Talk:Jesse Ventura/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

SEAL or not part 238495.8

Recent youtube video from retired SEAL Senior Chief Don Shipley. Shipley has no problem with Ventura claiming SEAL status. Also, I've done a FOIA request for Ventura's military records. And yes, youtube isn't reliable source and my requesting his military records is original research but I'm tired of all confusion. People should listen to Shipley. Brad (talk) 02:19, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, Reliable Source CNN is calling him a SEAL as of today and the Navy's website notes that the BUD/S training is SEAL training (from which trainees go into different units including UDT). The singular op-ed which generated this commotion is not a Reliable Source and the op-ed piece is obviously an attempot to smear the Subject with the title "the great pretender". At the least the reality is nuanced enough for there to be nothing notable about the smear job and so I will remove it in accordance with BLP policy. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 12:49, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
Kiran Chetry isn't an authority on the USN, she was reading the Governors book release. MPR/NPR and the Minnesota Star Tribune are reliable sources and the governor has specifically denied being a member of the SEALs. This was hashed out here: Talk:Jesse_Ventura/Archive_2 V7-sport (talk) 19:08, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
Ventura was on CNN a week or two ago, being interviewed by Peirs Morgan individually, and called himself a Navy SEAL. 74.79.62.75 (talk)
Umm, BUD/S is Basic Underwater Demolition stroke SEAL training. Note the word "Basic." Finishing BUD/S doesn't make you a SEAL. There's additional training during a probationary period. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.171.176.113 (talk) 20:53, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
When sources say Ventura was not a SEAL they're correct. This is because what Ventura did during his time in the Navy wasn't considered SEAL operations. Only later did the merge of operations take place. The problem is that some people attempt to slam Ventura over the difference and misrepresent what Ventura says and does. Other than that I think this article represents correctly and fairly the points of the controversy. You can't change history.. Ventura was not a SEAL by name. Brad (talk) 19:47, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for that Brad, I agree. V7-sport (talk) 03:44, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
Ditto re: "Thanks" Brad; your input helped the discussion a lot. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 11:54, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
I noted this on talk before but it was archived. Someone could source it better for the article but it proves 100% he was a SEAL by any definition and was on a SEAL Team. -- After he was released from active duty in 1973, he joined Reserve SEAL Team ONE. So he should be able to produce a DD-214 today that has a SEAL NEC. Larry Bailey, Captain, USN (Ret.) Navy Special Warfare Command is supposedly the source for his reserve status reported by channel WCCO-TV in Minnesota Satanico (talk) 17:10, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Smear job by SanDiego OP-ED

Firstly, the Harvard Crimson says he was a professor there so why was that removed as a possible "BLP Violation"? Secondly I don't think the San Diego op-ed which has a title "the great pretender" is a Reliable source. CNN as of April 5th. calls him a SEAL. It is not up to Editors to be disecting the minute details and certainly not to be engaging in a debate about it. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 19:24, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

The San diego reader article was included to explain why Ventura made the denial in the first place, it is referenced in the NPR/MPR article in which it is acknowledged that he wasn't a SEAL. This all came out when he was governor of Minnesota. That Kiran Chetry wasn't corrected by Ventura as she read the press release on his book doesn't mean that it is a reliable source as to the delineation between UDT and SEAL. V7-sport (talk) 19:31, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
By the way, that American morning interview goes back to "amfix.blogs" which is the blog section of CNN. That has a different threshold of reliability then regular CNN. V7-sport (talk) 19:38, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

