Talk:Hulk Hogan/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Table of media appearances needs reliable sources

I have hidden this table of media appearances for now. Reliable sources are needed for every piece of information in this table. Perhaps editors can work on this on this talk page before unhiding the table. starship.paint (talk / cont) 13:52, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

The tables

Year	Title	Role	Notes
1982	Rocky III	Thunderlips
1989	No Holds Barred	Rip Thomas
1990	Gremlins 2: The New Batch (theatrical release)	Himself	Cameo
1991	Suburban Commando	Shep Ramsey
1993	Mr. Nanny	Sean Armstrong
	Thunder in Paradise	Randolph J. "Hurricane" Spencer	Direct-to-video
1996	Spy Hard	Steele's other Tag-Team Member	Cameo
	The Secret Agent Club	Ray Chase
	Santa with Muscles	Blake Thorn
1998	McCinsey's Island	Joe McGrai
	3 Ninjas: High Noon at Mega Mountain	Dave Dragon
	The Ultimate Weapon	Ben Cutter
1999	Muppets from Space	Himself	Cameo
2009	Little Hercules	Zeus
2011	Gnomeo & Juliet	Terrafirminator V.O.	Voice role

Year	Title	Role	Notes
1984	Goldie and the Bears	Mac McKenna	TV film
1985–1986	The A-Team	Himself	2 episodes: ("Body Slam", "The Trouble with Harry")
1985–1986	Hulk Hogan's Rock 'n' Wrestling	Himself	Live-action parts only
1994	Thunder in Paradise	Randolph J. "Hurricane" Spencer	Main role; 22 episodes
1995	Space Ghost Coast to Coast	Himself	1 episode ("Sleeper")
1996	Baywatch	Himself	1 episode: ("Bash at the Beach")
1997	Assault on Devil's Island	Mike McBride	TV film
1999	Suddenly Susan	Himself	2 episodes ("In This Corner... Susan Keane!: Part 1" & "In This Corner... Susan Keane!: Part 2")
	Assault on Death Mountain	Mike McBride	TV film
2001	Walker, Texas Ranger	Boomer Knight	1 episode: ("Division Street")
2005–2007	Hogan Knows Best	Himself	Reality TV series
2006–2016	Robot Chicken	Himself, Abraham Lincoln, The Giving Tree, Bigfoot, Various	4 episodes
2008	Hulk Hogan's Celebrity Championship Wrestling	Himself	Reality TV series
2008–2009	Brooke Knows Best	Himself	Reality TV series
2011–2015	China, IL	The Dean	Main cast
2012	American Dad!	Himself	1 episode: ("Stanny Tendergrass")
2012	The Inbetweeners	Himself	1 episode ("Fire!")
2014	The '80s Called	Himself	RadioShack commercial for Super Bowl XLVIII
2015	Smosh	Himself	1 episode
2019	The Goldbergs	Himself	1 episode ("WrestleMania")
2022	Camp WWE	Himself	2 episodes ("John Cena's Grounded", "Vince's Pizza Party")

Year	Title	Notes
1987	MicroLeague Wrestling	Video game debut Cover athlete
1989	WWF WrestleMania	Cover athlete
	WWF Superstars
1990	WWF WrestleMania Challenge	Cover athlete
1991	WWF WrestleMania	Cover athlete
	WWF WrestleFest
1992	WWF Super WrestleMania	Cover athlete
	WWF European Rampage Tour
	WWF Superstars 2	Cover athlete
	WWF WrestleMania: Steel Cage Challenge
1993	WWF Royal Rumble	Hogan was featured in the Sega Genesis version of the game (of which he was also on the cover), but was not in the SNES version
	WWF King of the Ring	Cover athlete
2002	WWF WrestleMania X8	Cover athlete
	WWE Road to WrestleMania X8
	WWE SmackDown! Shut Your Mouth	Hogan was on the cover of the PAL version of the game, but not the NTSC version
2003	WWE Crush Hour
	WWE WrestleMania XIX
	WWE Raw 2
2005	WWE Day of Reckoning 2
	WWE SmackDown! vs. RAW 2006
2006	WWE SmackDown vs. Raw 2007
2009	WWE Legends of WrestleMania	Cover athlete
2011	WWE All Stars	Cover athlete
2013	WWE 2K14
2014	WWE SuperCard
	WWE 2K15	Cover athlete on the Hulkamania edition of the game; Hogan was downloadable content and removed after his racial scandal
2015	WWE Immortals
2017	WWE Champions	Added in 2019
2019	WWE 2K20
2020	WWE 2K Battlegrounds
2022	WWE 2K22	Cover athlete on the nWo 4-Life edition of the game
2023	WWE 2K23
2024	WWE 2K24	Cover athlete on the 40 Years of WrestleMania edition of the game
2025	WWE 2K25

Year	Title	Notes
1997	WCW vs. the World	Cover athlete
	WCW vs. nWo: World Tour
1998	WCW Nitro	Cover athlete
	WCW/nWo Revenge
1999	WCW/nWo Thunder	Cover athlete
	WCW Mayhem
2000	WCW Backstage Assault

Year	Title	Notes
2010	TNA Impact! Cross the Line	Hogan was featured in the Nintendo DS version of the game (of which he was also on the cover), but was not in the PSP version
2011	TNA Wrestling Impact!

