Talk:Kevin Sorbo

Untitled

Is he of Italian descent? Newager 15:22, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Kevin Sorbo is of Norweigen heritage — Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.27.46.73 (talk) 22:31, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I have a link to a page of mine about his hometown of Mound, Minnesota. It is www.MoundWestonka.com. I'd like some opinions about whether or not it belongs on this page, before I would post it. As far as I know, the last time he was here was in 1997 for his class re-union. My pages have a picture of the park named after him, and him appearing on a mural.

And yes, I would say he is a Lutheran Norwegian, from what I recall, and his parents first names. Ask him if he eats Lutefisk sometime? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.214.202.204 (talk) 18:37, 24 February 2007. Edited 18:38. (UTC)

As to what a Lutheran Norwegian is, see Garrison Keillor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.214.202.204 (talk) 18:40, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

It's been a couple weeks, and no one has commented on my above. I'd appreciate an admin posting the link on the page, so that I can stay in Wikipedia's good graces. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.214.202.204 (talk) 15:37, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

No, of course a link to your blog does not belong on a Wikipedia article page. Nor is what you would say or what you recall relevant. -- Jibal (talk) 03:19, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

On The Guild

Kevin Sorbo had a cameo in Season 5 Episode 8 of The Guild http://www.watchtheguild.com/its-a-celebrity-party/ --Vampus (talk) 14:48, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Why Christian faith not mentioned in the Personal section?

In this 100 Huntley Street interview he openly talks about being a Christian in Hollywood, including mentioning he has turned down roles due to his faith http://www.youtube.com/watch?&v=bn4MnuSGIko 142.229.80.250 (talk) 01:17, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

His Christian activism really belong into the article:

"As he takes on Christian films, such as What if … and Soul Surfer while also leaving room for secular films, his only wish is to change the face of Hollywood as we know it. His personal worry is, what will the public consider normal when most things portrayed tell us that our innate moral views might probably be wrong.“Hollywood likes to put out their own message out a lot of times, and that message isn't the best one for everyone,” he noted. “If you keep saying two plus two equals five over and over again, then that is what people are going to think. Maybe it does equal five if we keep changing the definition of what’s normal and what's right and what's wrong.” Sorbo’s concern also carries over to how much Christianity is being bullied by the press over and over again. He lamented, “Christianity takes this beating that I really don’t understand and yet you can't say anything negative about the Muslims because that's horrible, you can't say anything negative about other faiths.“ Through his new roles, he hopes to not only stop the big bullies from beating down Christianity but also transform Hollywood by refining its definition of what is truly right and what is truly good."(Kevin Sorbo – Christian Hercules in Hollywood March 2011 interview on ChristianPost.com)84.152.41.50 (talk) 18:57, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Julia X

This film is missing from his history. Was this an oversight? 2601:D:1100:430:3510:DB05:B0DD:D6B3 (talk) 06:00, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Ferguson Controversy