POV Tag

Since there seems to be no willingness to accept the HArvard Crimson as a source for his being a professor nor the U.S. Navy's website as a source, I have put up a pov flag for the time being to see if we can hash this out before going to the npov noticeboard. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 19:36, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Hello Mr.grantevans2. That is not a US Navy website. At the bottom of the page you cite it has the following disclaimer: "NavySEALs.com is a private web community of SEA Air Land athletes and Navy SEAL supporters. It is not affiliated with the US Navy. The views expressed here are solely those of the owners, and members, of NavySEALs.com" USN websites end in .mil. V7-sport (talk) 19:42, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
And I just had a look at the Crimson article. The only places in the article that uses the word "professor" is: "Now, the menus at Bartley’s Burger Cottage list him as “Harvard’s newest professor” after Ventura insisted the owners add him to their list of sandwich celebrities." and "Ventura says he’s going to hold onto his relationship with Harvard—if not as a tenured professor, then as a devoted fan of the women’s hockey team". While Bartley’s Burger Cottage does sound pretty good right about now, It's not something that can bestow the title of "professor" on to a guest lecturer. V7-sport (talk) 19:50, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
I hear you, but here is the rub. You and I aren't supposed to be concludiong that Reliable Sources are using the wrong terminology. The Crimson is a reliable source and it calls him a professor; that's it 1+1=2, I think? Also, the CNN source I used calls him a harvard professor, [1] that's two reliable sources Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 20:22, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
Why is the Salisbury op-ed and point of view getting such space? Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 20:24, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
It didn't look to me like the Crimson was calling him a professor, they were reporting that Bartley’s Burger Cottage was. (Unless they have some kind of exchange program at Harvard in condiments and bun application and Bartley’s Burger Cottage is an accredited institution of higher learning... short of that...) The Salisbury piece isn't getting a lot of attention, it's a part of the Navy career section which is mostly referenced by NPR. V7-sport (talk) 21:24, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
Well, CNN still cals him a professor but Harvard Lecturer is ok with me and the article says "The study groups consistently attracted hundreds of students, many of whom had never been involved in the IOP before." Look, my point is this Subject is not getting enough content in the BLP for the praise he has received, as with his Harvard lectures, and on the other hand the Salisbury Smear surely does not belong in the BLP at all since it adds nothing other than interpretive allegations. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 02:35, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
It seems obvious that the training he took[2], which has the term "SEAL' in it, should have at least been included in that Salisbury paragraph before now, and the so-called "admission" by his office has a very sketchy source which includes a more nuanced description than simply he was not a SEAL , which is how this BLP reads. I am goingv to try to work with the existing content but please think about removing the Salisbury stuff, its not Reliably Sourced in my opinion. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 02:45, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
Going through BUD/S didn't mean that you got assigned to a SEAL team or see combat. NPR and MPR is not a "sketchy source". It is National Public Radio, it is something of a gold standard for sourcing. Re the Harvard professor thing, "A visiting "fellow for the Institute of Politics at Harvard College in 2004" looks to me like it would fly with the Crimson citation. V7-sport (talk) 06:03, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
Which is what the article says - there's clearly a fundamental misunderstanding of what an American university professor is if anyone thinks he was a professor at Harvard. But it doesn't belong in the lead, it's common for politicians to be visiting fellows. And why has conspiracy theorist been removed? Isn't his tv program and book enough to put that in the lead? Dougweller (talk) 07:49, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
I think its suitable to put "conspracy theorist" in the lead, now with the "professor", it really does not matter what the "truth" is about that, all that matters is what Reliable Sources say about that, but I am fine with " very popular Lecturer" based upon what the Crimson says. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 15:13, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Respect the Tag

