Talk:Vince McMahon

Please note that this talk page is for discussion of changes to the Vince McMahon article. Off-topic discussions are not appropriate for Wikipedia and will be removed. Thank you for your cooperation.

UNDUE content

There seem to be sexual abuse allegations on this article that are only tangentially related to the article subject, and are thus WP:UNDUE. For example: Vince_McMahon#1990s_ring_boy_scandal and Vince_McMahon#Ashley_Massaro. These probably should only be on the WWE article. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 10:22, 17 July 2024 (UTC) I have now removed the content from the article as no response to my initial question. WP:BLPRESTORE applies to this type of content, find consensus here before re-adding. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 21:48, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Safest course of action. We must be extremely careful with the content posted about a living person. Slacker13 (talk) 18:23, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

1990s ring boy scandal

During the early 1990s, Mel Phillips, WWF's ring announcer and ring crew head, was accused of molesting multiple "ring boys", under-aged children that worked as part of the WWF ring crew. In 1992, Phillips was fired from the WWF. Phillips had previously been temporarily dismissed from the WWF in 1988 for sexual misconduct, but was brought back that same year.

On October 29, 2020, it was reported by Business Insider that Vince McMahon and his wife Linda were aware of the allegations against Phillips but willfully turned a blind eye to them. According to Freedom of Information Act requests for court records regarding the ring boy scandal, Vince, under oath, stated that he was aware that Phillips had taken a "peculiar and unnatural interest in children" but refused to take action against him. Further testimony revealed that Vince, after bringing Phillips back to the WWF in 1988, had made Phillips promise to "stop chasing after kids". It was also reported by Business Insider that, under Vince and Linda McMahon's directive, the WWF began a campaign to discredit Tom Cole, one of the children who had accused Phillips of sexual misconduct, and Cole's family. In response to the Business Insider report, Jerry McDevitt, WWE's attorney, stated that the accusations against Phillips were related to his unusual "foot fetish" but did not include "anything approximating conventional forms of sexual abuse such as rape, sodomy, etc." He additionally described the claims that the McMahons knew about the accusations against Phillips but refused to take action and continued to employ him under the condition that he "stop chasing after kids" as "outlandish" and "classic libel."

Tom Cole died in February 2021.

Ashley Massaro

Prior to her death on May 15, 2019, former WWE wrestler Ashley Massaro alleged that she was sexually assaulted at a US military base during a 2006 WWE tour of Kuwait by a man posing as a doctor, and that WWE officials persuaded her to not report it to the appropriate authorities as they did not want it to affect the company's relationship with the military. WWE officials would later claim they had no knowledge of Massaro's alleged sexual assault.

After her death, an affidavit by Massaro describing the sexual assault allegations in detail was subsequently released by the law firm that represented her. In response, WWE said that their executives had not been previously informed of the allegations described in the affidavit. Despite previous denials from WWE about having knowledge of her allegation, in February 2024 an attorney representing former WWE Head of Talent Relations John Laurinaitis stated that: "most upper level management at sometime became aware of the [Massaro] allegations and ensured all proper WWE protocols were followed, including privacy for the alleged victim." That month, Vice News reported that the Naval Criminal Investigative Service had investigated Massaro's allegations from June 2019 to January 2020, although no further information about the investigation other than its existence is known. A further report by Vice News revealed that Massaro had accused Vince McMahon of "preying on female WWE wrestlers" and that she believed he had tried to sabotage her wrestling career after she rejected an advance from him.

References

Argument Against the Claim that Vince McMahon is a Founder of WWE

There is a disagreement about whether Vince McMahon should be listed as the founder of WWE. Reliable sources indicate that he purchased the company from his father, Vince McMahon Sr., who founded it as Capitol Wrestling Corporation, which later became WWE. As such, sources clearly mention him buying the corporation, and then expanding it. In addition, this seamlessly aligns with the factual history of the WWE entity too (there is full documented/cited history of the company and its ownership). I am seeking input from other editors to determine whether the article should be updated to reflect this distinction.

Proposal: Please change "McMahon, along with his wife Linda, is a co-founder of the modern WWE,..." to "McMahon, along with his wife Linda, were the majority owners of the WWE,..."