Extended content

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Should Sorbo's recent appearances in the news for his commentary on Ferguson be a part of this page? 05:50, 28 August 2014 (UTC) My thoughts: Hullaballoo_Wolfowitz removed additions to this entry regarding Sorbo's controversial comments about demonstrators in Ferguson, citing them as distortion not true to the sources (though they were quotes from Sorbo himself unaltered, so that seems odd.) Perhaps the wording of that content is questionable and should be altered, but if so some suggested edit would be more appropriate than deleting the content wholesale. Consider these points, however: 1) This is probably the only time Sorbo has made headline news in years. 2) His politics and personal beliefs (including his belief that he's the target of industry discrimination) are all over this article as it stands, and not including this part seems like cherry picking. If we're going to devote time to talking about his relationship with the media and his beliefs, this seems like the most notable example of that playing out. Does anyone agree, or have a better way of writing it, or is the consensus that this information shouldn't be included? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.64.211.150 (talk) 00:26, 28 August 2014 (UTC) Of course not. Wikipedia is not a place where we memorialize any stupid thing a celebrity may said, or transiently embarrassing press reports. And, given the amount of vandalism/nonconstructive editing from this IP, coupled with their knowledge of how to start an RFC, is there any good reason not to identify this editor as a "bad-hand" sock? The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 17:16, 28 August 2014 (UTC) Thanks for opening up a line of dialogue (even if it took some prodding.) I'm not an editor here and use public wifi, so I'm not sure what other history you think I have, but I only know how to start a discussion because I Googled it—it doesn't take a genius. Even so, if I were a sockpuppet (again, I'm not) that seems like an ad hominem issue unrelated to whether I'm wrong or not. And it's certainly not assuming good faith, which I do know to be a thing we're encouraged to do. To your point, however—"Wikipedia is not a place where we memorialize any stupid thing a celebrity may said" — no, certainly not, at least not just for the sake of doing so, but controversial events (related to celebrities or not) are indeed something common in entries, and in this case I maintain that it's the most noteworthy instance of Sorbo's activities even being relevant in modern years. Mainstream news didn't follow the gripping story of the time he hurt his shoulder filming Kull the Conqueror or whatever, but it certainly has followed this. Is it not noteworthy just because it's "embarassing" to the subject? I'm not going to argue it, I certainly have better things to do, but that's my point of view—I'll leave it to others to form a consensus and whatever happens, happens, but I honestly don't get where you're coming from (or your passive-aggressiveness about it.) 50.194.39.67 (talk) 18:30, 28 August 2014 (UTC) So... are we having a discussion about the "Ferguson Controversy" or are we here to do a battle of complaints about other editors. If it's the former, let me know and I'll read the Diffs and offer an opinion. For the record, I am and editor here and will take the issue seriously, if that's what we're here to do. Just let me know. Vertium When all is said and done 01:23, 29 August 2014 (UTC) Yes, I'm trying to, hence my first paragraph and opening up a tag for discussion. Your comments are both invited and more than welcome. None of that has anything to do with Wolf; I was simply responding to him dismissing my comments because he thinks I'm someone else or whatever. 75.64.211.150 (talk) 17:00, 29 August 2014 (UTC) Okay, here's my two cents. I believe the original content is both accurate and worthy of inclusion. It is relevant to the individual, provides context and support for other aspects of the article and does not appear to violate WP:BLP. It includes content that complies with WP:BLPSELFPUB as a source and furthers the reader's understanding of the article's subject. It is well cited with reliable sources, and I see no reason to not include it. Further, when a notable individual says something "stupid", that can be notable, particularly when it furthers the reader's understanding of the individual, which this content clearly does. That said, Wolf... I don't know you, and how you behave here is entirely up to you. However, the edit warring in which you engaged and commandment of "do not restore unless the applicable discussion is closed/resolved consistent with inclusion" is at the very best, impolite. It is not your position to tell others what they can or cannot revert. You might do well to read WP:AGF and if that doesn't suffice, a lesson in being polite, both in your edit summaries (a well placed "please" goes a long way) and in your talk message (example above) might be helpful. In case you're not aware, edits from an IP address can be done by multiple people. Lastly, I don't know who 75.64.211.150 is either, but I would suggest you create a registered account name to clearly distinguish yourself from your IP address. That is by far the easiest way to avoid the confusion between multiple editors on an IP address. Thanks to all for participating in the dialogue. I am in favor of including the content as originally added to this article. Vertium When all is said and done 19:06, 29 August 2014 (UTC) You're simply wrong on at least two important points. First of all, the "original content" was certainly not accurate; it went well beyond the sources it cited, and sensationalized this very minor incident. Second, it is longstanding BLP policy and practice that when content is reasonably challenged under BLP, it is not restored unless/until there is consensus that the "burden of evidence" for inclusion is met. And I find your hectoring of me here quite rude and inappropriate; neither I nor anyone else should be faulted for doubting the good faith of an IP editor when the IP address's history consists of little more than attempting to add embarrassing content or outright vandalism to BLPs [1] [2]. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 22:32, 29 August 2014 (UTC) We'll see what others think, I suppose. And thanks for the comments, both of you. I have no beef with just talking it out and not reverting as nauseum; that seems counterproductive. So I'm not opposed to not restoring it without consensus, whether or not that's policy or not. As for assuming bad faith, Wolf, those two examples seem to be really obvious vandalism, and I'm not sure if you're implying that my contribution here was, but it's not and does not resemble that, even if it were relevant to the discussion. Let's try and stick to the subject. Harsh personalities seem to be common enough here anyhow (and the reason I don't care to bother registering for an account.) 