Year	Title	Notes
2001	Legends of Wrestling	Cover athlete
2002	Legends of Wrestling II	Cover athlete
2004	Showdown: Legends of Wrestling	Cover athlete

References

Comments

I removed the cn tags on those sections. We don't need a citation that says, eg, Hogan was in The A-Team. The work itself verifies that Hogan appears in the work. Just like we wouldn't need a separate citation to say someone authored a book--the book itself verifies who the author is. Levivich (talk) 17:51, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

Non-primary sources needed

Large swathes of text in the "Early life" and "Early years (1977–1979)" sections cite his autobiography (Hogan, Hulk (2009). My Life Outside the Ring. St. Martin's Press. ISBN 978-0-312-58889-2.) as the only source. This gives undue weight to his own views on his life, so the article should be balanced with other viewpoints from non-primary sources.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 20:45, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

Autobiographies are perfectly good sources for banal early life details. Levivich (talk) 22:38, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

Autobiographies can be used in combination with non-primary sources to balance viewpoints. In this case, his autobiography is the only source, which clearly produces POV as it gives undue weight to his own views. I don’t think removing the tags without proper efforts to address the problem was a wise move, especially because it was deliberately done to speed up posting the article on the main pages (readers are now served with an article of dubious quality).--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 05:43, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

You're saying sentences like When he was one and a half years old, his family moved to Port Tampa, Florida. merits a primary source tag because the sentence clearly produces POV as it gives undue weight to his own view. I disagree. Levivich (talk) 05:47, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

Do you have a non-primary source to support that claim? That's a fair claim that should be easily retrieved from non-primary sources. Secondary sources largely rely on primary sources without some biased claims and personal beliefs here and there. While that specific sentence doesn't produce POV, there are many others that do. Here are a few examples:

• After 10 weeks of rehab, Hogan returned to train with Matsuda and blocked him when he tried to break his leg again. This is a biased claim that his trainer wanted to break his leg again after getting rehabilitated from a previous injury. A source providing, at least, Matsuda's opinion on it would balance the viewpoint.
• During this visit, Jack Brisco handed Hogan a pair of wrestling boots and informed him that he was scheduled to wrestle his first match the following week. This is a one-sided claim that needs other sources—either confirmation by Brisco or a third party—to support it.
• After wrestling a show for Continental Wrestling Association (CWA) in Memphis, Jerry Jarrett, the promoter for the CWA, approached Hogan and Leslie and offered them a job in his promotion for $800 a week; this was far more than the $175 a week they would make working for Tillet. This is a collection of claims that sounds like a personal testimony. Additional sources are needed to verify the event and the figures mentioned.
• ... Graham agreed, and Hogan soon joined Louie Tillet's Alabama territory... Hogan and Leslie accepted this offer and left Tillet's territory. This wording doesn't sound neutral as 'Tillet's territory' portrays Tillet as a local gangster.
• The host commented on how Hogan, who stood 6 ft 7 in (201 cm) and weighed 295 pounds (134 kg) with 24-inch (61 cm) biceps, actually dwarfed "The Hulk". This is another one-sided claim that needs additional verification, ideally by a third party that watched the show.

A vast majority of those two sections that cite his autobiography as the only source is written as a diary (see WP:DIARY). That's definitely not a way to build a neutral encyclopaedia.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 07:54, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

Normally I'd agree with Levivich about this kind of thing, but given Hogan's notorious aversion to veracity I do think we should seek to replace primary sources with independent sources where feasible. — Czello ^(music) 09:28, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

Infobox image

The current infobox image is a bit weird. It's a bit too far out and given his recent death, perhaps we should discuss replacing the image with a younger Hogan to depict him in his prime or a better image that depicts him with his mustache for instance. At times after the subject of an article dies, their infobox image is replaced with one depicting them in black&white, in their "prime", younger years or one that depicts them how their fanbase knew them as (i.e. Stan Lee with his sunglasses in his 70s, Hogan with his white-blonde mustache and bandana, etc.) --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 16:18, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

Just a quick question. (Currently unneeded, but would be helpful if more options are presented.) Why would we pick a black & white just because the person is deceased? --Super Goku V (talk) 16:23, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

Oh that's just an example based on instances I've seen such as actors or musicians having their infobox images replaced with publicity photos that so happen to be in black&white and it depicts them in their prime/younger years. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 16:32, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

Ah, gotcha. --Super Goku V (talk) 16:41, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

@Executive20000, Y2kcrazyjoker4, and Levivich: All three of you have edited the infobox image in the last two hours. For Executive20000 and Y2kcrazyjoker4, this is just a friendly notice that this discussion has started. For Levivich, I will refrain from reverting again. I do agree that Option A isn't great, but I was trying to enforce stability. That said, when you made your edit, Option G was the "current front runner" and not Option B. While it is now tied up, I do want to ask if you think we should use two images (B and G) with G saying "Hulk Hogan in 1985" and B saying "Bollea in 2005" as a temporarily compromise at the least. (If it doesn't violate any article rules, then it might avoid potential future reverts.) --Super Goku V (talk) 17:19, 24 July 2025 (UTC) (Amended at 17:23, 24 July 2025 (UTC) and at 17:46, 24 July 2025 (UTC))

When I made my edit at 17:00, B was the front runner (my vote being the third). The third vote for G came in at 17:02 :-). I don't care if it's B or G or F or any of the others, as long as it's not A. Stability is important, but more important is not having a crappy picture of a person on the day their death is announced, because literally millions will see it today. Tomorrow it won't matter as much. If anyone wants to change it, no objection from me, as long as it's not A, which has no votes because everyone agrees it's bad. I'm not crazy about the idea of two infobox images, but the ones that aren't chosen for the infobox might still be used elsewhere in the article. Levivich (talk) 17:29, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

 Self-trout Thank you for reminding me that time flows from one minute to the next and is not a big ball of wibbly wobbly, timey wimey stuff. Sorry for the trouble there.

