• B-Class biography articles
• B-Class biography (arts and entertainment) articles
• Low-importance biography (arts and entertainment) articles
• Arts and entertainment work group articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• B-Class Professional wrestling articles
• Mid-importance Professional wrestling articles
• WikiProject Professional wrestling articles
• B-Class Connecticut articles
• Mid-importance Connecticut articles
• WikiProject Connecticut articles
• Misplaced Pages requested images of professional wrestling performers
• Misplaced Pages requested images of politicians and government-people