75.64.211.150 (talk) 07:14, 30 August 2014 (UTC) I'll just reply to the situation without going into detail about the passive-aggressive comment on "hectoring. Repeated reverts is edit warring, which is neither productive nor permitted. In any case, this was not vandalism at all, so to call it such is neither appropriate nor appreciated. And, since it appears that anyone who disagrees with Wolf is just plain wrong, we'll let others voice their opinion. Vertium When all is said and done 16:23, 30 August 2014 (UTC) I have read WP:BLP and the above discussion. I don't think information on the interview should be included. In 100 years time if this article were to be written to its full potential, the interview probably would not rate a mention. I think that whilst the encyclopaedia is built we should be mindful towards WP:RECENTISM, particularly as it relates to BLP subjects. PNGWantok (talk) 13:39, 1 September 2014 (UTC) Hi PNGWantok, and thanks for taking the time to comment. Even though I didn't start this RFC, I do desire that we come up with the best result. I personally think that the 10-year hurdle suggested in the essay on WP:RECENTISM would be cleared by Mr. Sorbo's freely-offered statements (it wasn't an interview), but if the consensus (short of Hullaballoo's opinion, since I have no respect for it) is to keep it out, I'm fine with that result as well. Thanks again. Vertium When all is said and done 14:59, 1 September 2014 (UTC) Hi User:Vertium, my apologies. I did not realise it wasn't an interview. TBH, I did not look at the information being added as I didn't want it to impact my view. People say many things, and celebrities by their nature often have their comments reported by the media. If this was Angelina Jolie and she was commenting on the situation in Darfur, then it could warrant inclusion because she has a long and notable history in humanitarian causes. If Jolie was instead commenting on the Ferguson standoff it would be a different story. In relation to Sorbo it is more trivial in nature. I do understand your viewpoint, and I respect it, but we have a different opinion on this issue I think. If you would like more input from myself, please leave me a message on my talkpage I am happy to do so if required. Thank you. PNGWantok (talk) 21:55, 1 September 2014 (UTC) Nope, PNGWantok, we're good. I get your point completely, and as I mentioned, if it's excluded, I can certainly live with that. I again thank you for the time you took to consider it and respond. All the best... Vertium When all is said and done 22:23, 1 September 2014 (UTC) PNGWantok, thanks for chiming in. I'd concede that that all of this is less notable ("more trivial" was your phrase) than your Angelina Jolie example, sure—that's reasonable. In fact, anything in this entry probably is, since Sorbo's general level of notoriety is worlds lower. He does, however, also have a long history (though less notable) of polarizing sociopolitical talk, hence his own assertion (mentioned in this entry) that his success has been limited by his political and religious beliefs, so in that sense I see it as the very same kind of relevant. That's very much how he's chosen to portray himself. So while I don't agree with you, I see where you're coming from. And thanks for commenting. 75.64.211.150 (talk) 02:58, 2 September 2014 (UTC) Hi User:Vertium and 75.64.211.150. It was my pleasure to offer comment here. I will take this talk page off my watchlist for now. But, if you need an uninvolved third opinion in the future, my talk page is open for you. PNGWantok (talk) 09:36, 7 September 2014 (UTC) Oppose inclusion of the material based on this diff. This is purely an "online" controversy over his own personal momentary rant to social media (he apologized hours later) driven by the magnitude of the Ferguson controversy & newsblog sites with a stated political agenda which seized on the comments. I don't feel there's a meaningful connection between Sorbo & Ferguson, nor a history of Sorbo activism over race issues, which would make this encyclopedic material, and this is unlikely to receive any further significant coverage... Roberticus talk 15:41, 6 September 2014 (UTC) Actually, he does have a long and colorful history of activism over racial and/or class issues (he had a good one about lazy welfare recipients right after the Ferguson comments, to name one), and as has been pointed out, this very article points out his belief that he is persecuted for daring to speak the truth. And these comments (and others) were national news, not just featured on partisan blogs. But you're right that it's not very encyclopedic perhaps; he's not relevant enough to make the cut, I guess. Thank god we have several sentences devoted to funny goofs from the set of Kull the Conqueror instead, though. Keep doing the Good Work, wiki. 75.64.211.150 (talk) 07:51, 14 September 2014 (UTC) Comment There is a bit on the actor's political views in one section. If editors were to add one sentence about this controversy, if based on RS, then it should not be a major problem. I don't think it should be blowed out of proportion though. Here is a news report from E! News. --Precision123 (talk) 14:20, 8 September 2014 (UTC) Oppose If what Roberticus said is true that he's retracted the statement and apologized for it, I don't think it would be encyclopedic to include as of now. Tutelary (talk) 00:13, 14 September 2014 (UTC) Oppose Celebrities and politicians say dumb shit all the time, then are forced to apologize for their comments. If he was habitual in making such comments, then I could see a reason for inclusion, but Alec Baldwin he's not. Isaidnoway (talk) 03:20, 17 September 2014 (UTC) Comment Summoned here by bot. This RfC is poorly drafted as it fails to provide diffs or otherwise state to uninvolved editors what particular comments are at issue here. Coretheapple (talk) 16:07, 17 September 2014 (UTC) If this[3] is what you're taking about, my position would be to not include it. It's utterly unrelated to this person's notability and the sources are pure tabloid. Coretheapple (talk) 18:31, 17 September 2014 (UTC) Oppose This information is completely unnecessary for an encyclopedia. Fraulein451 (talk) 16:30, 19 September 2014 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Infobox photo caption

