Talk:Molly Holly/Archive 1

Archive 1

Requested release

Does anyone have a reference for the line that says she requested her release from WWE - the official press release says that the agreement was mutual, but that is vague and highly suspect coming from WWE. --Jtalledo (talk) 19:38, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Found one. http://www.411mania.com/wrestling/news/newsboard.php?news_id=11495 --Jtalledo (talk) 06:02, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I have changed the link to a Molly Holly-related one since the original link that was posted no longer deals with her.

Images

Not all images need captions. The one at the top is, given its placement, clearly of Noreen Greenwald, so there is no point in simply captioning it "Noreen Greenwald". Likewise, the picture of Greenwald as Miss Madness says Miss Madness right in the image. Too many extraneous captions makes the article look cluttered. From the Manual of Style:

"Photos and other graphics should have captions unless they are "self-captioning" as in reproductions of album or book covers, or when the graphic is an unambiguous depiction of the subject of the article. For example, in a biography article, a caption is not needed for a portrait of the subject, pictured alone." (emphasis mine) — Gwalla | Talk 05:56, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

sorry, i thought they look neater with borders around the images... i tried to put them in a frame (|frame|) but the pics go back to there origional size which is far to large thats why i used thumbnail, not because i wanted the captions. -- Paulley 18:13, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I see your point. It would be nice if there was a way to get the borders without the captions, but there doesn't seem to be one (frame is apparently the same as thumb except it ignores resizing). — Gwalla | Talk 21:09, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Born in 1977

Her date of birth is september 7, 1977, not 1978. I change it.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.196.73.93 (talk • contribs) 08:38, 7 September 2006‎ (UTC)

Nora Greenwald: Shootin' the Shi Crap DVD

Has anyone who has worked on the page seen it? Just wondering because there's bits from it that aren't mentioned on this page, especially the real reason why she asked for her release. A mention of part of the procedes of the sale of the video go toward Crash Holly/Mike Lockwood's daughter's education would be nice. PHOENIXZERO 06:23, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

The Behind the scenes section has been removed... However i will palece it here just incase its moved to a new page or in some way merged into the article. --- Paulley

