Jump to content

Talk:Jesse Ventura/Archive 1

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

Barkley appointment

Mr. Ventura said that he had considered appointing whoever won today's election. But he said that he abruptly changed his mind when James Moore, the Independence Party's Senate candidate, was excluded from yesterday's debate. [1]

It wasn't just the memorial service that motivated his Barkley appointment. --Ed Poor 14:26, 5 November 2002 (UTC)

More history

Would be nice if we could have some more history: graduation, military service, life in WWF, acting, when/where he was mayor, etc. &mdashMulad 17:44, 28 May 2003 (UTC)

Is there a website

Is there a website we could link the text of his proclaimation instead of in the article it takes up a lot of room in his bio for a rather small event in his life.Smith03 23:04, 17 Oct 2003 (UTC)

The problem with that is if the website goes away, so does the text. -Fernkes 12:00, Oct 18, 2003 (UTC)

The order of events

The order of events, and the reason he was booed, at the memorial service isn't made clear by the article. It _sounds_ like he was booed (for no apparent reason), then there were 3 hours of encomium, then the "lets win" speech, and then (some time later) Ventura changed his mind on the appointment. Could someone clarify? -- Finlay McWalter 01:19, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I don't actually remember Ventura being booed there at all. - Hephaestos 05:52, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)
A paragraph on that was just removed.. I think Ventura was booed (though I can't remember how loudly), but I'm having trouble finding good video of the event. I'm curious of the copyright status of the main video feed, too—it may be public domain, but Internet sources of it seem to be disappearing, and I've never gotten any to work. There's a link here on Star-Tribune, but it's not working with my version of RealPlayer (shock of shocks…) I would guess that some people definitely did boo him, since he was a little unpopular at the time. Certainly some well-known Republicans who popped up on the video screens were booed loudly, so maybe memories are just confused. —Mulad 09:00, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Keep in mind that the memorial service was held at Williams Arena on the University of Minnesota - Twin Cities campus. The crowd undoubtedly contained many students who disliked his stance on funding at the U of M. If I remember correctly, he attended the memorial service but left when 'it started to become a rally.' — wheresmysocks 07:40, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)

Religion

I have a very difficult time believing Jesse is a Christian, much less a Lutheran...Terry,,, yes... Jesse... ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.51.54.169 (talk • contribs) 21:34, 9 February 2005 (UTC)

Ventura endorsed equal rights for religious minorities, as well as people who don't believe in God

And the "don't believe in God" is linked to atheism. What about agnostics, apatheist, deist? I think it should be reworded and mention people without religion and linked to 'secular.'132.170.52.59 (talk) 18:02, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


The linking of the term "don't beleive in god" to atheism is NOT CORRECT! Atheists are NOT people who "don't beleive" in god. They are people who COMPLETELY LACK ANY theistic belief, whether it be the christian 'god', shiva, Thor, what have you. It its not hair-splitting, its an entirely different concept. To 'not believe' in a god, you must acknowledge it exists, first, then not believe in the the thing. That is not atheism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.115.155.56 (talk) 14:22, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I have read in some Navy Seal's websites (by former Seals) questioning whether Jesse Ventura was a Seal. He did graduate Buds/UDT but he did not take part in further training or fought with or joined any Seal Team. The distinction seems to be pretty major among former and current Seals. Here are some links that might prove useful.

Edgar Kavanagh 11:47, 15 November 2005 (UTC) Edgar Kavanagh

Among SOME former and current SEALs. According to the Navy, anybody who completes BUD/S and earns their trident badge has the right to be called a SEAL regardless of whether they are ever assigned to a SEAL team or a UDT. Iceberg3k 18:01, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
He never would have earned the trident badge but rather the UDT badge. You have to complete SQT to be a SEAL. Read the "SEAL or UDT" link. He never was a SEAL. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.215.180.8 (talk • contribs) 05:29, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Larry Bailey says he's a SEAL. Discussion over. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.49.77.67 (talk • contribs) 10:23, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