Since there seems to be no willingness to deal with the obvious, in my opinion, bias inherent in the Salisbury smear op-ed's domination of the Navy Career section, I will put the pov flag only on that section. Please respect the words on the tag to not remove it without consensu and consensus does not mean a majority.If anyone here feels the tag is not warranted I suggest you take it to the NPOV noticeboard which is where I will go if the tag is summarily removed again. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 18:40, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Woah, that's not fair nor correct. Both Dougweller and I have endeavored to work with you so stating that there is "no willingness" isn't the case. The CDR Salisbury section is addressed in the context of the governors rebuttal and is impeccably sourced and highly notable. Indeed, it was a big deal when he was governor. Do "not remove it without consensu and consensus does not mean a majority"? Well, consensus aside, Wikipedia:DRIVEBY states:" Simply being of the opinion that a page is not neutral is not sufficient to justify the addition of the tag." You are of course free to take this to any noticeboard, but when you post things like "my point is this Subject is not getting enough content in the BLP for the praise he has received" (for being a "professor" at Harvard, even though he wasn't) isn't going to help your case that you are working for a neutral POV. Really, you haven't been bitched at for multiple reversions, using unreliable sources or skewing what they have stated. To say that there has been no willingness to hear you out is not the case. V7-sport (talk) 19:11, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
Hearing me out is not the objective; improving the Navy Career section is. Would you be willing to try to work on an improved wording of the content of that section? I tried to do that yesterday but was completely reverted. Maybe you would be willing to have a look at my last edit on the career section and see what part of that you could agree to? Maybe we could work on it here before putting it into the article? Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 22:33, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
OK. Regarding putting the link, to BUD/s and connecting it to what the governors office stated, the governors office didn't say anything about him taking bud/s so the citation is unverified. (you should also know that bud/s today isn't the same program as it was in the late '60s so citing an article abut what they are doing in 2011 is , nor is Bud/S the only training a SEAL has to go through.) When you write "His spokesman stated that Ventura has never misrepresented himself" ...that's not what the article said. "the Governor has never tried to convince people otherwise" is what is verifiable. Indeed, it's a quote from the article. Verifiability is the thing about this encyclopedia. The Navy Career section isn't going to be improved by removing mention of the SEAL/UDT issue or that he acknowledged that he wasn't a SEAL.V7-sport (talk) 23:30, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
The article does not say "Ventura's office confirmed that Ventura was never a member of the SEALs" as is written in our section. The article is very confusing and nuanced and to the contrary to what we have, one sentence in the article says "Spokesman John Wodele says it's acceptable for Ventura to use SEAL as short-hand for what he was," I think the source is a very badly written column in a very weak source ( Minnesota Public Radio) and since I am challenging it I believe BLP policy requires that anything coming from a singular source which is negative toward a living Subject should be removed. Also, the quote you use above "the Governor has never tried to convince people otherwise" was specifically related to him being a part of the UDT; i.e. he has not tried to conbvince people he was not part of the UDT. The article talks a lot about his SEAL Training and I think that is what BUD/S is, but regardless, the attack on his use of the word SEAL and any defence to that attack are not notable enough to belong in this BLP at all given the scarcity of major Reliable Sources which have written about it. It is just not notable enough for a BLP. If you insist on pushing this, find some major media sources that are covering this issue please. Finally, I think Ventura usually talks about his going through "SEAL Training", Do you have any reliable sources which contradict that phraseology? Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 04:27, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
You wrote"The article does not say "Ventura's office confirmed that Ventura was never a member of the SEALs"
What? This is a direct copy and paste from the article:
"Governor Ventura's office confirmed that Ventura was never a member of the elite Navy SEALs,"
Indeed,that's the first line of the article.
There's nothing nuanced about that, nor is it contrary to what we have. It's almost a direct quote. Misrepresenting the sources is something that they take seriously here, indeed it's really the only thing that they are consistently firm on. Where is this "I believe BLP policy requires that anything coming from a singular source which is negative toward a living Subject should be removed" policy? The source is impeccable. It's National Public Radio. BUD/S is only a part of SEAL training. The idea that NPR isn't notable enough to be used in a BLP isn't going to get you very far on this. If you want to take this to mediation I'm fairly certain it's a slam dunk at this point. V7-sport (talk) 05:05, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Its better if we look at it in complete sentences, I think. Here is exactly what the whole sentence says "Governor Ventura's office confirmed that Ventura was never a member of the elite Navy SEALs, but he says he did train to be a SEAL, and that his membership in the Navy's Underwater Demolition Teams was practically the same as being a SEAL." If you wish to put in the whole sentence, and if we determine by consensus that Minnesota Public Radio source is enough of a source, then, because that statement is not a direct quote but rather an interpretation by the writer of what Ventura's office said, the content would go something like this; "Minnesota Public Radio said that Ventura's spokesman said Ventura was never a member of the elite Navy SEALs, but did train to be a SEAL, and that his membership in the Navy's Underwater Demolition Teams was practically the same as being a SEAL." You see the problem here, what we acutally have is an interpretation of a conversation with a 3rd. party about the Subject. We really should not be doing that at all. Put inthe article what Ventura himself has had to say but put it in in its entirety. Also, I am not sure that NPR is infallible or that great of a source. Congress just cut off all funding for it I believe and I can show you a NPR article which says that over 50% of the adults in L.A. are illiterate. It might qualify as a Reliable Source but this particular column might not. The other bigger problem is the BLP policy of Balance in this section. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 15:25, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
V7-sport Please tell me what was wrong with my last edit in the article? You reverted my entire edit. and please just tell me if you are not willing to change anything in that section and if you are, please make a suggestion here as to what the changes might be to address my NPOV concern. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 15:28, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for acknowledging that the article states that he wasn't a SEAL. The idea that NPR isn't a reliable source is, again, not going to get you far. If you wish to take that to mediation or arbitration I'm game. I don't like posting these things but please because they are most often used to bamboozle but have a look at WP:NOR, especially the "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources. Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and to avoid novel interpretations of primary sources". When you write that "it's an interpretation by the writer of what Ventura's office said" that's what secondary sources do. I'll not that there has been no retraction of this and the story has been up there for 12 years and government funding or no, NPR is a reliable source. Lets see that "50% of the adults in L.A. are illiterate" article, (even though it wouldn't have any bearing on this subject, I'de like to see if that's what the article said) The problem with the previous edit is that you are attributing things to people that they didn't say. Please correct me if i'm wrong, but I'm getting the idea that your idea of "balance" is stating he was a Professor at Harvard and a SEAL. (to somehow balance out all the other bad stuff in the article) Look, there's no shame in having been a UDT Frogman. V7-sport (talk) 18:39, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Re NPR report on literacy[3]. Btw, I think you are editing in good faith; and I know that I am; we are just having difficulty communicating I think.
Amazingly depressing. I used to live in LA (and was stationed in San Diego for a while) and yeah, there is a big problem with the immigrant community not being able to speak English, I wasn't aware it was so extensive in the general population though. V7-sport (talk) 04:17, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
Yes, my point is, I think NPR is wrong about that or is conveying the wrong impression, at least with their headline. I can not find any other Reliable Source that says that. I suspect they might mean literate in English. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 11:41, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
  • One of the things I am saying is that from the sentence "Governor Ventura's office confirmed that Ventura was never a member of the elite Navy SEALs, but he says he did train to be a SEAL, and that his membership in the Navy's Underwater Demolition Teams was practically the same as being a SEAL." what was put in the BLP was just the first portion of the sentence. If instead only the last portion is put in the BLP "his membership in the Navy's Underwater Demolition Teams was practically the same as being a SEAL." the Readers would get an entirely different point of view. Please draft something that you feel represents both points of view on this issue and we can go from there. Will that work for you? Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 02:33, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
The reason why it was made an issue in the first place is that it's disputed as to whether or not the UDT and the SEALs are equivalent. (Again, I don't know why he just doesn't call himself a UDT frogman) If we are going to expand it then we are going to have to expand the whole section to include more of the counterargument. I was looking the whole thing over at work and bookmarked a link today on my other computer of CDR Salisbury speaking about the controversy and while it's not from a RS it really laid it out that he was not a SEAL, never in combat and was probably never in Vietnam. Add in the whole "hunting men" thing (where he claimed to have hunted men as a SEAL in Vietnam and then later apologized for it) and this could actually not turn out the way I suspect you would like it to. (That kind of thing is really frowned upon in the USN) Brad, above (who looking through his previous edits seems to be an excellent editor) wrote "I think this article represents correctly and fairly the points of the controversy. " From what I read I think it's even charitable to Mr.Ventura. I honestly think that both points of view are well represented and I honestly don't think there's a POV problem. V7-sport (talk) 04:17, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
Here, found the link. Re Bill Salsbury: "CDR Salisbury served as a Navy SEAL for 16 years. His assignments included OIC, SEAL Team ONE Det Golf in the Rung Sat Special Zone of South Vietnam (1967), XO SEAL Team TWO (1970), CO UDT ELEVEN (1977 - 79). CDR Salisbury was also a Country and Regional Specialist for Latin America with duty in Panama (1972), Peru (1973 - 1976) and Honduras (1982)."V7-sport (talk) 04:26, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Removing the Tag