extended content
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Behind-the-scenes issues Source: Nora Greenwald: Shootin' The Shi Crap DVD: Behind-the-scenes, the manner in which Greenwald was depicted on-camera legitimately hurt her feelings and took a toll on her self-esteem. It ultimately led to her wanting to leave WWE. After her departure from WWE, Greenwald admitted that she didn't feel comfortable with her prude gimmick because she wasn't prude nor judgmental in real life. Her peers told her that she was simply acting and playing a part, but Greenwald believed that the gimmick took her passion for professional wrestling away. Greenwald stated that when she first started in pro wrestling, she saw herself as a girl next door role model, but since she was being depicted as an overweight, self-righteous prude, she wasn't happy about it. Greenwald often had to remind herself that she was simply playing a character and that she wasn't really like the person she portrayed in WWE. Nevertheless, Greenwald felt her attitude changing toward what she was doing with her life as she was largely unhappy during the gimmick's tenure. In an effort to change her attitude, Greenwald petitioned to the creative team to turn babyface again, but she was unsuccessful in having her request granted. Perhaps the biggest contributor to Greenwald's behind-the-scenes unhappiness can be attributed to the controversial "big butt" angle due to the snowball effect it personally had on her. What was supposed to have originally been a one time joke for an episode of RAW ultimately took a life of its own. Upon joining WWE, Greenwald was no longer comfortable in exhibiting her buttocks to the audience in short dresses let alone shorts, and thus she'd try to deemphasize the size of it by wearing slimming black pants when wrestling. Furthermore, photographers would often try and shoot Molly from her "best side" during the annual bikini photo shoots by subtly using aerial angles in an effort to deemphasize and draw attention away from her buttocks and thighs. In some cases, Molly would wear a skirt over her bikini bottoms and/or the published photo would be cropped at around her stomach. In the spring of 2002, creative team member Stephanie McMahon approached Greenwald and asked for her permission for Trish Stratus to come up to her in a backstage segment on RAW to tell a series of jokes regarding Greenwald's amply sized buttocks. Greenwald found the proposed script to be rather amusing and she didn't mind - she thought it would be a one-time thing. In a backstage segment on the June 10, 2002 edition of RAW, Molly lambasted backstage interviewer Terri Runnels by saying that it was impossible for people to take her as a serious journalist due to the revealing photographs of her and her sex column appearing in recent issue of RAW Magazine. Stratus appeared behind Greenwald and said, "I finally figured out why you dislike Terri and I so much. It's because you've got a big ass! Your ass is like an amphitheater. It's so big, you could like show a whole drive-in movie on that thing! All I can say Molly is that you've got a whole lot of junk in your trunk!" A few weeks later at the WWE Divas Undressed special, Molly would reluctantly admit that her buttocks were indeed considerably large, but she didn't mind as she was proud of her all-natural curvaceous physique. Regarding Trish's prior comments, Molly responded by saying that Trish didn't deserve the Women's Championship belt and that the Champion should be "pure and wholesome" like she was. Molly then challenged Trish to a match. Trish accepted her offer, but with one stipulation. If Molly won, she would get a title match at a later date, but if Molly lost, Molly would have to wear a thong in the ring. Greenwald accepted the stipulation and walked off the set with the magazine pressed against her backside in an attempt to hide it. Greenwald and Stratus had a match later in the show in which Greenwald would reign victorious. [1] Greenwald's feelings regarding the angle changed after she reviewed the videotape the next day. She was simply aghast that Jerry Lawler spent the entire match poking fun at her buttocks and talking about how fat she supposedly was. Also, the camera purposely shot her from the back end and focused in on her buttocks while she made her entrance to the ring. In a later interview, Greenwald said that "her heart sank" as she knew that she had given her permission for the angle, but she didn't expect the comments regarding her physique to be continuously reminded to the fans, as if being fat and having a large buttocks was her new gimmick. During Greenwald's feud with Stratus, even though he was a heel commentator, Jerry Lawler, Lawler would frequently poke fun at her - more specifically, her sizable backside and virgin status. In a February 2006 interview, Greenwald stated that Lawler was simply doing "what he was told to do," even though his comments genuinely offended her. She also added that he got a lot of hate mail due to his comments. Lawler's comments eventually rubbed off on the viewers at home as people in the crowd would start bringing in signs poking fun at the size of her posterior. And whenever she was out of the ring and knocked to the floor, people in the crowd would often yell that she was overweight, that she looked pregnant, and that she should hit the gym. Greenwald stated that it hurt her feelings to hear the people in the audience yell derogatory remarks regarding her body. On the otherhand, her male peers would tell her that it was great heel heat because she was getting the fans riled up. Nevertheless, the fans' comments regarding her physical appearance devastated her. "As a girl, you don't want people to tell you you're ugly. I'd take those feelings back to the hotel with me and back to my home with me," Greenwald said in an interview. "It was difficult." Unlike most of her male peers, Greenwald loved the traveling, not to mention hanging out with the people she worked with, but she eventually hated the performance portion of her job. Greenwald said, "I dreaded walking through the curtain." In a sharp contrast to her character's beliefs, Greenwald admitted that her favorite part of the gimmick was when she appear to be embarrassed whenever her panties would be exposed to the audience. In actuality, she got a kick out of the audience seeing her flop around with her pants pulled down and her underwear being exposed. Greenwald said that she was the individual who concocted the facet of her gimmick in which she would act humiliated whenever she would be depantsed during her matches. In an effort to throw off her concentration and gain the upper hand, Greenwald's opponent would sneak up from behind to pull her pants down, thus exposing her underwear, not to mention the contours of her sizable backside, to the audience. Greenwald would then purposely stumble around the ring in a state of shock and embarrassment all the while she feverishly attempted to pull her pants back up. Greenwald exclusively adorned large white-colored cotton "granny panties" in matches in which she was going to be depantsed as this style of underwear completely covered up her buttocks, not to mention that it is associated with social conservatism - which fit in perfectly with her character's beliefs. Although, it was later revealed that Greenwald wasn't above wearing a thong in her matches - just as long as it wasn't going to be purposely exposed. The upper portion of a black-colored thong was unintentionally visible during a spot in which Bubba Ray Dudley was going to put her through a table (tag team partner Chris Nowinski thwarted Bubba's attempt to put her through a table though) on an episode of RAW in August 2002. Aside from that unintentional moment, Greenwald's trousers were never pulled down to reveal her buttocks in a thong. Greenwald initially got the depantsing idea from when Ric Flair would do something similar to it in the 1980s. She and Trish Stratus decided to experiment the spot at a house show in an attempt to garner a pop from the crowd. Due in part to the ecstatic reaction of the fans, the two decided to make it a regular fixture in their matches as that particular spot usually garnered the largest crowd reaction for their matches. In matches in which Greenwald knew her pants were going to get pulled down beforehand, she rigged the said pants backstage with her opponent for the night so that her underwear wouldn't accidentally be pulled down when it came time to perform the spot before the crowd. The depantsing spot occurred at several house shows, but it only occurred on television on less than a handful of occasions. The spot was eventually phased out of Greenwald's matches towards the beginning of 2003, although her panties would still be displayed on rare occasions in which she wrestled in a skirt - albeit unintentionally - such as at Taboo Tuesday 2004. In a sharp contrast to her carefree attitude regarding her underwear being exposed, ironically, Greenwald seemed legitimately concerned with her panties even being partially visible during the Fulfill Your Fantasy Battle Royal at Taboo Tuesday 2004. Greenwald's skirt for the match happened to be somewhat short and thus she was frequently pulling it down during the match in an attempt to prevent her panties from being exposed to the audience - which was easily the case with her fellow divas. Greenwald's worries noticeably affected her ringwork as she didn't attempt many high impact maneuvers in which her skirt could easily fly up to reveal her underwear. Surprisingly, Greenwald managed to keep her skirt grounded for the most part as the audience never got more than a minuscule peek of her undergarments, but her skirt ultimately flew up when Trish Stratus threw her over the top rope, thus exposing her pink panties. An embarrassed Greenwald subtly pulled her skirt down as she was left laying on the ground. Ironically, Greenwald's previous wrestling character had no qualms about her underwear constantly being exposed during her time in WCW as she frequently wrestled in short dresses, which easily exhibited her undergarments to the audience.