While Vince McMahon is often credited as a "founder" of WWE (World Wrestling Entertainment), this designation overlooks the historical context of the company's origins and misrepresents McMahon's role in its development. Here are several key points to consider:

1. Historical Context: WWE was originally founded as the Capitol Wrestling Corporation (CWC) in 1953 by Vincent K. McMahon (Vince's father) and his business partner, Toots Mondt. Vince McMahon Jr. acquired the company in 1982, inheriting a functioning business with established talent and a regional fanbase.
2. Business Expansion, Not Founding: McMahon's significant contributions to the company lie in his strategic expansion and modernization efforts. Under his leadership, WWE transitioned into a global powerhouse, leveraging innovative marketing strategies, television deals, and event promotions. However, this does not equate to founding the company.
3. Comparative Analysis: The analogy with Elon Musk and Tesla is apt; Musk is often credited with transforming Tesla into a major player in the automotive industry but did not found the company. Similar to Musk, McMahon's impact was transformational rather than foundational.
4. Recognition of Predecessors: Acknowledging Vince McMahon as a "founder" diminishes the contributions of those who built the company before him. Recognizing his role as an owner and a pivotal figure in WWE's growth is important for a more accurate historical narrative.
5. Terminology Accuracy: The term "founder" implies the inception of an idea or business from scratch. Since McMahon took over an existing entity, a more accurate description would be "owner and architect of modern WWE."
6. Terminology of "Modern WWE": Referring to Vince McMahon as a founder of "modern WWE" does not change the foundational history of the company. The term "modern" suggests a new era or transformation but does not negate the fact that he acquired an existing business. Thus, regardless of the era being referenced, the distinction between founding and ownership remains critical to understanding WWE's history.

In light of these points, I propose that we revise the language surrounding Vince McMahon's role in WWE to reflect his actual contributions more accurately, emphasizing that he purchased the company and played a pivotal role in its expansion, rather than founding it.

Supporting Sources

1. Vince McMahon bought WWE from father
2. In 1982 he bought the company. McMahon transformed the sport,...
3. Vince McMahon bought WWE from his reluctant dad
4. "In 1982, McMahon bought WWE from Vince Sr. and transformed it into the global wrestling and entertainment juggernaut that it is today."

BusinessFanatic17 (talk) 20:18, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for you insight and suggestion. The thing of it is, what you have done is considered 'original research' (see WP:OR) which cannot be used in consideration of edits on Wikipedia. Wikipedia work on what reliable sources say (see WP:RS), and there are dozens of reliable sources which say that McMahon was the 'founder'. It is unfortunate at times that this does not always lead to the truth (WP:NOTTRUTH))... this is a well-knows issue with Wikipedia every editor must come to terms with eventually. Marcus Markup (talk) 19:56, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure that holds up here. Wrestling articles often lack business insight and verbiage. Some wrestling articles may say "co-founder" and then immediately after they mention how he acquired the company from his father. Does the context not matter here? In some sense, they're contradicting his "founder" status. This isn't original research, but rather it's fully documented within the organisation's history. Simply viewing the WWE wikipedia page and reading the company history makes this very clear. It literally says he bought the company from his father. Titan Sports was nothing more than a holding company for the wrestling promotion that is now known as WWE. In the business world, this is extremely common for acquisitions and restructurings. As supported by the points in this original post, neither Vince McMahon nor Linda McMahon are co-founders of WWE. They bought and significantly grew the original organization. BusinessFanatic17 (talk) 19:53, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

@Swinub please view this. I think the original points I highlighted + the sources reinforce the factual reality behind Vince/Linda acquiring and then growing WWE. Given the reliable sources I've cited, and the WWE company history, isn't that sufficient to conclude Vince/Linda as owners, rather than founders? BusinessFanatic17 (talk) 21:36, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

@Marcus Markup I was hoping to get your opinion here. Given the 4 sources I've got provided (there are several more that I could cite), and the promotion's factual history as documented, is that not enough to conclude they were owners who grew the company? What are your thoughts? BusinessFanatic17 (talk) 21:47, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

My thoughts are we go with the sources, and it is not unto us to discern the 'truth'. But beyond that, objections to him being a called a 'co-founder' might be includable in the article as a fact unto itself, if reliable sources are making that objection. If this as scandalous as you make it out to be (him being considered a co-founder) then there should be reliable sources discussing that fact. Then we could include that, and even include a note in the article where we call him a 'co-founder' noting that it is disputed. Marcus Markup (talk) 10:26, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Which “reliable” sources refer to him as a co-founder? Could you please point me to them? I’d like to take a look at all of them. Doing a simple Google search like “Vince McMahon WWE co-founder” did not yield much, but when I google “Vince McMahon bought WWE”, these articles highlight how he transformed the company, not found it. This is just from a couple of basic Google searches. In any case, I’d like to take a look at the more “reliable” sources that you claim are conferring founder status upon him. It will be easier to come to a conclusion by comparing the quality of sources on both sides of the claim. The claim that he’s a co-founder is based entirely off of sources referring to him as such, as per what you’re saying. The articles I’ve looked at all explain how he transformed the company after acquiring it. We can simply compare the quality of sources against each other. I think that’s the best way to ensure that the label is based off the most reliable sources. What you mention about trying to find debates on whether he’s a founder vs co-founder is plain silly.BusinessFanatic17 (talk) 15:19, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