You (and Brad) have convinced me that the BIO is ok as is, although I think it would be improved, npov wise, to add but he says he did train to be a SEAL" to the content "confirmed that Ventura was never a member of the elite Navy SEALs," since the former is part of the same sentence. And also maybe add something about how popular Ventura's lectures were at Harvard (according to that Crimson article). However I will not push for any changes since both you and Brad feel it is fine the way it is. I would like to see the part about the UDTs seeing less combat removed simply because those UDT guys and their families might feel a little deflated when they read it and it is not necessary to convey the reports that Ventura was never an actual SEAL. Thank you for taking the time to address the issue in depth here on the talk page. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 11:41, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Salsbury is being an asshat in that article. His basic argument is that Ventura wasn't a SEAL (which is correct) but then goes on to misrepresent what Ventura claimed in his autobio. He also pulls the combat card out of that hat essentially saying that SEALS were so much more in danger than UDT's were, which seems like a holier-than-thou attitude even if it is correct. Salsbury's behavior is out of line for someone who was a SEAL/UDT officer. Those who have been through that training normally respect each other for going through it and passing BUDs. Even those who fail are respected just for their attempt.
The Shipley youtube vid makes no bones about Ventura's training and the fact that Ventura uses "SEAL" to describe what he did in the Navy. The reason I posted a link to the vid here was an attempt to help explain the controversy so there would be less argument over the matter but I guess it missed its mark.
I did receive Ventura's military records through an FOIA and there is nothing in this article or in given sources that misrepresent his service. He was with UDT 12; was in Vietnam and had all of the training of BUDs. His two awards are also correct. Brad (talk) 15:18, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
I'll track down a citation to which BUD/D class he graduated so we can add it per Mr.Grantevans2 above. While I'll admit that Sailors can be like a bunch of gossiping old ladies when we start getting thick in the middle and thin on top, I think CDR Salisbury had a point. It's just not OK to claim to have done things that you didn't. I remember the whole "hunting men" claim and being disappointed when it became clear that he was just making it up. Blaming pulmonary embolisms on Agent Orange (rather then steroids) when he wasn't around Agent Orange is another questionable move. Shipley has a point as well, but the SEALs had been around for a long time when Ventura was in the USN. Anyway, I'll track down which BUD/S class he was in and add it. It's fair, accurate and will improve the article. V7-sport (talk) 20:15, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Appalling pic