GA quick fail

The article has problems with references and other issues. I am failing this per the GA review of the Undertaker article. Quadzilla99 07:04, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

GA Pass

I am passing the article. It is well-written, comprehensive, and well referenced. I am aware of previous objections of the use of primary sources, however I feel that these sources are reliable and it is therefore acceptable to use them. Good work - • The Giant Puffin • 20:33, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

confused article

This article is confusing and has the same problem with many wrestling articles - it mixes up real world information about the person with the scripts and stories of the character they played in the ring. So when the article talks about a "feud" is a disinterested reader to conclude it was real or a fake one? --Fredrick day 08:33, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Nora requests removal of some material

Nora Greenwald HERSELF sent me an email two days asking that the following material be removed from her article page: "#1, My name is not Noreen. It is Nora; #2, the part about rebellious periods with beer and cigarettes, #3, the part about becoming a Christian at 14; #4, the part about my blond hair being "fried", #5, the entire part about the stupid big butt gimmick and Jerry Lawler's comments- people do not need to read about that or be reminded of it plus the OK from Stephanie McMahon. I also want the entire section labeled "Personal Life" removed and I want the Missions work section to be removed as it is not accurate."

Apparently the write did not get permission from Miss Greenwald to post this material in the article and has requested the appropriate removal. If you have any questions, email her. --Summers95926 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I didn't write the original article, but one doesn't need permission to write an encyclopedia article using previously published information from articles and interviews. If she wanted information to be kept private, why did she talk about and let it get out in the first place? Just to humor you, I've already taken care of #1, #2, and #3. I changed the part about her "fried" hair, as well. However, the inforamtion about #5 should stay because it was a large part of her gimmick and is well documented in almost every interview she's had. I've changed the stuff in the mission's work section to match what is on wwe.com. Lastly, the personal inforamtion as all straight out of interviews. Nikki311 19:44, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

One more thing. The part about the lump and leaving WWE was also written by someone else, but I've changed it out of respect to her, because I've read that she wanted that to be kept private. Nikki311 19:52, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

