Talk:Elaine Wynn/Archives/2016
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Elaine Wynn net worth
The Nasdaq.com figures, that are far more accurate than Forbes source, indicate that, as per SEC Form 4, in January, 2015, Elaine Wynn held 9.5 million shares of WYNN stock that, as of today are worth about $750 million, given that the stock has collapsed some 50% in just the past 9 months alone. Could anybody explain how Forbes can justify or rationalize that Wynn's net worth is approximately $1.4 billion? Although she owns several expensive paintings and some real estate, that cumulative figure can not possibly account for the $700 million shortfall between the current value of her sharply devalued Wynn stock and Forbes unsupported, invalid, net worth estimate.
Even with inclusion of her non-stock holdings, including the Francis Bacon painting, she no longer belongs in the "female billionaires" category.
Revised Wiki Data2 (talk) 15:46, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
- Forbes is a reliable source, and if their current number is inaccurate, they will most probably update it in due course. Your suggestion amounts to original research or at least synthesis. Please refer to Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources and Wikipedia:No original research for our policies in this area. I notice that you have only edited on Steve and Elaine Wynn, so you might want to look at Wikipedia:Single-purpose account too. Edwardx (talk) 18:09, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
- Actually, Forbes is a very tendentious source on this particular issue, since the editor (steve forbes) is a billionaire himself and, in terms of "agenda," naturally, imparts info that undermines or supports members of his own social circle of billionaires. In terms of single purpose issues, since you wish to cast ad hominem innuendo upon this matter, I wonder why you were so quick to reinstate net worth figures (for Steve and Elaine Wynn) that are so incontrovertibly inaccurate, based upon the empirical data I supplied. Are you in their employ because, per NPOV regs, the employees, friends, relatives, etc., are not supposed to edit the listing? I edit all variety of topics on Wiki under various IDs but, as you might understand, certain types of powerful figures are very vindictive when somebody attempts to place accurate and truthful data that undermines populist perception of those powerful figures; ergo, the creation of a new Wiki ID to reflect the FACT that those two figures net worth has plunged as a result of the analogous collapse in their key stockholding. Cast in the best light, the Forbes data is very outdated. Thanx.
Revised Wiki Data2 (talk) 18:37, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
- Steve Forbes is probably richer than me, but he's no billionaire. And I don't work for him or Forbes magazine. If you have an issue with Forbes as a WP:RS, you should raise that elsewhere. Regarding your "various IDs", are you familiar with WP:Multiple accounts? Edwardx (talk) 19:30, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
- also, with regard to excision of the term, "socialite," and replacement with the term, "businesswoman," could you please describe which business or corporation that she heads? Could you further describe exactly what that "business" entails? The reality is that she is a "socialite" who lives a jet set lifestyle and, if you can provide evidence to the contrary, then please do...the key problem with the term, "businesswoman," is that it suggests she maintains an active involvement with Wynn Resorts, when she no longer does. Given that she never established a new company of any kind following her ouster from Wynn Resorts, then "businesswoman,' is a very inaccurate term to use.
Revised Wiki Data2 (talk) 18:48, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
- maybe it seems a priori to you that Wynn is a businesswoman, but it is not a priori to anybody else.... she no longer conducts any kind of business and lives a lifestyle that is more in the vein of a jet set socialite, albeit with a veneer of hobby philanthropy. Nor can anybody make an a priori assertion that she is a "co-founder" of Mirage or Wynn resorts. In former days when the couple "got along," her husband created both corps and placed her on the BOD in order to obtain a favorable vote on his behalf. Could you please describe which hotel project she initiated, along with pertinent details? Anyway, it seems there is a violation of NPOV on this matter and it is pointless to continue the argument since you seem to regard the Forbes data as a de facto holy bible. Let it stand on record that her net worth figure, as placed upon her Wiki, is extremely inaccurate, and badly overstated, that the Nasdaq.com info is a much more reliable source, and that her occupation description violates NPOV.