I gotcha on the rest and agree that the others should be used in the article. I guess that it is a good point that presentation matters. --Super Goku V (talk) 17:46, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

Pinging CrowbarCatalyst. --Super Goku V (talk) 05:06, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

• 
  Option A (2015; current)
• 
  Option B (2005)
• 
  Option C (2011)
• 
  Option E (2014)
• 
  Option F (1985)
• 
  Option G (1985)

• Option B, F or G They both fit in the prime years/how they're known as benchmark. Not to mention they're good in quality and have a better focus of Hogan than the current image. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 16:18, 24 July 2025 (UTC)
• Option B seems best to me. It's a professional, high-quality photo. ArtemisiaGentileschiFan (talk) 16:28, 24 July 2025 (UTC)
• Option G I think would be the best fit. MushroomMan674 (talk) 16:32, 24 July 2025 (UTC)
• Option G, it's a classic upper body shot from his prime and arguably best known years when he entered the mainstream US zeitgeist.Halbared (talk) 17:02, 24 July 2025 (UTC)
• B for now, gotta have the bandana IMO. E would be the best if not for quality issues. But I don't love any of the options and will go looking for more candidates; if I find any I'll post them here. I just changed the current to B because it seems everyone agrees A is obviously bad. Levivich (talk) 17:05, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

Option F seems to be the most suitable to me. It's well composed, shows more of him than just a mere headshot, is from the time period when Hulkamania was most prevalent, and shows him with a championship belt. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 17:10, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

Option G posture is correct, upper body shown in his prime, and seems the most professional. I originally thought Option F but he looks too crouched and awkward, so Option G in my opinion looks the best. Lemonademan22 (talk) 17:27, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

Option G per the reasons above. Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:29, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

Option G per reasons above. Executive20000 (talk) 18:17, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

Option G Is suitable. Stephen"Zap" (talk) 18:30, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

Option G per reasons above. But I also tolerate the usage of A, B or F. Kacc26353815 (talk) 23:02, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

Options G or F (in that order), with B a secondary option, as it's typical we use historical images in cases like these. Firm opposition to A as, frankly, it sucks. — Czello ^(music) 23:14, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

Option G looks best 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 05:39, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

Option B for the infobox please, during his later WWE career years. 2001:D08:E4:5AB8:C006:A609:148:7480 (talk) 08:51, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

Option G per the reasons above. CrowbarCatalyst (talk) 01:10, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

Option B Whenever someone dies, we change a recent, high-quality picture to some ancient one. Why? Why do we do this to ourselves? Option B is recognizeable and recent. Cremastra (talk · contribs) 02:43, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

We typically use historical images (ex: images of the subject mid-career) for deceased individuals to highlight whatever profession they were involved in. Executive20000 (talk) 02:56, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

Hogan is more recognisible in the older photos than his later ones. He's in his prime, when he was most recognised and with a better physique than due to his aged one, although he kept a fantastic physique throughout his life, no doubt the early 80s until the mid 90s were his best. Lemonademan22 (talk) 12:19, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

But why is 1985 "his prime"? By what measurement? He was certainly more famous, had more titles, more fans, a bigger commercial empire, etc., in 1995 than in 1985, and even more in 2005 than in 1995, and arguably more in 2025 than ever before. I would call '85 his early career, not his prime, not the height of his career. It got a lot better after the '80s. His prime was in the 2000s, after the reality tv show, before gawker, IMO. He wasn't a bodybuilder, so I don't think his physical prime is more important than the prime of his career. Levivich (talk) 23:06, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

I think the image should be the classic one of him ripping his shirt off in the ring. Its one that best shows him at his best and captures his essence in the ring. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:3003:320E:6100:B1F2:50B0:ED37:7AA6 (talk) 14:40, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

Naming him as one of the greatest professional wrestlers in history is missing from the opening lede, though it is included in the pages of numerous other stars. Why?

• What I think should be changed (format using {{textdiff}}):
• Why it should be changed:
• References supporting the possible change (format using the "cite" button):

2604:3D09:9284:2500:895C:D323:B945:5FC9 (talk) 16:14, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

It should be in the lead; I don’t know why people are deleting so much statistical info from Hogan’s page in the past week. I agree with you though, it doesn’t make sense. Bighulkamania (talk) 07:08, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

References

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. meamemg (talk) 16:23, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

The opening lede should also say in addition to "widely regarded as the most recognized wrestling star worldwide", that he was " widely regarded as one of the greatest professional professional wrestlers of all time AND the most recognized wrestling star worldwide."

Sources include and many more:

B/R Wrestling's Top 50 Greatest WWE Superstars of All Time Rankings

201 Greatest Pro Wrestlers of All Time List: Pro Wrestling's Greatest Ever — When It Was Cool - Pop Culture, Comics, Pro Wrestling, Toys, TV, Movies, and Podcasts

20 Greatest WWE Wrestlers Of All Time

The acknowledgement for greatest wrestler is featured in the opening ledes of Ric Flair, The Rock, Shawn Michaels, John Cena, Randy Orton, Undertaker, Stone Cold, Bret Hart, Chris Jericho, and others, so to not include Hogan seems unbalanced. This isn't about personal dislike or anything else, it's about being fair. He was considered one of the greatest (in addition to his worldwide recognition) which are two different things.

Thank you. 2604:3D09:9284:2500:895C:D323:B945:5FC9 (talk) 16:41, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

Already done Dahawk04 Talk 💬 18:40, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, I don't see it though... 2604:3D09:6A8B:4B00:789C:19E3:BDFF:42CC (talk) 20:17, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

@2604:3D09:6A8B:4B00:789C:19E3:BDFF:42CC The change that you want looks promotional, so it has been adjusted to stable words by an editor. Thank you. – Inimn _(Talk) 14:59, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

Is it not pronotional in the case of Ric Flair, The Rock, Shawn Michaels, John Cena, Randy Orton, Undertaker, Stone Cold, Bret Hart, Chris Jericho, etc?

Why is their articles not adjusted then, explain to me 64.141.54.166 (talk) 15:00, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

You are requested to again explain the changes which you want and please provide a source. – Inimn _(Talk) 15:03, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

@64.141.54.166  Done. I have added the Widely regarded as one of the greatest professional wrestlers of all time in the lead section according to Sources and edit requests. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. – Inimn _(Talk) 15:09, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

Thank you.