Came here to say this. That picture is appalling and shows obvious bias by its selection. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.51.171.198 (talk) 04:23, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Admittedly, it's not not the most flattering photo of Ventura, but I don't think its selection had anything to to with an "obvious bias". Rather, given Wikipedia's restrictive photo policy, it was probably the best picture that could be found that didn't have licensing or copyright "issues". Better images that were previously used in the infobox were deleted because they were not in compliance with WP's image use policy. If you find a decent photo that is public domain or compliant with the image use policy, please feel free to upload it and add it to the page, or bring the link to this page so another editor can do it.--JayJasper (talk) 19:40, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Actually, I think it is very representative of how he appears on media interviews these days. I think it just fine, he does not pretend to be a "suit". Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 14:29, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Bogosity check

Jesse Ventura, as a professional wrestler, was never billed from Brooklyn Park, Minnesota. Without scoping it out further, this appears to be another case of someone confusing easy sources with reliable sources. I dunno about the early part of his career, but the wrestling gimmick he was best known for was being a California surfer type. Why do you think they called his tag team with Adrian Adonis "The East-West Connection?" Minnesota is neither east nor west. Duh...RadioKAOS (talk) 10:27, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Atheism

I saw in the talk page history that the atheist category had previously been removed because of lack of self-identification. Since Ventura uttered the words "I'm an atheist." on Howard Stern yesterday, I readded them, trying to cite the exact position of his statement during the broadcast. Hekerui (talk) 16:08, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

So noted, thanks for the clarification and for quoting specific wording in the citation.--JayJasper (talk) 17:33, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

"MPR: Battling Seals"

In the headline of the Minnesota Public Radio article it says:

Governor Ventura's office confirmed that Ventura was never a member of the elite Navy SEALs

But the corresponding piece in the article's body is

Ventura's spokesman, John Wodele, confirms Ventura was in the UDT's, and he says the Governor has never tried to convince people otherwise.

Confirming that he served in the UDTs isn't the same thing as saying that he did not serve in SEAL Team. Considering the fact that Ventura spend his time in the Naval Reserves with SEAL Team ONE, two years in total, which the MPR article says nothing about, is it not probable that the MPR journalist is making a mistake here?

Is there an official press release from Ventura's office about the issue anywhere?

http://news.minnesota.publicradio.org/features/199912/14_kastem_seals/

83.233.139.169 (talk) 21:50, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

If somebody could find out his exact Rank and Rating that would also be great. 83.233.139.169 (talk) 22:42, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Anti-Political Parties Democracy?

In the article where it is stated that he would accept to be Ron Paul's Presidential running mate, he also states those enigmatic words: "“I will not be a Democrat or a Republican," Ventura said. "They are the problem, not the solution. We need to abolish political parties in this country.""[4] So he supports a political system without political parties? Is there any other articles or interviews where he explains better his political views?81.193.214.57 (talk) 15:44, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Awful picture

That picture is horrendously awful. Can't we find a picture of him from his time as governor? john k (talk) 15:03, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

See this thread. If you can find can a photo of him as governor that is properly licensed or public domain, feel free to use it.--JayJasper (talk) 17:15, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

People Whom Keep This Page

He might be running for president in 2016, so I would advise making his page more professional and tidy. There needs to be more emphasis now on his political stances, and on his political history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.117.208.118 (talk) 01:04, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Based on past history with similar/related articles, it will be dominated by this speculation if you let it. It appears there are enough people watching it who are familiar enough with WP:CRYSTAL, however. I would somewhat agree with the last part of this comment, that it appears to me his early political career has been more or less glossed over.RadioKAOS (talk) 01:50, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
All pages should be kept professional and tidy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.4.107.152 (talk) 09:00, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Uncredited movie role

Please note that Jesse Ventura also played in the Schwarzenegger movie, "Jingle All the Way". The role may have been uncredited, but he was the aggressive Santa Claus in a very brief scene. His voice is unmistakable, and because he is wearing a half-shoddy Santa costume, it is clear that it is Jesse. Please someone update this detail to this article. ~Thanx. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.46.86.182 (talk) 23:17, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

While it's quite possible that Ventura appeared in that film, reliable sources would be needed to verify such before it could be included in the article. If you can find such sources, please feel free to make the addition.--JayJasper (talk) 18:22, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

@ JayJasper: I stand corrected; therefore, my entry here is no longer valid. Apparently the "Big Santa" in the warehouse scene was played by Paul Wight (Big Show) — a pro-wrestler also, who has a look and physique and voice not unlike Ventura.