This may or may not validate Mr. Ventura's SEAL claims: http://www.navyseals.com/jesse-ventura . I believe this is an official government site. It mentions his time in UDT, but does not mention his reserve time with a SEAL team. Jgw (talk) 18:40, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Height and weight

I don't know if this is easily verifiable but I remember that back in the 1980s the then WWF billed Ventura as 270 pounds and more like 6'5" - considerably bigger than the figures given here. Are the figures here the legitimate ones, as opposed to what he was billed as? I do realise that it is a common practice to bill professional wrestlers as significantly bigger than their legitimate size. He looks considerably bigger than Arnold Schwarzenegger in their fight scene in The Running Man, but that might be camera angles, etc, I suppose. Metamagician3000 06:08, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

I would assume that the billed height and weight of any professional wrestler is about as real as any other aspect of professional wrestling. Iceberg3k 17:44, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
I'd be inclined to agree although I do disagree with your opinion of pro wrestling being fake. I don't think the guys' bodies feel that way. 144.126.161.43 04:04, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Bias

I see a section on controversy, but no section on his accomplishments while in office? J.B. 02/07/2006 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.152.207.247 (talk • contribs) 02:37, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, if you know of any, go ahead and add them. Jonathunder 05:53, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Leaving United States

Whatever became of that? OsFan 18:43, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I believe the former Governor still lives in Mexico, or at least did at the date of "Don't Start the Revolution without Me"'s publication.

Article Complaint

This article is very poorly done. What's with the large controversy section? Are there any sources for the parts on education, pledge of allegiance, cuba, and the wellstone memorial, proving that they were controversial? It's almost like the Controversy section is just a list of things he's done as governor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.131.204.73 (talk • contribs) 16:01, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I was about to say exactly the same thing. The "Controversies as Governor" section is nonsense. In what way are these pretty ordinary things that he did "controversial"? I've been to Minnesota (briefly) and it didnt seem so detached that any of this stuff could have been seriously "controversial". The whole way the section is framed seems pretty POV to me... Fig (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 23:58, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Wrestling

Too much of this article is involved with his wrestling career in my opinion, furthermore it's described almost as if it were a real sport ("he earned a title shot" etc) the style should be something similar to a description of his roles in the various movies he was in - i.e. you wouldn't type "Jesse Ventura was narrowly defeated by Arnold Schwarznegger in the end sequence of Running Man" you'd say "in the film Running Man his character did x,y,z". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.159.248.1 (talk • contribs) 17:56, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

He was involved with wrestling for over 20 years and is more known as a wrestler than a politician. If anything this article focuses too much on his political career and not enough on his wrestling career, especially since most people coming here would come for wrestling info just like most people going to Schwarznegger's page for his acting career. TJ Spyke 06:50, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Also, conversely most people would go to Ronald Regan's page for his political career and not his acting career. --Edgelord 22:18, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
All the wrestling information should be reformatted to conform to the project pro wrestling standards. It's too unorganized as it is right now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.69.137.205 (talk • contribs) 08:40, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm from outside the US, and I would agree that this article is too focused on wrestling. This is not a sport, but glitzy, choreographed entertainment. I don't dispute these men's terrific athletic dexterity but the detailed nonsensical "fighting titles" narrative should be left with fanzines and T.V. light entertainment. Regardless of this, I only know about this man's political views and stand point. His time as a wrestler / commentator has relevance, but this (non)sport should be kept in context and in it's own "make-believe" world (I do not intend to offend). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.106.149.106 (talk) 04:59, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Light Rail

I added a section about Light Rail -- probably his most significant contribution to the state.