All a question of fairness in relation to other stars, not for promotional purposes. 64.141.54.166 (talk) 15:16, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 July 2025

Hulk Hogan wrestled his final match at the TNA Bound For Glory pay-per-view October 16th 2011 against Sting and in a losing effort granting control of the company back to Dixe Carter 75.91.77.245 (talk) 20:57, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Day Creature (talk) 01:12, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

Half correct. He wrestled his final on air match at the show you mentioned, however he had a non televised house show as part of a tag team in TNA. 2601:985:C01:F110:1D44:22CA:1D23:BC77 (talk) 00:00, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

So what’s the problem? Shouldn’t both stats be apart of his page? I don’t understand the argument for why you wouldn’t say his last televised match and last live match. You could simply get around this by saying bound for glory was his last singles wrestling match in the USA and it would be just as true. Because the live match was a tag team match in the U.K. Bighulkamania (talk) 17:35, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

Who said there was a problem? It was a non confrontational correction, as the BfG match wasn’t the final match, just the last most fans would have seen. No one said they shouldn’t both be listed, that’s why it was written as half correct. Why be angry about further information about Hulk’s career that a lot of people may not know? Seems like an odd thing to get worked up over. 2601:985:C01:F110:1D44:22CA:1D23:BC77 (talk) 18:11, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

It just seems like a very tribal argument you are making. Both matches should be on there. I don’t understand the point you are trying to make by rejecting the edit. Bighulkamania (talk) 20:10, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 August 2025

In the second part of the bio, his mustache is incorrectly listed as an American fu Manchu. This is incorrect, it should be a horseshoe mustache. A fu manchu isn’t the same thing as a horseshoe. Hogan didn’t have a fu. Please change for clarity’s sake. Thank you. 2601:985:C01:F110:1D44:22CA:1D23:BC77 (talk) 23:58, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

Actually, you are incorrect. The style of hulk hogans mustache is called an American Fu Manchu because it extends past bottom of the chin. Horshoes or The “biker style” have the same shape but do not reach the jaw line. A American FuManchu is completely different than a FuManchu.

hogan has horseshoes at the start of his Hulkamania career; but by 1989 Mustache got notice longer and extended to the jaw.

Either way I consider this debate a draw, however Hulk Hogan AND WWE has always referred to his mustache as FuManchu. Therefor Wikipedia should also call it a FuManchu mustache.

i submit the official WWE mustache chart as evidence:

https://www.wwe.com/classics/classic-lists/kaitlyns-top-10-superstar-mustaches?utm_source=chatgpt.com Bighulkamania (talk) 07:05, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. UmbyUmbreon (talk) 10:27, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

The link I posted is an example of this.

I don’t understand your reply.

please elaborate. Bighulkamania (talk) 17:33, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

If someone calls a hat a sock, it doesn’t make the hat a sock. That’s a straw man argument. Is wwe the official adjudicator of mustache terminology? That mustache is almost universally a horseshoe, even if some people call it a handlebar or fu, but a popular consensus can still be incorrect. 2601:985:C01:F110:1D44:22CA:1D23:BC77 (talk) 18:14, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

Your analogy doesn’t apply to this subject, because a FuManchu is longer than a horseshoe. Hogan’s is a FuManchu because it reaches his chin and goes past it.

LA Times even identfies it correctly as a FuManchu; the correct term is “American FuManchu” or “western FuManchu”. Here’s Getty images correctly labeling hogans type of stache a FuManchu. As you can see it’s exactly like hogans.

https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/toronto-blue-jay-pitcher-pete-vuckovich-24-with-the-fu-news-photo/502534057 Bighulkamania (talk) 20:27, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

Record The LA Times Called it a FuManchu in 1991. https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1991-09-24-sp-3124-story.html Bighulkamania (talk) 20:39, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

Here the Washing Post describes it as a FuManchu last month when he died.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/obituaries/2025/07/24/hulk-hogan-wrestler-dead/ Bighulkamania (talk) 20:44, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

@Bighulkamania This was a response to the initial edit request. Because its contents is contested, it will need consensus before it is actioned. The general guidance is to propose a change (without adding the edit request template), discuss the change and then once there is consensus, add the edit request template. UmbyUmbreon (talk) 22:57, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

I’m a little confused by your response, why are you not joining on the discussion?

Anyways Hulk Hogan’s mustache has long been recognized as a textbook example of the Fu Manchu style; as I mentioned thick vertical bars extending from the upper lip down the sides of the mouth, clean-shaven chin, and bold presentation. The horseshoe is similar, and shorter. Major media outlets have acknowledged this association for decades. The Washington Post, regularly describes his signature look as a Fu Manchu up to July 2025. Similarly, the Los Angeles Times has used the term without hesitation

The Fu Manchu label isn’t just a nickname—it’s been publicly embraced as a category of mustache hogan wears. In 2010, there was a TNA contest titled “Hogan Fu Manchu Contest”. There also is a Guinness world record in St. Louis, an officially sanctioned event that invited fans to grow and showcase mustaches in Hogan’s honor in an attempt for the largest gathering of Fu Manchus, further cementing the public’s clear and consistent identification of Hogan’s mustache with the style. No other label was used—because none fit better.

however it’s completely understandable the confusion between a western or American FuManchu hogan has, its short cousin the horseshoe, and the beard version which is called FuManchu or Asian style FuManchu. The Asian one is more like what Ox Baker has and it actually considered a form of beard and not a mustaches.

In hope that adds clarity… small version is called horseshoe… large version is called western style, American style, or just FuManchu. The extra large version is not a mustache, it’s a beard and it’s called FuManchu or eastern/asian style FuManchu. Bighulkamania (talk) 02:03, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

why are you not joining on the discussion?