I'm not a regular editor here and have no plan to return after posting this. Just wanted to point out that, as I write this, the infobox photo caption reads: "Sorbo at GateCon in 2013" while the file description by the photographer at Wikimedia Commons reads: "Kevin Sorbo on the set of "House of Fears" in 2013." 5Q5 (talk) 17:44, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

 Done. I returned and revised the caption to just "Sorbo in 2013." I did some research on the photographer and he's a camera operator in film/TV so he must have been working with Sorbo when it was taken. 5Q5 (talk) 17:42, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Kull more notable then the Jim Beam commercial?

I replaced "Kull" with the Jim Beam commercial as one of the roles, he is most known for, and this edit was just undone. I find this rather odd. "Kull" was a generic direct-to-video Fantasy flick, which was rather "most known for starring Sorbo, who at that time was already known as Hercules", then the other way round.

The "Jim Beam" commercial on the other hand was the one production, his face at least (of course not his name) was getting some buzz. The "This ain't Jim Beam" line was often cited, and also I remember, when the first four "Hercules" movies were aired, virtually everybody, in class room as well as in TV guide articles, stated: "That's the guy from the Whisky commercial." I even know a couple of guys, who got their first drunken stupor with that brand of liquor, because of that commecial. And I think, it was aired as well for a long period of time after he became "Hercules", and even in commercial breaks during the Hercules show. So, add that together, there is NO WAY, that he is better known for "Kull".--93.111.43.22 (talk) 11:41, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Changes like that need to be supported by sources: see Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Such sources do exist for the Jim Beam commercial, and it probably should be added, with sourcing, to the body of the article. For example, here's the Los Angeles Times, from 1994:

Sorbo is one actor who doesn't mind being identified with a character. He appears in commercials and is now in the second year of a contract with the makers of the bourbon whiskey Jim Beam. He's played "the Jim Beam guy" in countless commercials--which are played everywhere in the world, except in the United States. His catch-phrase, "It ain't Jim Beam," is often quoted back at him when he travels. "Like I've never heard it before," he says laughing. [4]

So there's good reason to add the Jim Beam commercials to his bio. But I don't think this necessarily warrants removing Kull the Conqueror from the lead: it was still his first starring role in a feature film. --Arxiloxos (talk) 14:21, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

That source is more than 20 years old, and can't possibly support what he's known for today. In the absence of sourced content in the body of the article, the claim absolutely didn't belong in the lede. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 15:05, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

I'd dare to say, outside the USA, he is better known for the Jim Beam commercial, then the bible belt feature film production, even today. Not sure, how good a source this is, but a quick google search of "Sam Raimi Jim Beam" found e.g. this site: https://phantanews.de/wp/2016/01/kevin-sorbo-in-neuer-serie-von-raimi-und-tapert/

Final sentence (as a punchline) translated from German: "It is still to be confirmed, if Jim Beam will get a cameo."

But anyway, is it really that importent, how old the LA Times article is? What, if Kevin Sorbo is complettely forgotten in 100 Years, should his entry then be ereased from Wikipedia? Don't think, that's what this site is aiming at? Regarding Kull, IMdB does not list a theatrical release. As far as I know, this was DTV. So what's the big difference to the four feature lenght Hercules TV-movires, the series started with? Other, then this made him better known, while the Kull movie was made withhim to participate on the Hercules publicity.--78.142.179.31 (talk) 15:51, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Notability is not temporary, but some descriptions are transient. If you're going to make a claim about what he is best known for currently, you need a reasonably current source. Courtney Cox was once best known for appearing in a Bruce Springsteen video. To say that's among the roles she's best known for decades later would be preposterously inaccurate. Bernie Sanders isn't best known for being mayor of a town in Vermont, either. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 16:16, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Regarding your second sentence, there still is no reasonably current source for the other parts, either. I won't argue his notability for Hercules and probably the other leading part in a TV-series (since it span as many episodes) to be the two top known performences in his carrere, but where is the source for "God's Not Death" or "Kull"?--78.142.179.31 (talk) 16:36, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