Robko626 19:48, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

stand on political issues, votes on particular bills

so there is a huge area about contraversy, but how about where the man stood on the political issues.... not everyone who comes here is interested about his wrestling career, tho he was a great professional wrestler in his era... he has moved on from wrestling, and that is where all his bad press come from... why not a section about his stance onparticuar issues he veto'd while in office, or the ones he supported while in officce... he was a good governor, and deserves to be well treated as such... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.208.139.114 (talk • contribs) 03:34, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Third-Party Support

Quoting the article: "Prior to the presidential election of 2000, Ventura supported the role of third parties in national politics"

What source is there to suggest that he no longer favors third parties in national politics? —Preceding unsigned comment added by BTerran (talk • contribs) 00:34, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Not sure who wrote it or what point they were trying to make, but it may have something to do with his breaking away from the Reform Party and joining up with the Independence Party. Even then, the statement seems out of place and needs revision. — wheresmysocks 02:09, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

9/11 Conspiracy Theories

Quote from www.prisonplanet.tv/ www.prisonplanet.tv/]:

Former Minnesota Governor, actor and wrestling star Jesse Ventura has publicly questioned the official version of events behind 9/11 and gone further than ever before in citing Operation Northwoods and the Gulf of Tonkin as examples of how the government has planned and carried out staged war provocations in the past. www.prisonplanet.com/articles/september2006/270906jesseventura.htm]

I don't wanna touch this one with a 10 foot pole, but someone should add this to the article. AlexLibman 18:30, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Should definitely be added. In fact with all the famous people coming forward with this viewpoint of 9/11 (Charlie Sheen, Martin Sheen, Willie Nelson, David Lynch, Christine Ebersole, Marion Cotillard, Eminem, Mos Def, Rosie O'Donnell...) we perhaps need to make a category, something like "Notable people who question the official story of 9/11". :Of course, these people are all crazy conspiracy loons. In fact we should probably label them unpatriotic for daring to attack their own government. Even better, perhaps delete all these people from Wikipedia, now there's an idea....
--200.114.195.185 (talk) 02:38, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
First off, Ventura does state in his latest book (published in 2008 I believe) that he doesn't believe the 9/11 commission findings. He has also appeared on TV (most notably Hannity & Colmes) saying that his demolitions experience in the SEALS makes jim question the official findings. But secondly to the author of the post above mine, why do you believe that anyone who questions their gov't is unpatriotic? I don't agree with the so called "truthers" but I'm not going to question their patriotism. Remember the Maine!PonileExpress (talk) 22:58, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Presidency requirements

Can someone familiar with law determine whether the U.S. Constitution truly prevents Ventura from taking office? It says one must have had 18 years of residency (among other requirements), but it doesn't say they must be consecutive. I'm not incorrect, the article needs to have the appropriate line removed. Deepstratagem 08:25, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

There is no picture!

The picture of Jesse at the top is gone. Matilda Sharks 07:12, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

does anyone know where to find a picture? Gang14 22:55, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Children

Why aren't his children on his page?I know he has two children.(MgTurtle 03:50, 30 June 2007 (UTC)).

first color commentator?

was he the first in pro wrestling? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.234.41.170 (talk) 21:17, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Format problem

There is an obvious format problem in the "Professional wresting" section, but I've been unable to pinpoint the problem on the edit page. Can anyone else give it a try? It's right much of an eyesore.--JayJasper (talk) 17:57, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Problem solved. Thanks to whoever fixed it.--JayJasper (talk) 23:36, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Pledge of Allegiance

Why is the "pledge of allegiance" stance under controversies? I don't see any articles saying it was controversial. I'm going to remove it. --Liface (talk) 12:27, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