Because edit requests are non-binding, and I'm an uninvolved ER editor/patroller who is addressing a backlog of edit requests. UmbyUmbreon (talk) 03:24, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

Ok, well hopefully I’ve brought information to justify why the mustache is called FuManchu and would be incorrectly labeled as a horseshoe mustache; and you can close the other uses debate. Also The amount of deleting and lack of expertise regarding hogans career on the page can’t be good. Why does Wikipedia allow that? It seems like deleting details is what Wikipedia encourages instead of contributing content. Bighulkamania (talk) 04:05, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

Length of Article

I added a "Too Long" banner to the top of this article since it's nearly 15,000 words in length and has nearly 500 references, the former of which is way above the length of most wiki articles. Having a read-through of everything, it definitely feels like there's a good amount that could be taken out of most of the individual sections of his wrestling career - while Hogan's career is long and distinguished, I don't think we need to include every aspect of it in a play-by-play. For example most of the "Final year in WCW" section could be trimmed to something like:

In July 2000 at WCW's Bash at the Beach, Hulk Hogan was involved in a controversial shoot incident with Vince Russo. A backstage dispute arose over the planned outcome of Hogan’s match against Jeff Jarrett for the WCW World Heavyweight Championship. Russo wanted Jarrett to retain and later lose the title to Booker T, while Hogan wanted to win. On the night Russo had Jarrett lie down in the ring and told Hogan to pin him, simulating a shoot conflict. Hogan, visibly confused, pinned Jarrett and criticized Russo on the mic before leaving with the title. Later, Russo returned and delivered a shoot promo, firing Hogan and exposing his “creative control” clause. Russo claimed the whole event was a scripted work, while Hogan insisted Russo turned it into a real conflict. Eric Bischoff supported Hogan’s version, stating that the win was planned, but Russo’s promo was not. The fallout led Hogan to sue Russo for defamation, though the case was dismissed in 2002. This incident marked Hogan’s final appearance in WCW.

Rough example that needs some work but you get the idea; ~450 words cut to ~175. It'd be good to have some help on cutting this down to a more readable length. --RandomEditsForWhenIRemember (talk) 17:39, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for adding. I wouldn't mind seeing the Professional Wrestling Career section be split into it's own article. meamemg (talk) 21:31, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

@Meamemg @RandomEditsForWhenIRemember I think that's not a very good idea. This whole article is just extremely overloaded with every last little detail that anybody can think of. It doesn't warrant a split to a second article - it just needs massive amounts of unimportant stuff cut out. This is not a wrestling magazine, it's an encyclopedia. Hulk Hogan is highly notable, but that does NOT mean every single thing he ever did or said is worth putting in. When you write about a football star you analyze one or two of their games, max. When you write about Einstein you don't break down every lecture he ever gave. It actually makes the article into "Hulk Hogan's Tryhard Fans Are Desperate To Make Him Look Important" - except he WAS important, he doesn't need this kind of "support". Fans need to stop trying so hard and start cutting out what doesn't really matter. TooManyFingers (talk) 18:27, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

@TooManyFingers Works for me - cutting the article down by a lot is definitely my preference over splitting a section out. As you said, the main issue on the page is there's just far too much fluff in it. RandomEditsForWhenIRemember (talk) 15:25, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

Why do you want to cut it down? You really havnt explained why other than you think “people won’t care” which is a biased justification. Have you seen Flair’s page? Where do you think people are supposed to go for unbiased facts on Hogan’s wrestling career if his Wikipedia page not the right place?

please make these suggestions before deleting anymore information. There is currently no mention of Wrestlemania III on hogans wrestling career section!!! How do you explain this current omission as being positive? Bighulkamania (talk) 17:44, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

What’s wrong with providing so much detail? Have you seen flairs career bio? It’s amazing! Wikipedia should be the predominant resource on hulk hogans wrestling career. I do not support ttyl g to trim the wrestling section or separating it from the hogan page. His acting career or controversies were mere blips on the radar; as he didn’t accomplish that much. However if we are talking about the Rock; my opinion would be reversed… he spent more His career acting than wrestling at this point. He was only an active WWE wrestler full time from 1997-2002. Where hogan was active full time from 1979-2000 for twenty years and then spent 2002-2005 and 2009-2012 predominantly working full time in wrestling. That’s about 35 years of actively and 30 years as the top star. Bighulkamania (talk) 17:41, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

RandomEditsForWhenIRemember, I agree. You chose a bad area that needs a lot of cutting; some areas are not so bad. I would suggest that overall the article needs to have about half of its words deleted. TooManyFingers (talk) 18:56, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

The article is huge. I recomend to summarize the TNA section.Many TNA sections are written in-universe and a week per week format --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 16:50, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, that's another good area for a cut. I'm working my way through shortening the whole of the career part section by section currently, but I'll make a note to give the TNA section a longer look-over if nobody's beaten me to it. Could also be brought down to ~3 paragraphs imo. RandomEditsForWhenIRemember (talk) 21:10, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

I'm getting started on it. The level of detail is pretty ridiculous, even WrestleCrap didn't give these storylines this much coverage.LM2000 (talk) 08:08, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

I dont know the reasom, but many TNA sections (Eric Yoing, James Storm, Bobby Roode...) are huge just because its a detailed week per week report. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 09:58, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I find this is something that plagues most wrestlers' entries. I'm speculating here, but I think for a lot of these wrestlers their pages really were updated week-by-week after each TNA/WWE etc episode; hence why you get long paragraphs of stuff like every defense for their current title listed even when in the grand scheme of things, most of the defenses weren't that noticeable (or could be focused on in the relevant PPV's page). Cena's article is a good example of this, and I suspect you wouldn't have to look very far to find other wrestlers written up in the same way. RandomEditsForWhenIRemember (talk) 12:39, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

@Bighulkamania:Please read and chime in here. The stuff getting removed is either excessive storyline detail or is covered in greater detail in another article (Hulk Hogan's championships and accomplishments, Bollea v. Gawker, Belzer v. Bollea, etc.). Sometimes the same material is covered in separate sections as well. I am curious what essential details you think are being removed? I did have some disagreements with some of the stuff that was removed by other users regarding WCW, so I added it back (in much shorter fashion than before). The main issue here is that the length of the article is a problem (see the tag at the top of the page) and we should not be describing the intricacies of wrestling storylines in an in-universe fashion.LM2000 (talk) 01:29, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