On some reflection, I think 78.142.179.31 makes a cogent point here; I would not oppose a change in the lead section to say simply that he's best known for his starring roles in Hercules and Andromeda—since I don't think anyone disagrees that those series are his best known efforts—and leave the rest out of the lead. I will also add a reference to Jim Beam in the Career section (but not the lead).--Arxiloxos (talk) 15:28, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Error Corrections regarding his health scare in the 90s

The time of his strokes is accurate, but the article states that this affected the last two seasons, season 5 & 6 being the last two seasons. This is not correct. This also affected the 4th Season, and probably more heavily than others, as large parts of the production wasn't finished until 1998, such as the episode "Porkules" which was shot in January of 98, several months after his health crisis. The episode, featuring Sorbo voicing over for a pig, as opposed to featuring him in a major on screen presence, even serves as an example of how they adjusted film production around. I suggest better wordsmiths than I, adjust the article to reflect that it was the 4th (in particular) and 5th Season that was most heavily affected by Sorbo's health problems.

173.218.98.78 (talk) 01:22, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

The Health section included "Sorbo experienced an aneurysm in his shoulder which caused four strokes.", but the HuffPo reference says "aneurysm followed by three strokes". cbn.com ref not useful, because now redirects to CBN homepage and wayback doesn't have useful text:

• without Ruffle: "You need the latest version of the flash player and JavaScript enabled to view this content." (but flashplayer defunct)
• with Ruffle: "Ruffle failed to load the Flash SWF file. The most likely reason is that the file no longer exists".

Changed "four strokes" to "three strokes". --EarthFurst (talk) 00:37, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Sorbo has been accused of antisemitism. [citation needed]

Is there really a need for citation right before the whole part of him saying that jews killed jesus? Seems unnecessary and self-evident.

Moopykins (talk) 09:00, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 January 2022

Under personal life, it should be included that Sorbo publicly supported the storming of the United States Capitol on January 6, 2021 via Tweeting from his verified account.

https://twitter.com/ksorbs/status/1346898602984144896

https://twitter.com/ksorbs/status/1346913575080759314 2600:6C67:5000:6448:6184:6599:6C01:6292 (talk) 00:40, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: Please provide reliable sources discussing this to show it's WP:DUE. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:42, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

I agree that this should be brought up in his personal life section. Basically his entire social media presence revolves around his political beliefs, which include the false claim that the 2020 United States Presidential Election was stolen. However, there is zero reference in the article to his political beliefs. Source: Nearly all of his Twitter posts. https://twitter.com/ksorbs Wikipedian24601 (talk) 02:05, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Stolen election claims: https://twitter.com/ksorbs/status/1326179983954505729 https://twitter.com/ksorbs/status/1324117412246147073 Wikipedian24601 (talk) 03:17, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

blood clots from an arm (aneurysm) can not reach the brain!

the whole blood (exc. from lungs) from everyones body parts goes back to the heart and then to the lungs - so any blood clots from an arm or leg have to induce lung embolism - see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pulmonary_embolism

this here: The strokes, thought to be triggered when chiropractic manipulation of his shoulder released blood clots from the aneurysm, left Sorbo with a permanent 10 percent vision loss, weakness, impaired balance, and migraines

medically or mechanically dont make any sense, if an arm (or leg) aneurysm is the prime source for any blood clots inducing strokes in brains, without another underlying condition, disease or drugs present.

just my three groschen! Gpmalek76 (talk) 21:29, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Editor opinions aren't relevant to Wikipedia, which is based on reliable sources. -- Jibal (talk) 03:35, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes but there's no way in heck that Daily Express is a reliable source. Nil Einne (talk) 12:31, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Sorbo owner of Zorbas

Kevin Sorbo is the owner of the wildly successful Zorba’s bar and restaurant chain. 2600:1008:B120:F7D7:F5A1:5097:B769:4421 (talk) 01:59, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Source for this claim? Jibal (talk) 03:37, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Sexual harassment allegation by actress Haley Webb