She still wants any references to her behind and her "Personal Life" section removed. She is not the least bit happy that they are still there. --Summers95926 3 June 2007 (UTC)

While I can see why she feels this way on things, however, it's not exactly encyclopedic. I'm sure there's lot of public figures who have seen their pages on wikipedia, and they don't exactly want some things on here, but there's not really anything they can do about it, especially if there is a source. All the stuff is public info, and it has a right to be here. Also, a lot of the stuff she wants removed came from her mouth in various interviews, so well, I guess she just shouldn't have said all the stuff she said. Wootman 20:35, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Also, not liking something is not a reason to delete it. Please check WP:IDONTLIKEIT for more information on that. I agree with the above poster, and it's not like anything written in the section is negative in any way. It puts her in a positive light, if you ask me. Lastly, I compromised with most of your requests even though I probably shouldn't have, so I would appreciate it if you would stop adding inappropriate and un-neccessary tags such as "cleanup" or "unreferenced" to the article. It is neither of those things. If it was, the article would not have reached good article status. Maybe she should be proud that her article is one of only five wrestling-related articles out of thousands to be considered a Good Article. Thanks. Nikki311 20:52, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Then I guess you'll have to deal with her. -- Summers95926 21:22, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Wootman was not saying that the article is unencyclopedic, he was saying removing the personal life section would be. Nikki311 23:01, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Note: If the subject of an article wishes to have something edited or removed on a Wikipedia article, it is best they go through email channels to do it, not use an editor to do so. See WP:BLP#dealing with articles about yourself. Why? Any Tom, Dick or Harry can then go round claiming they represent the subject of an article, and then do as they wish.

Per our conflict of interest guideline, it is also a bad idea to edit an article you have a direct interest in. Why? It does not help to establish a neutral point of view.

In other words, being the subject of an article does not give her owning rights to the article. But information that may be, for example, libellous, may be removed as biographies of living persons says.

I strongly suggest you, User:Summers95926, refrain from making large-scale changes to this article because of conflict of interest, and if you are in contact with the subject of this article, ask her to contact Wikipedia if she has a problem with this article. This way, it can be verified and does not look controversial. Information that is removed on a large scale, and if it is sourced, can be considered vandalism. x42bn6 Talk Mess 00:49, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Nikki311 and I already resolved this issue. I appreciate her work and have apologized for any inconveniences it caused. Summers95926 08:40, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I know I'm a little late with these comments, but her big butt storyline was likely her most popular run with either WCW or the WWE. To leave it entirely out of her page (while leaving in info about Stephanie McMahon or Lawler teasing her, no less) seems pretty uneven. Lawler and Steph's info can go, but the angle should stay.

I came upon a link which I thought would shed some light into this angle. Check out http://www.mavenhuffman.com/headlines/60321046.html to see what Nora had to say about it. Here's a passage:

""Stephanie McMahon asked me if they could do an interview with Trish where she said I had a big behind, and if I would mind. It was no problem with me. It was like pointing at someone wearing glasses and joking that they had poor vision. So what? It doesn't matter to me. God gave me two legs to walk on and I'm healthy, so why should I be offended if someone criticized my physical appearance when God created me this way. It would almost be a slap in the face to God to say that I'm not happy with the blessings he has given me."

She's admitting she has a large rear end and doesn't shy away from it a bit, so I don't see how it's factually inaccurate, disrespectful, etc. I'm brand spankin' new here and don't know how to do much in terms of editing, but both that link and a summary of the angle should be included. PegGT 03:54, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I really do agree. It's not like it isn't discussed in every interview she's done, as well as, every wrestling website that has a Molly Holly profile. Nikki311 04:01, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Somebody keeps changing Nora's first name to Noreen. She herself has told me that her real name is Nora Kristina Greenwald, not Noreen. She has asked that it be changed, and it was. But "Noreen" is back on the page. She once again asks that "Noreen" be removed. 75.52.144.165

Are you sure it's even the real Molly Holly you're talking to? She's so busy with charity and missionary work over in Guatemala and other dirt world countries, I SERIOUSLY doubt she has time to follow wikipedia entries on her.