And why is the detail not important? Where are people supposed to go and find it once it’s been deleted by you? It just seems rather selfish. Again, I bring Ric Flairs page up as a example of a great page with amazing storyline details. Bighulkamania (talk) 01:32, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

Again, what important details are being removed? And Ric Flair's article is not great article, Jimmy Snuka is a better example of a well written encyclopedic article.LM2000 (talk) 01:40, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

I replied as detail using Wrestlemania III as an example. Dates, arenas, episode numbers, and the fact that hogan had 6 record breaking matches. All of the statistics were removed. If you were reading Hogan’s page and watch to know more or watch these important moments then you would want to know the date, title of event, episode, and place so you can find it. The deletions to 1987 is just shocking. While TNA is one thing; even though he spent four-six years there so it deserves some accurate coverage it wasn’t important to his career. However 1986-1989 should be robust with details of the important matches that happened. It’s supposed to be a encyclopedia not a cliff notes brochure like the deleters are attempting to make it. Bighulkamania (talk) 01:50, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

That’s false; this is currently what’s available for Wrestlemania III.

” Hogan made multiple successful title defenses throughout 1986, and in the fall he occasionally wrestled in tag team matches with The Machines as Hulk Machine under a mask copied from NJPW's gimmick "Super Strong Machine". At WrestleMania III in 1987, Hogan defended his title against André the Giant, who had been promoted as undefeated in the WWF for 15 years. In the months leading up to the event, a storyline was introduced in which Hogan was awarded a trophy for being champion for three consecutive years.Shortly afterward, André received a slightly smaller trophy for his undefeated streak. During the segment, André walked out while Hogan was speaking.

On an episode of Piper's Pit, André appeared with manager Bobby "The Brain" Heenan, turning heel and challenging Hogan to a title match at WrestleMania III. The match was promoted as one of the biggest in wrestling history. At the event Hogan successfully defended the title by body-slamming the 520-pound André, winning the match with a leg drop.

Hogan was named the most requested celebrity of the 1980s for the Make-a-Wish Foundationchildren's charity. “

that’s a travesty up there! Yet you left Six paragraphs about his career in Japan and AWA; If you never heard of hulk hogan and you res this page after you and two other deleters read it you would think Wrestlemania III was as important to Hogan’s career as a random match on RAW.

please explain why you think this is acceptable for Wikipedia? It doesn’t even give the date and location of the match. Hogan had six important Andre the Giant matches that broke records. Those matches, the statistics and the reasons why 1987 is so important should be on his page.

according to your arguments; the deleters shoudl be focused on butchering the AWA and Japan portion of his career.

of course I completely disagree with you, Wikipedia should be a source for you to find robust information. It’s not like you are paying for paper or have space limitation. Simply who care if the information is on his page? As long as it there and trueful that should be a good thing. I thought a editors job was to monitor for accurate information and contribute information.

I really would like to know more details regarding your case for deleting so much without improving the page. Bighulkamania (talk) 01:43, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

Random matches from Raw should not be mentioned at all, and the text you pasted says "The match was promoted as one of the biggest in wrestling history," so I'm not sure where the travesty is. The same match is described in Bobby Heenan's article (unlike Flair's, Heenan's is a WP:GA and is a good example of what a wrestling bio should look like); we should probably trim more storyline details, like the stuff about the trophies. I am sure you can see how out of control biographies would be if we would include "statistics" about every major match - in this case, a link to the main WrestleMania III article is suffice. Although we may disagree with them, Wikipedia has certain policies that we must contend with. Some data can be contained in subarticles, while some must be left to sites like WrestleData, Cagematch, and the Pro Wrestling Wiki.LM2000 (talk) 02:50, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

You misunderstood me; I said so much information was deleted it has made Wrestlemania appear to the reader like it was a random match on RAW as opposed to the most important wrestling match to have ever taken place. Also the quote "The match was promoted(emphasis on promoted as is the irrelevant part)as one of the biggest in wrestling history," is a shining example How sloppy the Wrestlemania III and 1988 condition of the hulk page currently is.

Leaving out thenimportance of the statistics such as 93,000 fans attended and the match became the most watched in history is better. It tells the leader that’s why it WAS important. The way you have left it just makes it sound like it was adversited as the biggest match. How is the “advertising” relevant info but statistics and details of the actually event are not? I’m quite shocked by your defense is hanging on that you did NOT delete that WWF advertised it as the “biggest match” so that’s why it’s not a travesty all other information about Wrestlemania III was deleted. That’s the real travesty of how you left the page. Do you understand WWE advertises all main events it has ever promoted as the biggest in history???

also your reply is a bit disingenuous; I clearly agree with you and have said I agree about TNA, and argued AWA and NJPW should be deleted down to one sentence to make room for important years like 1987 that require more detail. Currently the page reflects like AWA and NJPW were more important than 1998-1988. Why aren’t you deleted all their info too?

Furthermore you don’t even address the 3 other missing historic and record breaking Andre matches from 1987-1988

in your reply. Why would Wikipedia standards accept those deletions?

what good is using Wikipedia as a reference for hulk hogan if you don’t want to include the stats, data, and information? Is Wikipedia supposed just be a quick read like a magazine column? I don’t think so. I think you are taking a journalist approach to it hardcore. It’s just supposed to be basic bio material in chronological order and there is nothing biographical about providing relevant dates and stats for important aspects of his career… I am not or never argue that treatment for every match. Perhaps what makes it different for hogan is he had about 30 history making matches that were critical to his careeer and pro wrestling history. To use an analogy, that’s like arguing Gone With The Wind should get the same treatment on the Clark Gable page. That’s why hogan has the nickname wrestling’s babe Ruth. Yes he had about 30 matches that where blockbusters; and when you make that much history it does appear like every random match ever wrestled is being listed. However that’s not the case. That’s like statistics are helpful, in this case. You can cite sources like cagematch.com and say “out of 10,000 matches Hulk Hogan created 30 of the 100 most important pro wrestling matches of all time.” Right away the reader understands its going to be long, and Wikipedia doesn’t look like a bad source of encyclopedia for only mentioned 4 of the 30. Hogan wrestled for about 30 years; most pro wrestlers barely make it to five years before becoming irrelevant. his page should be especially long with brief information… Hogan went from 1980-2005 as the top star; dropping off from 2009-2012 in TNA (which I concede is a good place to delete)… but I can’t understand why you are so adamant about giving the TNA treatment to 1986-1987 and just happy with AWA and NJPW having so much focus over 1986-1987.