9/11

I thought it was clearly established that prisonplanet.com is not a reliable source for anything, except possibly the names of the guests on Alex Jones' show. It's not even reliable for the content of the show. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:42, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, very good point.
PrisonPlanet should be censored from the internet, and Alex Jones should be hung, drawn and quartered the unpatriotic swine.
I thought Wikipedia was supposed to be a encyclopedia of facts - so quite why 9/11 conspiracy theories even get a look in is anybodies guess.
I suggest all Wikipedia users revolt and delete all 9/11 crazy stuff from the website. In fact why don't we remove all references to 9/11 itself and pretend it never happened, cause all it does is pollute the internet with crap.
--200.114.195.185 (talk) 03:28, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
I didn't say that. I just said the Alex's web sites are not stable (as there's some evidence that recorded broadcasts are re-edited), and reflect only his (Alex's) personal opinion. They should not be considered as reliable sources for anything other than articles about themselves or, under WP:SELFPUB, about Alex. I have no doubt that Jesse is skeptical of the consensus version of 911, but it shouldn't be here unless he's quoted in a reliable source. There must be some mainstream newspaper in Minnesota which picked up the story. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:58, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
"PrisonPlanet should be censored from the internet, and Alex Jones should be hung, drawn and quartered the unpatriotic swine." Nice comment from an anonymous IP address out of Buenos Aires, Argentina! lol
Arthur Rubin, I think there might be some third party sources verifying these statements, but I think PrisonPlanet might be a valid source in this instance only because Jesse Venture made these statements on Alex Jones' radio show. You can find a tape of the program through the link it you want. --David Barba (talk) 22:54, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
oops, I should have read your whole comment, Arthur! Ignore my redundant comment.--David Barba (talk) 23:01, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  • The section on 9/11 should certainly remain. That information on Jesse Ventura has every right to be there. The reader can hear for her/himself what Jesse says on 9/11 in the link to the relevant radio interview supplied, and there is no evidence whatsoever that Alex Jones has at any time doctored broadcast interviews to make the interviewee seemingly say something which is the opposite of what he or she actually stated. Wikipedia's guide on reliable sources is more concerned with dubious sources that make untrustworthy claims about what a third-party thinks or says, or with a source which does not check its facts - not about a radio broadcast (broadcast live - I heard it) from the relevant person him/herself, where that person speaks directly to the audience. There are no grounds whatsoever for removing the information about this interview with Jesse Ventura on 9/11 - unless it can be proven that Alex Jones has a history of editing broadcast interviews into a perversion of what the speaker actually said. To remove the highly pertinent 9/11 information from the Jesse Ventura article would be nothing short of censorship, masquerading as concern for "reliable sources." Incidentally, I note elsewhere in the article, on the section regarding JV’s views on prostitution, that no less an authoritative source for his opinions than “Playboy” is cited – a highly scholarly and dependable journal, of course (yet no one has seen fit to complain about that "reliable source" – only the 9/11 reference – odd, isn’t it? ….). Best wishes to all. From Tony. TonyMPNS (talk)
Considering the clear re-edits of his (Alex's) broadcast where he "predicted" 9/11, I think we need evidence of integrity of the broadcast, rather than requiring evidence that the web site's recording was edited. On the other hand, this should have been reported in some local and state newspapers in Minnesota. On the gripping hand, Playboy has quite a good reputation for fact-checking on articles claimed to be factual, as opposed to fictional or advice columns, possibly even better than mainstream newsmagazines. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:18, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Added {{verify credibility}} tags. I don't have time to check in detail, but:
  1. prisonplanet is not credible, IMHO, for the reasons specified above.
  2. youtube is clearly not credible, unless that was a contemperaneous copy of Alex's show by a separately credible source.
  3. A broadcast segment called "The Water Cooler" doesn't seem as if it were a credible source.
— Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:10, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
  • The "unreliable source?" markers should be removed forthwith. The references are in part to Associated Press - and news sources do not come much more "reliable" than that. Wilfully and doggedly contesting the factuality of Ventura's comments (i.e. disputing whether he actually made these comments) is now utterly absurd and clearly serving a political agenda. Tony. TonyMPNS (talk) 15:34, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Those are from Arthur Rubin, who wants to erase any information that 9/11 did happen as the official story says it did, so he tries to find every possible reason to remove the information and instead replace everything with the broad label of "conspiracy theory." 67.164.76.73 (talk) 16:19, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your input above. I read your comments with much interest. Yes, it now becomes difficult to avoid the conclusion that an attempt is being made here in this Discussion page not to be fair and accurate, but to suppress viewpoints which are found by some to be unpalatable. The fact that Associated Press has itself picked up Jesse Ventura's comments on 9/11 and that AP (in their copyrighted piece) also references Alex Jones's radio show indicates that this matter (of whether Ventura has actually stated doubts about the official explanation of 9/11) is beyond sensible dispute: Jesse Ventura has reliably said precisely what he is quoted as having stated in this Wikipedia article. To try to gainsay this is to reveal either staggering stupidity or - more probably - deliberate disingenuousness in the service of suppression of factual information. Best wishes to you. From Tony. TonyMPNS (talk) 16:58, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
If AP picked it up, that's acceptable. However, there's no evidence of that in the sources as given, and the sources, themselves, are very questionable. Prisonplanet, in particular, has been shown to have been edited retroactively. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:28, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
The anon above is a serial vandal of Template:911tm, and his comments on 9/11 articles should generally be disregarded. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:35, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Term as governor