Revised Wiki Data2 (talk) 19:52, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
- "everything is referenced," he states.
- OK, here is the first reference from Forbes, that claims (as of today) that she is still a WYNN board member, even though she was ousted ages ago (and that should give you a good idea just how inaccurate, preposterous, inflated, and outdated their representations of Elaine Wynn's net worth).
- In the article, "The Boardroom Strikes Back," Wynn is described as a "former wife" of Steve Wynn, and nothing more.
- In the New York Post article, she cited her only talent as follows: "I am an expert on Steve Wynn, I understand his strengths and his challenges." Is that what makes her a "businesswoman?"
- In the Las Vegas Review Journal article (by John Smith), it leads off with the appropriate description, as follows: "Las Vegas socialite" -- and that is a term improperly expunged by the tendentious editors listed above.
- In the Los Angeles Times article, she is described in the opening paragraph as "the wife of billionaire casino mogul Steve Wynn," then subsequently described as "one of the pillars of well-dressed women in Las Vegas." No mention of anything that pertains to her alleged role as a "businesswoman."
- There is nothing pertaining to any details of her being "an accomplished businesswoman," not one scintilla of info detailing one single business accomplishment of any kind. Again, I state...let this Talk Page objection stand as a formal protest against the actions of the two Wiki editors who have improperly expunged/added info in the manner of Elaine Wynn's public relations reps, rather than as impartial editors committed to the pursuit of NPOV. Revised Wiki Data2 (talk) 09:40, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
- In any case, in order to create some consonance between the Steve Wynn and Elaine Wynn Wiki listings, have edited the Steve Wynn listing in order to include the info that describes Elaine Wynn as a co-founder of both Mirage and Wynn Resorts. Assuming that to be true, then failure to include that info is a glaring omission in the extant Steve Wynn bio and have taken the liberty of correcting the matter. You can not have one founder bio representing one thing, and the other founder bio representing something entirely different. Revised Wiki Data2 (talk) 10:18, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
It does seem that the claim about Elaine being a co-founder of Mirage Resorts and Wynn Resorts is quite thinly sourced. The only source I see is this bio, which is not an independent source, being as it's from a charity chaired by Elaine Wynn. I am certain there are lots of reliable sources that describe Steve as the founder of these companies, with no mention of Elaine as co-founder, so at this point it seems like cherry-picking to describe her as such. Toohool (talk) 01:27, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
- "thinly sourced" is a euphemism to describe the promotional material placed on this listing, in flagrant violation of NPOV. I would hope other editors will weigh in on this matter because she needs to be removed summarily from the categories of "American Company Founder" and "American Corporate Director," given that she was ousted from the Wynn resorts BOD some time ago. Furthermore, the description, "businesswoman," is highly inaccurate given that she operates no business of any kind today and, as indicated previously, the term, "socialite" and/or "jet setter" should be reinstated, since that more aptly describes her situation in life today. Finally, she needs to be removed from the categories of "Female Billionaires," and, "American BIllionaires," since, given the dramatic plunge in Wynn stock this past year, it is impossible that she remains a billionaire today. The current market cap of Wynn Resorts happens to be $7.5 billion, as per Yahoo Finance, <http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=wynn>and the Wynns would have to own more than 50% of the equity in order to reflect Forbes outdated, cumulative, net worth data on the two individuals. In fact, at no time did the Wynns own more than 20% of the corporate equity and, even if one were to add their miscellaneous holdings, primarily real estate and art, that figure could not begin to account for the gross overstatement. Revised Wiki Data2 (talk) 09:32, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
- Once a businesswoman or corporate director, always one. We don't remove categories once people quit their jobs, or delete their pages after they die. If you can find a reference that says specifically she did not co-create those businesses, we can have a discussion. Otherwise you are expressing your opinion, but this talkpage is not a forum. Now, "socialite/jetsetter" are not encyclopedic terms--indeed, they sound rather disparaging, which would be inappropriate on Wikipedia. The facts show that she is a philanthropist, which sounds encyclopedic. Also that she has been a businesswoman or company founder, unless you can find references that disprove that.Zigzig20s (talk) 09:50, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