I hope I have articulated my point well and you understand where I’m coming from. Perhaps the 3 people who are actively deleting thousands of words from Hogan’s page this weekend aren’t knowledgeable to understand why 1986-1997 is important and AWA and NJPW is not? That’s why you are making these puzzling deletions?

please answer the questions above. I’m very interested in your reply and philosophy of Wikipedia. I just can’t figure out the logic you are using at all and I want to understand before I continue to edit. Bighulkamania (talk) 04:00, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

Hello, I’m patiently waiting for your reply so we can form some consensus please. Please answer my questions in my response to your “promoted as the biggest match in history” reply and “travesty” comments. Bighulkamania (talk) 03:27, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

I see you have deleted thousands of words today from Hogan’s profile, but are leaving behind NO COMMENTS or NO EDITING NOTES to justify your decisions. Your edits are being currently questioned in talk and you havnt replied to the questions. There is no consensus yet. So why don’t feel it’s proper to delete so many words without the polite decency to even leave a note or comment to justify or make sense of what you have done? It appears like excessive deletion to many people which is against Wikipedia guidelines. Particularly since your stated goal is to make hogans page shorter in length… but you are deleting and marginalizing many postive aspects of hogans wrestling career while added negative content to hogans personal life. These actions are hypocritical and counter productive to your state goal. Your lack of notes or comments only shroud your decisions in questions of bias, excessive deleting, and perhaps vandalism. Particularly when it’s customary to stop adding or deleting a page until a consensus can be reached on talk. I hope you can adress these concerns, because I adress with the premise of your motives but don’t understand your actions at all. Perhaps it’s not bias, and you just might not be qualified to edit hogans page due to lack of knowledge of hogans history. Edit4Peace (talk) 23:13, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for help with the trimming everyone. The article's about ~9800 words now, which is roughly a third taken off its original size. Recently, I see @Ringerfan23: has suggested the "Too Long" banner should be removed as "the article is under 10,000 words now and while that's on the larger side, WP:TOOBIG states of articles over 9000 words "the scope of a topic can sometimes justify the added reading material.", and I think the most famous wrestler of all time who had a 40 year career justifies that." I'd be interested in hearing other's opinions; I didn't have a particular word count in mind when I added the banner originally. While I'd like to get the page under 9000 words at least, I can certainly understand Ringer's logic here; I think each of the subsections in the wrestling career section has had someone take a look at them now - it certainly looks less bloated now. RandomEditsForWhenIRemember (talk) 21:49, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

Agree with Ring. Hogan is the most famous wrestler in the world, it normal to have a huge article. However, I think we can create a new article for the legacy and reception. At the end, there is a lot of backstage drama. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 22:56, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

So the , you agree? It’s suspicious that excessive information about his controversies has been left on the page not to the same standard you have held about his wrestling career? Edit4Peace (talk) 04:36, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

I also agree with Ring. While most wrestler bios should be well under 9000 words, Hogan is the biggest star of all time, had nearly a 50 year career, and dabbled in acting and various business ventures. And, yes, his various controversies are notable and cannot be skimmed over. I think that if we push getting to under 9000 we'll end up leaving out some essential stuff, like how his feud with Sting got cut before. So, I'm happy with the current state of the article.LM2000 (talk) 08:30, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

Sounds good - to be honest, I had a glance through the page this morning and nothing stood out to me that needed a further trim, so I will most likely refrain from making further reductions for now.

I'd agree with @HHH Pedrigree: that a new "legacy and reception" page would be a good addition. There's no-one in the industry that's really left a mark quite like Hogan, both good and bad. RandomEditsForWhenIRemember (talk) 10:18, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

Since we are talking about other articled, I want to get your atention on the article about Andre and Hogan feud. I think it needs a lot of work, since its pure In Universe stuff.--HHH Pedrigree (talk) 11:33, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

@HHH Pedrigree Good spot - I'll have a look into reviewing it properly/making some suggested changes later this week. RandomEditsForWhenIRemember (talk) 15:47, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

I don’t understand why you want a completely separate page for Andre vs hulk; when in reality it could just be 4 paragraphs on hulk page. I recommend you put hulk vs andre page you are talking about up for deletion. It just sound ridiculous to trim down hogans page so much and then have like 20 sub pages about his wrestling feuds. He only had 6 matches with Andre that were historically significant, there isn’t a reason for Wikipedia to open a second page for this feud to list every obscure detail. That’s what cagematch.comm is for. You can literally type in Andre vs Hulk and get a print out of their entire feud and comments on every match. Edit4Peace (talk) 15:54, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

The current state of the article is very disorganized, with tons of lawsuit information in the wrestling career and not in the lawsuit section. The political section is wrongly in the business categories and should be in personal life. There is also lawsuits information the health section that should be in the legal section. The lead is also poorly written and ends with a very biased statement still that “hogans career was permanently damaged” when it was not, he was able to recover his public images. It also negates mentioning his historic RNC speech in 2024 and the governor naming August 1 hulk hogan day; both are firsts for a pro wrestler. It also negates that when he died the president acknowledged his death; another first for pro wrestling.

also is personal life is full

of stats and “quotes” which you have claimed don’t belong in wiki articles.

the page is still a mess and needs further editing. Edit4Peace (talk) 12:17, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