I made a previous inclusion of this, now removed for some reason? In 2019, this was widely reported after she accused him publicly on Twitter, stating he had done it three times to her while making the movie Single in South Beach, tried to pressure and/or shame her on-set, to submit to him and tried to get movie's director to include a sex scene so he could touch her, see her undressed etc. Why was mention of this removed? It was a notable incident in his public image, obviously an allegation like that is significant even if no legal action results, so why the removal please? BakedEel (talk) 23:10, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Looks like it was removed 2 years ago. I don't see any reliable source stating that such allegations were verified or taken to be true or that they made any impact to his career. As such, it is not notable and seems to be trivia. Wikipedia is not a place to place every allegation or criticism of a person. WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NOTGOSSIP apply to biography pages. Hope this helps.Ramos1990 (talk) 01:24, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Do the claims have to be publicly verified in order to be considered notable? I see a few things in articles, including this one, that don't appear to have altered the subject's career but are not classed as trivia in this context, eg [41] and [44]. Wiki guidelines on NOTGOSSIP state that: "Not every facet of a celebrity's life, personal details, matches played, or goals scored warrants inclusion in the biography of that person, only those for which they have notability or for which our readers are reasonably likely to have an interest." What Sorbo was accused of doing was definitely in the last camp there, it's not a trivial matter, so IMO should be mentioned in the article. BakedEel (talk) 14:21, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

The claims such as those are pretty heavy and so they have to be verified to be true, not just mere allegations, and significant to a person's biography in order to be encyclopedic. Wikipedia is not a place to spread gossip and hearsay or to attempt to defame individuals by someone's allegations which often become tabloid scandals - especially since no empirical evidence has been brought forth except allegations on that matter. If you look at actors like Johnny Depp, his case is different since his accusations from his ex wife became a court case, evidences were presented, and the case/event was notable to his own acting career in that it hindered it. Like it says, not every facet of a celebrity's life belongs on wikipedia. The mere allegations of course does not fall under "..reasonably likely to have an interest". WP:NOTSCANDAL states "Articles and content about living people are required to meet an especially high standard, as they may otherwise be libellous or infringe the subjects' right to privacy. Articles must not be written purely to attack the reputation of another person."Ramos1990 (talk) 23:20, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Just wanted to re-mention that the sexual misconduct claims were not removed by me initially. For example User:Emir of Wikipedia removed such content [5] and reverted that a few times [6], as did other editors [7] for sloppy sourcing, and for IP block evasion of poorly sourced material [8]. I merely commented that such removal made sense.

When looking at the articles on this, it boils down to two females making counter tweets to Sorbo - no legal action, no elaboration on tweet and also no credible news sources reported this. Here is another source [9] on this issue and it says "Webb did not elaborate on any of her accusations, nor did Sorbo respond to her tweet." The source cited for for McClure [10] does not even mention her! The supposed response was also a tweet! looks like WP:SYN or WP:OR on this one. Sloppy sourcing, serious allegations, tweets-only responses/accusations are all part of why none of this is serious and does not belong in wikipedia. Better sourcing is needed. Ramos1990 (talk) 06:21, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Just wanted to add that WP:BLPCRIME states that "A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law. Accusations, investigations and arrests do not amount to a conviction. For individuals who are not public figures—that is, individuals not covered by § Public figures—editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed or is accused of having committed a crime, unless a conviction has been secured." Ramos1990 (talk) 18:08, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm confused. You're claiming Sorbo is not a public figure? Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 18:39, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Obviously not. Just posting an interesting policy on this kind of stuff that I found as a yard stick on these kinds of things to gauge such content. Stronger sourcing is needed for accusations and careful wording too in such a scenario for public figures like actors. Ramos1990 (talk) 19:02, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Again, confused. You are claiming that the existence of the public allegation is in question? Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 19:04, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

I already explained it above in detail as did Desmay here yesterday in a section below [11] . Ramos1990 (talk) 19:08, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Please, with apologies, humor me: Would you state the reason is this information not acceptable for inclusion on this Wikipedia bio? I genuinely do not see the argument.

Thanks, Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 19:28, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Against The Tide takes viewers on a journey from Oxford to Israel as John Lennox and Kevin Sorbo unpack and analyze theological, historical, and scientific evidence of God.

In 2020, Kevin Sorbo joined Oxford professor, mathematician, and philosopher Dr. John Lennox, to create a unique travelogue-documentary involving a deeper look into the relationship between modern science, world history, and early Christianity. Against The Tide is the story of one man’s daring pushback against the onslaught of contemporary atheism and its drive to relegate belief in God to society’s catalogue of dead ideas. 214.28.226.88 (talk) 10:04, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

political party in sidebar

He's not a politician so why is his political party stated? And how do we know? There's no citation and no discussion of party membership or politics in the article. (It's obviously true that he's a Republican from his tweets, but that's not how Wikipedia works). -- Jibal (talk) 03:41, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Excellent point. He is not a politician and other actors biography pages do not have political party affiliation for example Lucy Lawless, Robert Deniro, Dave Chapelle, etc. Plus it is a private thing than can change. Thanks for pointing that out. Ramos1990 (talk) 03:50, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

No politics?