Yes, it IS the real Nora Greenwald that I am talking to. She has asked several times that "Noreen" to be removed and be changed to her actual first name of Nora and it keeps being changed back. Go to my Greenwald's Garage website to email her and ask her yourself. 76.204.225.164 17:31, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Music

Does anyone know the name of her entrance music in 2002? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.209.130.247 (talk) 15:29, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Requested move 2008

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was

 Not done D.M.N. (talk) 13:20, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Who supports a move to Molly Holly? SAVIOR_SELF.777 04:51, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Oppose she debuted as Miss Madness, and wrestled as Mighty Molly. Her article doesn't actually say what name she's used on the indy circuit, but I doubt she will use Molly Holly. Darrenhusted (talk) 08:09, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Oppose per darren 1362^talk 14:36, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Oppose Also she does all her charity work under her real name. Govvy (talk) 17:56, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Oppose per above. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 18:56, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

GA1

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Nora Greenwald/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. The article history has been updated to reflect this review. Regards,--Jackyd101 (talk) 19:07, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

• It is reasonably well written.

  a (prose): b (MoS):

Prose is OK, a 6/10.

• It is factually accurate and verifiable.

  a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

• It is broad in its coverage.

  a (major aspects): b (focused):

The personal life section is a mess. It should be rewritten in encyclopedic paragraphs.

• It follows the neutral point of view policy.

  a (fair representation): b (all significant views):

• It is stable.

  

• It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.

  a (tagged and captioned): b (lack of images does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):

• Overall:

  a Pass/Fail:

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

--Jackyd101 (talk) 19:07, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Personal life

Hi, this is a warning that the personal life information in this article is messy. Any biography that is of GA standard must have at least one well organised paragraph describing the persons life outside of their field for which they are famous or otherwise incorporate that information elsewhere in the text. This information provided in this article is messy, appearing in a sequence of stubby unconnected sentences rather than properly organised paragraphs. As a result, it does not give enough context for the incidents and information that is mentioned. For an example of how such a section might look, see Brian Urlacher and for pointers on how to expand and improve the section, see this guide. If this information is not improved then this article would be unlikely to survive a Good Article Reassessment and may well be delisted in the future. Thanks --Jackyd101 (talk) 10:38, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Entrance Themes

Hi, do you think her entrance themes should be mentioned?

- Slow Death (2000 - 2001) - Eye of the Hurricane (2001 - 2002) - Cosmos (2002) - Rhesus Pieces (2002 - 2003) - Virginous (2003 - 2005)

I think that's correct. Thanks -- Lee 15:49, 08 February 2009 (UTC)

Powerlifting record at age 14

The "fact" that Nora Greenwald set a state powerlifting record keeps getting copied from site to site, without saying what the lift is. Powerlifting records are kept for three lifts - squat, bench press, and deadlift - and for the total of the three. The record of 100 pounds, breaking a previous record of 75 pounds, is probably for the bench press because a state record squat or deadlift for a 14 year old girl would be higher. Larry Siegel (talk) 05:05, 12 May 2009 (UTC)Larry Siegel

Name

I think her married name is "Nora Benshoof":

• [2]
• [3]

McPhail (talk) 18:21, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Requested move 2013

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was moved. --BDD (talk) 20:17, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Nora Greenwald → Molly Holly – Greenwald performed as "Molly Holly" from 2000 to 2005, the period in which she had greatest exposure. This will also allow increased direct linking. McPhail (talk) 16:03, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

• Support as nominator. McPhail (talk) 16:04, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
• Support per commonname --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 16:50, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose Yes, Molly Holly was her most famous wrestling role. But she's been Nora Greenwald for longer after becoming famous, and has done quite a bit of other notable work under this name. Throw in the other ringnames, and it just doesn't seem right to pin her whole story down to those five years. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:15, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
• Support I think the five years she spent as Molly Holly gave her far more exposure than the rest of her billed names.LM2000 (talk) 18:42, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support since Molly Holly is her clear WP:COMMONNAME. STATic message me! 02:46, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
• Weak support per comments I made at Crash Holly's talk page. I'm a bit on the fence for both of these, and although I think InedibleHulk made a good case, I'm still not completely swayed. — Richard BB 09:03, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.