https://time.com/7024021/mr-mcmahon-netflix-vince-mcmahon-wwe/ https://variety.com/2024/tv/news/mr-mcmahon-docuseries-trailer-vince-mcmahon-netflix-1236131770/ https://www.thedailybeast.com/vince-mcmahon-lashes-out-at-deceptive-netflix-doc Marcus Markup (talk) 16:36, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

The sources you’ve cited from Time, Variety, and The Daily Beast highlight Vince McMahon's transformative impact on WWE, emphasising his role in shaping it into a global entertainment powerhouse. However, it’s essential to recognize that these articles often refer to him as the "founder" in a figurative sense. This terminology is used to underscore his significant influence and leadership rather than to accurately describe the historical origins of the company.

1. Time:
   • The Time article refers to Vince McMahon as the man who built WWE into a multibillion-dollar empire. While it mentions him as the "founder," this term is used more to emphasize his transformative influence rather than his historical role in the company's origins.
   • Quote: "Vince McMahon, the WWE founder..."
   • Source: Time
2. Variety:
   • The Variety article discusses the Netflix docuseries, often referring to McMahon’s role in creating the WWE spectacle, which can blur the lines between founding and expanding. It emphasizes his impact on the entertainment industry.
   • Quote: "As WWE's founder..."
   • Source: Variety
3. The Daily Beast:
   • This article also leans into the narrative of the Netflix documentary, focusing on McMahon’s controversial role in WWE's growth rather than the precise historical founding.
   • Quote: "WWE founder Vince McMahon..."
   • Source: The Daily Beast

While these sources highlight Vince McMahon’s immense contributions and his central role in WWE's success, they do not provide a historically accurate account of him founding WWE. Instead, they focus on his influence and the broader narrative of his impact.

----

Credible Sources Highlighting Vince McMahon buying WWE from Father:

Here are multiple credible sources that emphasize Vince McMahon's purchase of WWF from his father and his expansion of the company, clearly distinguishing between founding and expanding.

1. Business Insider - "The career rise and fall of WWE billionaire Vincent McMahon, who retired amid an investigation into alleged misconduct"
   • This article provides a detailed account of how Vince McMahon purchased the World Wide Wrestling Federation (WWWF) from his father, Vince McMahon Sr., in 1982. It highlights how Vince Jr. took a regional promotion and transformed it into a global entertainment business.
   • Key Quote: "McMahon took over the business that would eventually become WWE from his father in 1982.”
   • Source: https://www.businessinsider.com/wwe-billionaire-vincent-mcmahon-lost-billions-coronavirus-2020-10#mcmahon-took-over-the-business-that-would-eventually-become-wwe-from-his-father-in-1982-2
2. Sports Illustrated - "Wrestling With Success" (1991 Interview with Vince McMahon)
   • In this interview, Vince McMahon admits that his father wouldn’t have sold him the company if he had known about his plans for national expansion. This acknowledgment underscores Vince's role in expanding the WWF, not founding it.
   • Key Quote: "Had my dad known at the time I bought him out what my plans were, he would never have sold his stock to me."
   • Source: https://vault.si.com/vault/1991/03/25/wrestling-with-success-vince-mcmahon-has-transformed-pro-wrestling-from-a-sleazy-pseudosport-to-booming-family-fun
3. Forbes – Vince McMahon Profile
   • This is the official Forbes profile on Vince McMahon, and they clearly highlight him buying WWE from his father and then expanding into a global business.
   • Key Quote: "McMahon purchased the business 10 years later, then transformed the World Wrestling Federation from a regional operation into a global phenomenon.”
   • Source: https://www.forbes.com/profile/vincent-mcmahon/
4. Overtimer - "Vince McMahon Buys WWF (1982)"
   • This article details Vince McMahon’s purchase of WWF from his father in 1982. It outlines how Vince revolutionized the company through national TV deals and events like WrestleMania, solidifying his role as an expander, not the founder.
   • Key Quote: "On June 6, 1982, Vince McMahon made this day in wrestling history by purchasing the remaining portion of the WWF from his father’s business partners, Gorilla Monsoon, Arnold Skaaland, and Phil Zacko for an estimated $1 million.”
   • Source: https://theovertimer.com/2020/06/this-day-in-wrestling-history-6-6-vince-mcmahon-buys-the-wwf/