Surely there is more to say about it than a list of "controversies"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.168.161.241 (talk) 21:31, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Tweak the neutrality on the "9/11 questions" section

Hi all, Just read up on the section regarding Ventura's recent questions regarding the events of 9/11. Seems to me that they have the air of being a little too biased, not strongly for it but I think there should be a little tweaking of some of the words so it doesn't sound so assertive as if its absolutely true what his statements are. If anybody could fix this I'd really appreciate it. Thanks and have a great weekend! 24.235.221.22 (talk) 03:39, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

  • I've added "he claimed" to part of the section, so that it cannot now be accused of being biased in favour of Ventura's views. The piece simply reports - accurately and without comment in favour or against - the ideas expressed by Ventura on a radio broadcast and mainly quotes his own words. Please note that it is not the function of Wikipedia in an entry of this kind (i.e. the profiling of a famous person's opinions) to put a counter-view - simply to report accurately and reliably the facts regarding what this particular noted individual has stated. Best wishes. Tony. TonyMPNS (talk) 08:07, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Nothing will suffice for Arthur Rubin until any reference to the Alex Jones show is removed. He believes it is not a credible source, even though the information is clearly transparent for anyone to watch since the show only conveys Ventura's opinions, but it looks like it will need to be removed and replaced with only the AP story -- otherwise the section is marred with his "credibility" additions daily. 67.164.76.73 (talk) 02:10, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Look, it's been established that Alex is not a credible source. It's possible that his show is archived by someone who can be considered a credible source, but Alex's sites and youtube do not qualify. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:41, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the comments. It has most certainly not been established that Alex Jones' radio interviews with guests are unreliable sources of information on what those guests said in those interviews. There is not a shred of evidence that has been adduced here to indicate that Alex Jones deviously re-edits originally live broadcast interviews to twist the words of his guests into the opposite of views they have expressed. Furthermore, the Associated Press (to which this article in part refers) itself quotes Alex Jones as a "nationally syndicated" radio host and nowhere expresses the view that his radio interview with Jesse Ventura was bogus or suspect. If AP regard Alex Jones's interview with Ventura as a reliable source for Ventura's views on 9/11 (and clearly they do), then it should be good enough for Wikipedia. Or is the claim now being made that Associated Press is an "unreliable source"? From Tony. TonyMPNS (talk) 16:30, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
    • We have absolutely no evidence that AP regards prisonplanet as a reliable source for the content of the interview; their columnist may have heard the interview "live" or from a source which the columnist considers reliable. On the other hand, you may recall TWA Flight 800 and a certain (former) newsman whose "reliable source" turned out to be an anonymous Usenet post. We regard AP as a reliable source in the absence of evidence to the contrary, but we don't have to trust their sources. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:39, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
  • This is a complete travesty of logic: we trust AP as a reliable source, but we don't necessarily trust the sources they trust as the basis of their reporting??! This is risibly self-contradictory - complete nonsense. As has been stated above, not one jot of evidence has been forthcoming that the Alex Jones interview with Ventura (or other AJ guests) has been distortingly doctored. Until it is, there is no cause for querying the reliability of the interview that all can hear and judge for themselves. Has Ventura claimed that he has been maligned by Alex Jones? No. Has the AP claimed that others have subsequently twisted their "source"? No. It is quite evident to all and sundry, with even a modicum of fair-mindedness, that what is in operation here (in this dispute over the Ventura interview) is an outrageously foolish attempt to suppress or discredit a particular (albeit with some, unpopular) viewpoint that has been broadcast not only on the Alex Jones show but also on US TV. It is this kind of shameful dearth of common sense and disdain for fair-mindedness that helps bring Wikipedia into disrepute. TonyMPNS (talk) 19:09, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
      1. Alex's claim that he predicted 9/11 has been shown to be based on edited radio shows.
      2. A newspaper or TV "news" column called "the water cooler" should be granted approximately the status of what you hear at an office water cooler: "trust, but verify".
      3. Although the proposal that youtube videos are never reliable has been rejected, the current status is that a youtube video is only a reliable source if the poster is — essentially, it's considered self-published.
    • — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:33, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
  • The Water Cooler site actually gives the copyrighted AP article! Any knowledge of how AP (like Reuters) operates would tell you that AP sends its staff-written articles out to those newspapers / websites which subscribe to it and who have the right to publish those AP pieces. As for Alex Jones' prediction of 9/11: of course there is an edited version of that particular broadcast on the Internet, since he would not need to post the entire broadcast. Editing broadcasts (for more conciseness, etc.) is done on a daily basis even by "great" broadcasting corporations such as the BBC - it's normal practice. It is only wrong if the edit twists the original broadcast into the opposite of what it actually stated. Even if the Alex Jones 9/11 "prediction" did that (and I see no evidence that it did), that is irrelevant to this particular issue with Ventura, which is an interview with a guest. There is no evidence whatever that Alex Jones doctors such interviews and mangles them into a sham version of what they originally were. Finally, who are you to say that X,Y,Z is not a "reliable source"? If Associated Press pick up the story from the Alex Jones show and report it without any caveats as to its authenticity, then it is reliable enough for Wikipedia. To insist that that particular broadcast is "unreliable" is to fly in the face of all the evidence to the contrary. No one is saying here that what Ventura stated regarding 9/11 is true or not (that is not the point of contention); what is being argued is that what he said has been accurately captured in sound recording by the Alex Jones radio show. Until there is any solid evidence that this interview has been doctored and twisted, those "unreliability" tags should come down. TonyMPNS (talk) 20:43, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Third opinion