This seems to be a bit of a bizarre situation here... just an image of him at TP (is it supposed to be just an implication? Or, if people don't know what it is, then, unless they click the link, people will successfully not know he's political...?) - and no, ramos1990, it doesn't seem to be an excellent point, as (besides the fact Deniro has in the sidebar, but this thread isn't about sidebars)... usually they do have sections, whether 'activism' or 'politics', so it was a surprise to not find it here, as this isn't some minor thing for Kevin, and just like Deniro has three long paragraphs, so should Kevin... I mean, as it is what exactly is it implying? That he's just some Christian, and somehow that is exclusively why he's not very desired in the industry? Of course not... so, as it is this article is merely distorting the reality of his biography... and no, ramos, it's not merely 'tabloid'... whatever that means in the context of 'celebrities', tabloid being usually what focus they get (so this surely should just be about whether they're reliable or not)... and huffpost is already referenced for one thing, so why not another? If it's 'tabloid' for the antivaxxer tweet, ramos, why is it not a tabloid for the strokes? Also, there is a Republican category... with no explanation? This is why the article seems bizarre... 88.104.26.151 (talk) 16:57, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

This is WP:NOTAFORUM. He is not a politician and his personal activities are not at the center of what he is known for, nor are they relevant to his biography necessarily. If he ever ran for office, then that would be different. If he was active in He is an actor and his tv shows and movies is what he is know for around the world. See wikipedia policies such as WP:NOTSCANDAL WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NOTGOSSIP. Since we are dealing with a biography of a living person see WP:BLP. Health related issues are more relevant to his biography than random tweets. Per NOTSCANDAL "Articles and content about living people are required to meet an especially high standard, as they may otherwise be libellous or infringe the subjects' right to privacy. Articles must not be written purely to attack the reputation of another person." Ramos1990 (talk) 00:35, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Everything you said applies to DeNiro too, so why did you conveniently avoid talking about that? And what's not a forum got to do with discussions to article changes? He's not a politician, but neither is DeNiro, so either you remove his well-sourced politics paragraphs, or add Sorbo's multiple sources too... 88.104.26.151 (talk) 23:56, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Your rant above shows you wish to talk about Kevin than improve the article. WP:NOTFORUM says "bear in mind that article talk pages exist solely to discuss how to improve articles; they are not for general discussion about the subject of the article". Also this page is not about DeNiro, though his page probably needs to be cleaned up since it is sloppy too. Nonetheless, no one is saying no politics is allowed. The problem is that politics is not a major part of Sorbo's life aside from tweets. And tweets are not encyclopedic. His views on Hollywood are already in the article by the way since that is a notable part of his life. WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NOTGOSSIP apply to biography pages. Policy states "Even when an individual is notable, not all events they are involved in are." Wikipedia is not place to dump trash talking from the media either. Read the quote in bold above. Ramos1990 (talk) 01:57, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I came to this page when I saw him featured last night in an advertisement during the second Republican primary debates (as streamed on the right-leaning platform Rumble).

My first question was, "Wait, is that Hercules?" My second, however, was why he was chosen as a product spokesperson for this particular audience. The current version of the article does not answer this question.

The final paragraph of this previous version would have helpfully addressed my second query: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kevin_Sorbo&oldid=1160504332#Religion_and_politics. Perhaps it is worth restoring?

Cheers, Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 22:34, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Some actors are visible in their politics. The Democratic party convention has artists and musicians that play for them too. Yet none of this is not noteworthy of being encyclopedic for those artists. Sorbo has done nothing encyclopedic in politics. He does mostly things on film and TV. Ramos1990 (talk) 00:42, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

The first act it occurred to me to look up was Fleetwood Mac, and it is in the lead of that article that they briefly reunited to support the democratic campaign of Bill Clinton.

The second act I checked was Taylor Swift, and, while it did not make the lead, her politics are quite rightly included as a section of their own much further down in the article.

I do think that readers would be well-served by just a brief, appropriately neutral and well-sourced report on any political stances that Sorbo has deliberately taken on the public stage. Just because they are polarizing does not mean they are not noteworthy; if anything, the contrary. They are of potential interest to folks coming here entirely on account of his acting career.

I cannot think of a good reason anyone would take a hard stance against reporting this in three short, properly sourced sentences near the bottom of the article.

That said, unless someone tags me with a specific question, I am unfollowing this thread and do not plan to participate in any further debate. As someone who had basically forgotten that Sorbo even existed, I have no business editing his Wikipedia entry. Please just consider this a vote in favor of inclusion from a reader almost never involved in editing articles about popular culture. (My main beat is dead German philosophers.)