----

Credible sources such as Sports Illustrated, Overtimer, and the WWE's own historical records explicitly state that McMahon purchased WWF from his father, Vince McMahon Sr., in 1982. This purchase marked the beginning of his expansion efforts, transforming the WWF into a major player in the wrestling industry. Understanding this distinction is crucial for a comprehensive view of WWE's history and Vince McMahon's role within it.

Your sources from Time, Variety, and The Daily Beast effectively highlight Vince McMahon's massive influence, but these references use the term 'founder' in a figurative sense. In contrast, my sources, including Business Insider, Sports Illustrated, Forbes, and Overtimer, provide a clear, verifiable historical account of McMahon's purchase of WWE from his father in 1982. These sources show that Vince McMahon expanded, rather than founded, WWE, and such a distinction is critical for an accurate portrayal of his role. This is the level of precision that Wikipedia demands. BusinessFanatic17 (talk) 20:52, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

• Comment BusinessFanatic17, could you please provide a link to where prior discussion of this matter has taken place? An RfC should only be used when a subject has already been extensively discussed and normal discussion hasn't resulted in a clear consensus. If that has taken place, it would be very helpful to provide respondents to this discussion a link so that they could review the prior discussion(s), as it's definitely not immediately obvious. If it hasn't, this will need to be procedurally closed and that will need to take place first. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 23:38, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

  Also, if that has happened, you will need to change the RfC summary to be neutral (e.g., just "Should X be changed to Y?" without further commentary). You can then certainly state your own position as a comment to the RfC, but you can't front-load the summary with it; the summary itself must be a neutrally worded question and nothing else. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 23:40, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

  Thank you for the discussion, but at this point, I must withdraw. The level of bureaucracy involved in trying to update an article to accurately reflect the facts is simply excessive. While @Marcus Markup argues that Wikipedia's guidelines prioritize sources over facts, I find it frustrating that even after providing multiple credible sources, these have been dismissed in favor of outdated or less accurate ones. I've presented the truth as it stands, and now I leave it to the community to decide.

  Finally, I want to stress: Titan Sports Inc., like TKO, was merely a holding company. Just as Endeavour creating TKO does not make them the founders of WWE, Titan Sports being established to hold WWE assets does not confer founder status upon Vince McMahon. In the business world, this is a clear distinction—holding companies do not create or 'found' the businesses they manage. BusinessFanatic17 (talk) 01:55, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks for clarifying. I removed the RfC tag for the moment; RfCs are a substantial investment of community volunteer time which is a limited resource, so they should only be used when regular talk page discussion has reached an impasse without any consensus forming. So, a last resort rather than a first one, since in most cases just discussing the matter can reach a resolution everyone can at least live with, if not be thrilled with. It seems some good discussion is underway, though, so hopefully that can continue. So far as the prohibition against performing synthesis of published work to arrive at "the truth", that's more a practical consideration, as a dozen editors could interpret various things in a dozen ways, and we'd end up arguing over our interpretation of sources, with nothing to resolve that, rather than what they actually say. So, we stick to what they actually say. If the consensus among the best available sources on the subject say that X is a Y, then for our purposes, X is a Y, even if some interpretations might make it seem otherwise. Of course, if later sources contradict that and come to the conclusion that it was wrong, then we've got a different story, but they have to actually contradict the earlier sources (that is, actually say something to the effect of "X is actually a Z"), not just seem to contradict them if you smash them together and squint hard enough. And yes, that in essence means that if the consensus among reliable sources is wrong about something, the article will be too, until those who actually write high quality source material about the subject manage to figure that out and correct it. (I'm not taking a position as to what is the factually correct answer here, just trying to clarify why it is that it's done that way.) Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:20, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

• Marking this as answered. The request is based on the user's own opinions on the matter, and they have now left the discussion. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:25, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Talk page commentary

This talk page doesn't seem to meet wikipedia's guidelines WP:TPG for discussing how to improve an article. Shall the other topics be removed/cleaned up from the talk page? Slacker13 (talk) 18:30, 29 November 2024 (UTC)