www.prisonplanet.com is not a reliable source, especially in bios. The YouTube video should also not be used, for similar reasons. The AP would be a reliable source, but there is significant doubt in my mind this is a valid AP article. It does not appear in new archives that provide direct wire service reporting for AP articles and cannot be located in the AP's archive. It only appears on the websites of three local broadcasters, with distinct headlines.[2][3][4] Taken together, I doubt the veracity of the source's existence as a real wire article. It should be noted the article is cited as two distinct sources in the article (the latter referring to the AP as the source, instead of the local news station from which it was taken). Another issue is the amount of space devoted to quoting the subject. We should generally avoid quotations, except to highlight well-sourced information or to present a statement that would be more difficult to describe than simply provide. That all being said, Ventura has made a number of media appearances (appearing on Hannity & Colmes and The Opie & Anthony Show) and has indeed made claims about 9/11 coverups and inconsistencies. However, we certainly need much better sourcing to raise such a controversial issue about a living person. Vassyana (talk) 03:23, 18 April 2008 (UTC) You can help too by providing a third opinion. RfC and editor review could also always use a few extra voices!

  • In my opinion, the above verdict is wrong - but of course I accept the right of this third party to express his/ her opinion. This may not, however, be the end of the matter ... TonyMPNS (talk)
So local news stations are not credible either? Why do we watch them as "news" if they are not credible and just add "AP" to their stories falsely? And not just one local station, but three? Wouldn't the AP object to stations just using their name without the right to? Someone should contact AP and these stations and clear this up. 152.131.10.133 (talk) 19:31, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
To assume good faith, "AP" may mean that the station submitted the article to the AP, rather than that the article came from the AP. And local news can be reliable, but there needs to be independent evidence that the article is intended to be considered factual, rather than repeated gossip. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:52, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Actually, rather than simply trying to explain away the possibility of any determination of what the actual facts are, why not just contact the stations and AP and ask them? Clearly you have a great deal of time to look into these and clearly you are extremely motivated to remove the information or make it appear uncredible, so in fairness, assuming good faith, one would assume you would have an interest in the actual facts, not just an abstract idea about what the situation might be. 152.131.10.133 (talk) 23:04, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Better still, I'll contact them and let them know that a few wikipedia editors are making public claims that their stations are adding "AP" to stories that are not AP stories, or are suggesting that they may not be reliable. 152.131.10.133 (talk) 23:06, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Hallo dear Anonymous! Good points! I am amazed at the ever-more desperate and Byzantine twists in argumentation that are being advanced here to try to stop obviously accurate information being made simply and unobstructedly available to the Wikipedia-reading public - or to get people to dismiss that information as probable fabrication. As I keep saying, there is not one smidgen, not one jot of evidence - still less proof - that Alex Jones has ever doctored this broadcast interview with Ventura to make Ventura say something that he did not in fact say. There is no evidence, either, that Jones has doctored the interviews in like manner with other of his guests on his radio show. Given that fact, there is no reason