- "thinly sourced" is a euphemism to describe the promotional material placed on this listing, in flagrant violation of NPOV. I would hope other editors will weigh in on this matter because she needs to be removed summarily from the categories of "American Company Founder" and "American Corporate Director," given that she was ousted from the Wynn resorts BOD some time ago. Furthermore, the description, "businesswoman," is highly inaccurate given that she operates no business of any kind today and, as indicated previously, the term, "socialite" and/or "jet setter" should be reinstated, since that more aptly describes her situation in life today. Finally, she needs to be removed from the categories of "Female Billionaires," and, "American BIllionaires," since, given the dramatic plunge in Wynn stock this past year, it is impossible that she remains a billionaire today. The current market cap of Wynn Resorts happens to be $7.5 billion, as per Yahoo Finance, <http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=wynn>and the Wynns would have to own more than 50% of the equity in order to reflect Forbes outdated, cumulative, net worth data on the two individuals. In fact, at no time did the Wynns own more than 20% of the corporate equity and, even if one were to add their miscellaneous holdings, primarily real estate and art, that figure could not begin to account for the gross overstatement. Revised Wiki Data2 (talk) 09:32, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
- I am REITERATING the opinion of editor,"Toohool," (see above), who refused to include info at the "Steve Wynn" wikipedia that described Elaine Wynn as a "co-founder," and who expunged all such material, deeming it to be "thinly sourced" and "cherry picking." So apparently my "opinion" is shared by others, much to your consternation. As such you need to remove her from the category of "American company founder," ASAP, as that happens to be only YOUR opinion. As far as whether or not "socialite" is an encyclopedic term, it happens to be a Wiki term, with an entire page devoted to its definition <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialite> and the term, "jet setter," happens to be a Wiki term, with an entire page devoted to it <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jet_set> So it just happens to be yet another of YOUR invalid opinions that those terms do not exist. So at the very least, given that those terms more accurately reflect who Elaine Wynn happens to be today, they should be added to her description, in first and second position. As to whether or not those two terms are "disparaging," I suppose it all depends upon one's perspective. Most middle class people would be thrilled to be members of such a "disparaging" class--but do not blame me for the reality of what Elaine Wynn happens to be. She is far more a socialite and jet setter today than any kind of businesswoman...and you continue to refuse to provide any empirical evidence that she did anything at the Wynn properties except ride her husband's coat-tails and glory....NOT one speck of empirical evidence indicating what business achievements she unilaterally accomplished on her own....it all happens to be nothing more than YOUR opinion that she is a "businesswoman," when so obviously, prior to their unhappy 2nd divorce, she has been nothing more than a wealthy man's "proxy" planted upon his corporation's Board of Directors in order to provide obedient, supporting, votes in accordance with his various corporate strategies. Can you name any bond offering or stock IPO that she oversaw? Can you name any bank loan she personally obtained and provide details as such? Answer: you can not because she never performed a unique or substantive business role of any kind at the Wynn corps...and if one "googles" to discover anything, no empirical details show up in the results. Time for you to cease your public relations role in support of this woman, it is a flagrant violation of NPOV, given that you can not provide one speck of empirical evidence to support your contentions. I particularly find your concluding statement to be hysterical, to wit: ...."unless you can find references that disprove (her being a businesswoman or company founder)" No, sorry, my friend, it does not work that way, It is not for me to disprove your fantasies, it is for you to prove them, and you have failed to do so, as attested by the editor who refused to allow any info about her alleged status as company co-founder to rest upon the Steve Wynn Wikipedia. Your request would be akin to my visiting the Wikipedia page related to the JFK assassination and filling the page with assertions that he actually was killed by extraterrestrials, then declaring that unless those assertions can be "disproved," they must stand Revised Wiki Data2 (talk) 15:18, 27 August 2015 (UTC)