Sorry to waste your time... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.46.86.182 (talk) 15:40, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Stage name controversy

I read over the article last week, while it was slow enough to where I had that much time available. I recall that during his inauguration as governor, and possibly during the campaign as well, there was a minor controversy over the fact that he went by a stage name. Didn't see any mention of it in the article. He did appear on the ballot as "Jesse Ventura" and not "James Janos", correct? I'm pretty certain that this had to have been covered by RS. RadioKAOS  – Talk to me, Billy 21:27, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Libertarian

This article's currently in the "American libertarians" category and listed at List of libertarians, but I can't find a source confirming he's identified as such. OnTheIssues comes closest with the "moderate libertarian" quote, but I don't think it's a reliable source. I'm inclined to remove him from the category and the list; any thoughts? – Arms & Hearts (talk) 13:46, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Navy SEAL background controversy

I have expanded this section, to clarify the issues surrounding this controversy. I hope what I have added is acceptable. --P123ct1 (talk) 08:02, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

To state that he served "as a U.S. Navy Underwater Demolition Team member during the Vietnam War" is misleading, as it suggested service in Vietnam.Royalcourtier (talk) 09:07, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
I have slightly changed the wording to "during the period of the Vietnam War" which I hope makes it clearer.--Cojovo (talk) 19:04, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

"Religion = None" vs. "Religion = Atheist" or "Religion = None (atheist)" in infoboxes.

Per WP:BRD and WP:TALKDONTREVERT, This comment concerns this edit and this revert.

(Please note that nobody has a problem with the use of "Atheist" in the article text. This only concerns infoboxes.)

"Atheism is a religion like not collecting stamps is a hobby." --Penn Jillette

"Atheism is a religion like abstinence is a sex position." --Bill Maher

There are many reasons for not saying "Religion = Atheist" or "Religion = None (atheist)" in Wikipedia infoboxes. They include:

It implies something that is not true

Saying "Religion = Atheist" in Wikipedia infoboxes implies that atheism is a religion. It is like saying "Hair color = Bald", "TV Channel = Off" or "Type of shoe = Barefoot". "Religion = None (atheist)" is better -- it can be read two different ways, only one of which implies that atheism is a religion -- but "Religion = None" is unambiguous.

It is highly objectionable to many atheists.

Many atheists strongly object to calling atheism a religion,[5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13] and arguments such as "atheism is just another religion: it takes faith to not believe in God" are a standard argument used by religious apologists.[14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23]

It goes against consensus

This was discussed at length at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 142#Changing "Religion = none" to "Religion = Atheist" on BLP infoboxes. Opinions were mixed, but the two positions with the most support were "Religion = None" or removing the Religion entry entirely.
More recently, it was discussed at Template talk:Infobox person#Religion means what?, and again the consensus was for "Religion = None".
On article talk pages and counting the multiple "thank you" notifications I have recieved, there are roughly ten editors favoring "Religion = None" for every editor who opposes it. Of course anyone is free to post an WP:RFC on the subject (I suggest posting it at Wikipedia:Centralized discussion) to get an official count.

It is unsourced

If anyone insists on keeping "Religion = Atheist" or "Religion = None (Atheist)" in any Wikipedia infobox, they must first provide a citation to a reliable source that established that the individual is [A] An atheist, and [B] considers atheism to be a religion.

It attempts to shoehorn too much information into a one-word infobox entry

In the article, there is room for nuance and explanation, but in the infobox, we are limited to concise summaries of non-disputed material. Terms such as "atheist", "agnostic", "humanist", "areligious", and "anti-religion" mean different things to different people, but "Religion = None" is perfectly clear to all readers, and they can and should go to the article text to find out which of the subtly different variations of not belonging to a religion applies.

It violates the principle of least astonishment.

Consider what would happen if Lady Gaga decided to list "Banana" as her birth date. We would document that fact in the main article with a citation to a reliable source (along with other sources that disagree and say she was born on March 28, 1986). We would not put "Birth date = Banana" in the infobox, because that would cause some readers to stop and say "wait...what? Banana is not a birth date...". Likewise we should not put anything in an infobox that would cause some readers to stop and say "wait...what? Atheism is not a religion..."

In many cases, it technically correct, but incomplete to the point of being misleading.