whatsoever to doubt the reliability of the recorded interview with Jesse Ventura. People are innocent until proven guilty - and Jones has never been proven guilty on the charge that seems to be levelled against him here. I think your suggestion of contacting those various radio stations etc. and telling them of the smear campaign that seems to be being waged against them in some sections of Wikipedia Discussion is excellent! Best wishes to you. From Tony. TonyMPNS (talk) 08:22, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Alex has clearly doctored some non-interview broadcasts. That's enough evidence for me that we can't take him at his word/image. As for the AP question, most reporters in a newspaper could search AP and provide a link that all such reporters could verify. (Actually the TV (not radio) station we quote doesn't seem to say it was an AP article. Perhaps you're reading a different copy. Only Tony seems to think there was an "AP" in the article. Can someone else confirm?) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:44, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Perhaps we are speaking about a difference website. What I am referring to is the reference in this Wikipedia piece to the "Water Cooler" site, where the article is prefaced by the words, " Minneapolis (AP)", and to the other, WKBT.com, website, which has analogous words. Both of these are marked as "AP". I see no evidence that these sites have just penned their own article and claimed it was from AP. Tony. TonyMPNS (talk)
  • No - that text you mention as the press release is different from the one in the Water Cooler, etc. So this does not prove what you had hoped it would prove! Tony. TonyMPNS (talk)
  • It proves that it might not be an AP article, and still have the AP tag. In other words, we can (no longer) trust AP tags unless the newspaper also has credibility, as it might be a press release stored on AP. (By the way, you might use ~~~~ instead of ~~~ on talk pages.... — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:18, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
  • There is no proof that this is a press release (usually the piece would contain wording indicating that it is a press release, if such were the case). But more importantly, even if this were a press release, Associated Press would still have made the editorial judgement that this is from a sufficiently worthwhile and reliable source to attach the AP name to it and publish it. AP do not simply publish every press release that gets sent to them. They only publish what they deem to be appropriate for a major news organisation like themselves. They are not going to link their name to a highly unreliable source - without commenting that this source may not be trustworthy. But again, I must stress that to ruminate that this could be a press release is pure speculation - nothing more. You have no strong evidence - still less proof - that this is a press release. And as stated above, even if it is - if it's good enough for Associated Press, it should be good enough for Wikipedia. Tony. TonyMPNS (talk) 09:35, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
At this point, Ventura has said the same thing on three different radio programs so to endless quibble over whether Alex Jones somehow "faked" it all is ridiculous. Clearly Arthur Rubin just has a vendetta against Jones and 9/11 issues. 71.127.11.177 (talk) 04:09, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
I still consider Jones and prisonplanet.com particularly unreliable sources, even as to the content of radio shows, and you (probably Jones himself) have as yet been unable to supply a mainstream newspaper source or major newsfeed (the "AP" source is clearly a press release, stored at AP, as can be seen by content and by the precise URL, which differs subtly from those of AP newsfeeds), but new TV station source seems good. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:37, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