The claims his reputation was damaged is sourced, also it's mentioned in the dozens of articles about his death (I bet you can't find even two reliable sources that mention his death that don't mention his controversies). And The Rock spoke at the 2000 RNC, there's nothing "historic" about Hogan speaking at a political convention. If you can provide a source that Hogan's speech was particularly notable or historic it could be included in the lead. Trump's acknowledgement of his passing is in the article under the Legacy section, it is not lead-worthy. RF23 (talk) 12:29, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

No one is denying that, HOWEVER there is no way to prove it was permanently damage because he did obviously receive public acceptance. There are also an overwhelming amount of black celebrities who have defended hogan and say he should be welcomed back to polite public society; such as Booker T who was the most vocal along with Dennis Rodman. To leave the page simply as “permanently damaged” is FALSE. Hogan loved for ten years after the scandal came out in 2015. You can’t just end the lead at 2015 when the man lived for ten years, started several new business, got corporate endorsements, and was publicly defended by countless celebrities whenever some random minor public figure wanted to speak out against hogan. Hogan rebounded in 2015 and made 25 million dollars. You can’t get Cheerios to make you a spokesperson and also make 25 million dollars with a permanently damaged reputation. This makes wikpedia look really bad. Edit4Peace (talk) 13:13, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

The article includes 5 sources talking about the controversial legacy due to the racial slur. No source mentions his reputation being restored. Even here in Spain newspapers talked about the racial slur and his complex legacy. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 13:46, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

This is why I question your edits. It’s clear you didn’t read what I added. I listed 8 sources where it states people coming out and defending hogan as not a rascist since 2015 MULTIPLR TIMES… and that should effectively restoring his “permanently damaged public image” to as I put it “his brand became accepted by the public again”. There is a whole article where Booker T begs fans and black wrestlers to let Hogan back in the WWE. Yet you say this doesn’t count and don’t even bother to say why. Here multiple times over the years where Booker T is trying to restore Hulks public image. Hulk also made $25 million dollars, became a spokesperson for cherrios, beer, a gambling website, NASCAR, fanpicks fantasy football, 1800loanmart, plus A TON of WWE stuff. FL honoring him with hulk hogan day and the White House mourning his death also does a lot to help his public image. The 4 tributes WWE did, TNA tribute, TMZ tribute, even AEW tribute… but yet Wikipedia must end the last thing on hogans leadpage has to say “permanently damaged public image”.? This bias hurts Wikipedia reputation. Hogan lived for 10 years after 2015 audio leak. Please reply back with substance. I want to know your opinion on these counter points I bring to you.

https://www.wrestlinginc.com/news/2018/05/booker-t-comments-on-whether-hulk-hogan-should-return-to-wwe-639757

https://www.tmz.com/2018/05/28/booker-t-wwe-hulk-hogan

https://www.cbssports.com/wwe/news/wwe-news-rumors-booker-t-on-hulk-hogan-return-daniel-bryan-discusses-what-he-had-planned/?utm_source=chatgpt.com

https://411mania.com/wrestling/booker-t-says-hulk-hogan-deserves-second-chance-says-hogan-always-corner/?utm_source=chatgpt.com Edit4Peace (talk) 14:46, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

I will repeat myself. Sources mention his controversial legacy and damaged reputation. Stating that was restored its your own WP:OR. after several users like myself, LM, Czello, Lemon and Random reverted your actions, its time to WP:dropthestick --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 15:35, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

You are clearly ignoring the point of debate, which is your right your sources clear state that… but after 2015 his reputation and public image was improved by the sources I cited and you clearly don’t wish to discuss. Which is why I think you are biased. There is overwhelming evidence presented that many people helped restore hogans brand to public acceptance to the point where he got back in the WWE hall of fame, made 25 million dollars, secured corporate spokesman deals, and now has a public holiday in Florida. It’s simply impossible to achieve this if your public image is permanently destroyed. If his public image WAS permanently destroyed then he would have hurt not helped anything he endorsed or tried to do in business, politics, or public life which he clearly accomplished a lot of things in the ten years since the scandal broke. All of this is proof that after 2015 hogans brand image was restored or improved. The way you are arguing is it was clearly PERMANENTLY DESTROYED, quote end of story. Please respond to this accurately with evidence to support why my citations do not prove that hogans brand was restored and the lead should end… Permanently DESTROYED with no new information after 2015. There is to much overwhelming evidence to prove PERMANENTLY DESTROYED is not accurate to how his public image ended when he died.

I cite this article now for you to argue against “this On Thursday, I watched a local news story about how Hulk’s fans gathered outside of his store in Orlando and left flowers, took photos and shared their memories of him. Several of the people interviewed were not white, they were Black. They celebrated Hulk Hogan the icon, and they had found a way to forgive, or at least to overlook, Terry Bollea’s racism and other bad behavior. It would appear, at least for them, that the memory of Hulk Hogan, the good deeds he did and what he meant to professional wrestling, was and is much greater than Bollea’s great offenses.”

This author is no hogan fan, but even he admits the work hogan and other black wrestlers did to restore his public image worked and it wasn’t key words: NOT PERMANENTLY DAMAGED anymore in 2025. So the way you have written the article was fine in 2015; but no longer fair or accurate or acceptable or truthful on Wikipedia in 2015 and also caulus.

https://www.salon.com/2025/07/27/were-living-in-the-world-hulk-hogan-and-donald-trump-made/. Edit4Peace (talk) 15:50, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

The unregistered tampering of this wiki

Can someone do something about the one idiot who keeps reducing hogans accomplishments? It’s getting to be a bit annoying and the page needs memorialized, they are writing derogatory and inflammatory content and not speaking more of what hogan has done leaving his accomplishments to a mere single paragraph ignore 99% of his whole career and focusing on one bad day.

Whoever is doing the editing is a coward. 76.8.171.16 (talk) 04:00, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

Agreed, finally some consensus the other way. Thank you for being brave enough to address the obvious. Hopefully some more writers will start seeing the poor straw man arguments the editors who are diminishing hogans page will start adding balanced neutral content instead of wanting to delete everything. Edit4Peace (talk) 04:44, 18 August 2025 (UTC)