When this came up on Teller (magician), who strongly self-identifies as an atheist, nobody had the slightest problem with saying that Teller is an atheist. It was the claim that atheism is a religion that multiple editors objected to. Penn Jillette wrote "Atheism is a religion like not collecting stamps is a hobby", so we know that Penn objects to having atheism identified as a religion.
In the case of Penn, Teller and many others, they are atheists who reject all theistic religions, but they also reject all non-theistic religions, and a large number of non-religious beliefs. See List of Penn & Teller: Bullshit! episodes for an incomplete list. Atheism just skims the surface of Penn & Teller's unbelief.

In my opinion, "Religion = None" is the best choice for representing the data accurately and without bias. I also have no objection to removing the religion entry entirely. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:45, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate the length and depth of analysis that you have done on this topic, however, Jesse Ventura has publicly said "I'm an Atheist".
I'm not certain this is the correct way to post this, but here it goes:
http://www.highbrowmagazine.com/1254-jesse-ventura-politics-keith-richards-and-why-hes-atheist
About 1/3rd the way down from the top of the page...
When you were governor, you refused to declare a National Prayer Day. I bet the right-wing fundamentalists were furious.
Absolutely. The Minnesota media just grilled me. They went, “How come every other governor is declaring National Prayer Day and not you?” And that’s when I said, “What do you need me to tell you to pray for?” I’ve come out of the closet now: I’m an atheist. And I’m proud to say it. I’m a follower of George Carlin.
We lost a great voice when we lost George, but here’s what George believed in: George worshipped the sun. And I do too. Because the sun, and I’m paraphrasing George, gives me heat, the sun gives me food, the sun makes me warm, the sun does everything I want. It’s a wonderful thing, and most of all, every morning I can get up and see it come up, which gives it great credibility — knowing the sun exists.
Don’t get me wrong: Other people are free to believe in God; they’re free to practice their religion; I don’t begrudge them that. That’s the one thing I give kudos to President Obama for. When he took office and he did his state address, he listed Christians, Muslims, Jewish [believers] — he went down the line, and the last thing he said was “and non-believers.” I jumped out of my chair, I said, “My God, we’re legal now.” The president has finally acknowledged that there are people who don’t believe in a supreme being.
So, not sure if this is enough to consider adding (atheist) back to his religion identification or not, but food for thought.
Cheers! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:2:4E00:924:819A:CCD7:6FAD:E129 (talk) 18:58, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

The huge number of page views continues--let's bring this article up to good article status

Hi, everyone,

I see there has been a lot of good work on this article for quite a while by several different Wikipedians. I've had the pleasure of meeting several of the WikiProject Minnesota participants at the previous Wikipedia meet-ups. I have recently developed the habit of tracking which Wikipedia articles gain especially many page views, from the weekly list of top 5000 pages and from the 2014 annual list of most viewed pages. On both lists, we can see that this article is a very frequently viewed article, probably the most viewed article in the scope of WikiProject Minnesota or WikiProject United States governors. In collaboration with all the rest of you here, I think it would be fun to try to expand and refine the article on Jesse Ventura until it can be submitted for good article review. Articles on living persons are always the trickiest to edit, but there are abundant reliable sources on Ventura's life and career. Because of Ventura's varied career, the article about him is of interest to several WikiProjects, and should be able to draw in a lot of interesting perspectives. I've taken one article up to good article status before, IQ classification, which has had a huge boost in page views since it was expanded. My wild guess is that this article about Jesse Ventura will continue to gain a lot of page views for years to come, so it would make sense to submit it for good article review after checking it ourselves. Anyone interested in joining in? -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 14:26, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Content disputed

The article presents Mr Ventura as tax cutter - he was not.

The article goes on about Mr Ventura cutting this or that tax. However, overall taxes actually went UP in the period that Mr Ventura was Governor or Minnesota - check the Tax Foundation website. Just deleting my edits to try and pretend that MR Ventura was a tax cutter, when taxes actually went up under him, does not alter the reality.176.253.0.2 (talk) 12:37, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Why is there no rebuttal section to Mr Ventura's 9/11 claims.