"The Jesse Ventura Story"

I'm surprised there's no mention of this "movie". I think it's notbale for the fact it was so incredibly bad. It could be described as a movie "very, very, very, very loosely based on his life." --Smart Mark Greene (talk) 17:46, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Name

Ventura stated on the Howard Stern show that he never change his name and that "Jesse Ventura" doesn't exist legally. Can this be verified, and if true, the opening should be changed to " James George Janos commonly know as Jesse Ventura" CitiCat ♫ 15:57, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I too am unable to find anything suggesting that "Janos" ever legally became "Ventura". Austinmayor (talk) 17:39, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Hinted at intention to run for President in 2012

His speech at the Rally for the Republic on September 2nd suggested a bid for the presidency in 2012. 97.115.208.218 (talk) 14:35, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

This information should be included under "Post-Gubernatorial life" rather than "9/11 questions". 97.115.208.218 (talk) 14:43, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

 Done--JayJasper (talk) 21:21, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Co-host of Record Breakers: World of Speed?

Didn't Ventura co-host a kids' show called Record Breakers: World of Speed plugging a line of Hasbro slot cars of the same name? On-line information is extremely obscure, but I'm fairly certain it was him.

Klknoles (talk) 04:50, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Controversy section is garbage

The controversy is made up of many mini-sections when all it deserves is one medium sized section. The stuff written there is also hardly controversial, and may not even deserve to be mentioned, yet alone have its own section. I think this should be merged and possibly have some information moved if it can't be proved its particularly 'controversial'.

TheJoak (talk) 23:12, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. That section is need of major cleanup.--JayJasper (talk) 16:06, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Nikki311 has corrected the problem. Great job, thanks!--JayJasper (talk) 16:12, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

2000 Presidential Elections

He ever said if he voted for Bush or Gore in the 2000 Presidential Elections ? I remember to have seen him at CNN saying that he was still undecided, few days before the elections.85.242.238.51 (talk) 19:49, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Atheist

I don´t get why some people keep on deleting him from the atheist categories. There are so few american politicians that are openly atheist, like the article states, that only for some sort of bigotry, I can understand this removal.82.154.82.3 (talk) 16:12, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

The category gets deleted because it is inaccurate. While Ventura has been critical of organized religion, he is on record in several places (his own books, for one) as saying he believes in God and considers himself a Christian.--JayJasper (talk) 19:57, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Regarding relgion, he has also said it is a sham and a crutch for weak-minded people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.72.27.204 (talk) 03:56, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Will Ventura run as a Democrat, Republican, or Independent in 2016?

Will Ventura run as a Democrat, Republican, or Independent in 2016?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Toddleutze8n$ (talk • contribs) 08:07, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Keeping titles after leaving office

Does a US Governor keep his title as Governor after leaving office like the president? Nunamiut (talk) 13:06, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I think so. Also Senators. Of course, it is a bit of a courtesy, so a title that should not be used by the person who holds it, but only people in referring to him or addressing him. Similarly, it is correct to call a Lieutenant Junior Grade, "Lieutenant"; or to call a Lieutenant Commander, "Commander"; but would be a bit odd if the person called himself that, rather than be the more descriptive (and lower) rank. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.82.44.253 (talk) 14:00, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Potential Conflict Question

The article states he was in the military from 69 to 75. The article also states he joined the Mongols in 73. How does that work? He joined the Mongols while he was in the military? I know soldiers sometimes get pretty liberal leave, but enough to hook up with a one-percenter motorcycle club? --SilverhandTalk 12:33, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

He served a 4-yr. stint in the Navy from '69 to '73, then served two years in the reserves where he had more free time.--JayJasper (talk) 19:17, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jesse_Ventura/Archive_1&oldid=1190125236"