The article presents Mr Ventura's highly offensive claims that the United States government knew about the 9/11 attacks in advance and allowed them as an excuse for wars, as fact. Why is there no rebuttal section in relation to these absurd, and highly offensive, claims by Mr Ventura?176.253.0.2 (talk) 12:40, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

You haven't provided a single reference to validate your claims. Saying "(Tax Foundation Website)", isn't a reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:2:4E00:C662:80B2:8859:55F6:88FB (talk) 14:29, 9 April 2015 (UTC) Dear Sir or Madam - if you can not be bothered to look up what actually happened to taxation to taxation, overall, in Minnesota when Mr Ventura was Governor please do not blame me for your own lack of effort. As I have told you - it takes less than a minute to check the Tax Foundation website for total State and local taxation, as a proportion of the economy, in Minnesota for the relevant years.176.252.177.96 (talk) 08:06, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Content not supported by good quality sources can and should be removed. WP:FRINGE applies to claims relating to conspiracy theories and other nutjobbery, we absolutely should not present such views as if they are legitimate. Guy (Help!) 14:44, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
@176.252.177.96 Dear Sir or Madam - If you cannot be bothered to add a reliable source to a statement in order to verify the statement's veracity, then the unverifiable statements deserve to be removed. If it only takes a few minutes, as you say, to look it up on the tax foundation website, then please assign the blame to yourself for your lack of effort to create a reference. Why is it so difficult to follow the same rules that all other editors are required to follow? Do you expect everyone to accept your point of view as fact and expect other people to do your work for you? As well, the six times that one can find the word "tax" in the article are supported by reliable sources. If you wish to offer something in addition to that, then you're going to need to meet the same standard as the other statements. Until then, your comments are merely unsubstantiated opinion and go against a neutral point of view. 2601:2:4E00:C662:5C2C:A7BD:9B08:BFAA (talk) 21:26, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Request for Comments

There is an RfC on the question of using "Religion: None" vs. "Religion: None (atheist)" in the infobox on this and other similar pages.

The RfC is at Template talk:Infobox person#RfC: Religion infobox entries for individuals that have no religion.

Please help us determine consensus on this issue. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:09, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Jesse Ventura. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:35, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

A new picture?

Can't we put in a new picture? I'm honestly not totally sure how to do it and I feel like I'll mess it up, but I just feel like he was the Governor of a state, we should have a better picture than, well...that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.70.104.66 (talk) 15:58, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. The current picture is low-resolution, blurry, and unflattering.-Mr. Man (talk) 16:42, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Can someone who is experienced editing wikipedia please change the image for this article

Its blurry, and unflattering. Not appropriate for someone who is considering running in the 2016 election. Also Mr.Ventura looks allot different currently. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cicain90 (talk • contribs) 01:51, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

That is not a good pic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.152.219.32 (talk) 09:50, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Placeholder picture

I have added a placeholder picture from Wikimedia Commons taken in 2000 of the Governor. It appears to be the least controversial and looks much more professional than the previous photo that was in the infobox. This is the best photo I can find that is a portrait: https://www.picsofcelebrities.com/celebrity/jesse-ventura/pictures/large/jesse-ventura-movies.jpg Any opinions on which one is better, the link above or the current one? Computermichael (talk) 03:40, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Browsed the link you provided and it looks like an obvious copyvio to me, just like all the others that were recently uploaded and subsequently deleted. Further proof of the apparent belief some editors have that if a subject is "popular", there's no need to play by the rules. Worse yet, a free image, along with the accompanying infobox, was removed, evidently because it had to do professional wrestling and not politics. Now that it's obvious that Ventura is NOT a candidate for president in the current election, is there any valid reason to push this article further in the direction of his political career at the expense of a more balanced presentation? RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 04:42, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

The idea is to portray him as being more professional than the previous picture suggested. I reverted my edit, but this one was his official portrait while Governor: http://www.bpnews.net/images/article5412.jpg?width=800 With the proper sourcing it may be a good replacement. It was taken in 1998 and is the original version. Computermichael (talk) 17:29, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Update the lawsuit

Why hasn't the status of Ventura's loss of the Kyle lawsuit been put into this article. I have noticed there seems to be an increase in bias in Wikipedia. It is most unnerving. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FB90:950A:E7A1:0:1F:F2CE:DB01 (talk) 08:42, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Because nobody has cared enough to fix it. Not everyone keeps up with celebrity news. How about you add it yourself?★Trekker (talk) 16:05, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Nickname

Jesse "The Body" Ventura's nickname is commonly used outside of wrestling as well. See Maurice Richard's WP page. "Rocket Richard" is more common than using his first name. MohammedMohammedمحمد 02:51, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

See MOS:LEGALNAME. "Rocket" is a nickname, but "The Body" is a pseudonym, hence the difference. Normally, the stage name would get mentioned in the first sentence if it's commonly used, but given Ventura's accomplishments in many fields, it seems unwieldy to put it there. Having it early in the second paragraph and bolded seems fine. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 04:22, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Jesse Ventura. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:10, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jesse_Ventura/Archive_3&oldid=1027120226"