Cheers, Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 01:47, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Fleetwodd Mac lead does not state their political stance or views. It only states that they sang for Bill Clinton's inauguration - hardly a political stance or affiliation with a political party (the group has many members and so I expect not all hold the same political party). It was a special appearance since they were a very famous group. They were actually requested by the Clintons too and reunited just for that event and disbanded again afterwards. Taylor swift is also a singer and technically that whole political section does not belong there. It actually does not mention which party she goes by - it mainly focuses on her activism, which is different than politics. Also keep in mind that celebrities change their political party too. Like Kanye West or even Donald Trump changed his political party numerous times. WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NOTGOSSIP applies here. If Sorbo was more politically active like Schwarzenegger was in running for governor, then it makes sense to write something about his political views in some detail. Ramos1990 (talk) 04:52, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Hi again, @Ramos1990,

As I mentioned, I have no particular interest in the subject of this article and so intended to drop this.

I'm coming back to the discussion, however, because one or the other of us would seem to be wrong about Wikipedia policies concerning at least one of WP:NOTABILITY, WP:BLP, or WP:NOT. It would be nice to resolve this confusion, whatever its implications for this specific article.

That Sorbo meets notability requirements is not in dispute. What I do not understand is what policy restricts coverage of someone only to those activities that would also independently make the subject notable. Once notable, as best I understand, the relevant guidelines shift to those of biographies of living persons. Political stances taken publicly with appropriate supporting WP:SOURCEs are at least potentially pertinent to the subject's biography. (For instance, the Sorbo family is reported not to have gotten the COVID vaccine: private fact that does not belong on Wikipedia. BUT, Sorbo broadcasts vaccine skepticism to all of his Twitter followers, and this is covered by reliable sources: public fact that at least potentially does belong in his Wikipedia bio and, if disputed, should be decided according to WP:CONSENSUS among editors.)

Sorbo seems to have publicly taken controversial stances on several major public issues that are not merely WP:GOSSIP and, although newsworthy, are not merely news.

Whether or not to identify the subject's political affiliation, which you bring up, should be determined by whether the subject has stated it publicly. The same applies to any changes in affiliation over time. That Sorbo was a speaker at the Conservative Political Action Conference, however, is a public fact that should not be excluded just on the grounds that it might invite inferences about his political beliefs; so, I do not understand what justifies your deletion of this, especially as it was sourced to a mainstream legacy media outlet.

If I still seem to be misunderstanding the relevant guidelines, could you point me to something more specific in any of the above or another I'm missing?

Thanks! Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 15:20, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

See my first reply on this thread with the bold letters. There is a higher standard for biography pages. Sorbo is vaccinated by the way. He had to in order to film in another country. And also most people who are republican and democrat have been vaccinated since most of the country has gotten a vaccine. It is not a partisan issue in and of itself.

A source is not enough for inclusion in an article. Keep the article encyclopedic. WP:NOTNEWS mentions this. Artists tend to have many opinions but most of it is trivia and not encyclopedic. Ramos1990 (talk) 17:05, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for this response.

I'm glad to hear that Sorbo is vaccinated. I should have said explicitly that my parenthetical was a hypothetical intended only to illustrate my understanding of the difference between the off-limits private sphere that must be protected for living people and the potentially WP:BOLP-appropriate domain of public statements and conduct.

Reviewing your boldface again, I do not see how this applies to media reports of the subject's own public statements. This is neither an invasion of privacy nor potentially libelous.

Based upon my own imperfect knowledge of Wikipedia policy, the most relevant guidelines here would be WP:UNDO and WP:NPOV. But these are not the terms in which you have presented your multiple removals[12] of potentially unflattering information presented neutrally with at least one supporting source.

If you cannot provide a more cogent defense of these edits, I intend to restore them (with additional references, should that be appropriate).

Another good option, if you would like, would be to inquire at the WP:HELPDESK as to where we might best attain clarity with respect to our divergent understandings of these policies.

EDIT: Digging around just a little bit, I believe the place to solicit additional options would be at the Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard.

In advance of taking such a step, I would be remiss not to check whether there was any discussion justifying your removal of sourced reports of two public accusations of sexual misconduct beyond your edit revert description of "removing material from abusive IP - may request page protection if it persists".

Best, Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 18:10, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

There is no consensus for including this. I suggest not getting into an edit war.

The examples you brought were not convincing since they did not feature political stances on them and the examples you brought in were on vaccine commentary - which is already over by the way. Not sure what relevance that has any more and since he got vaccinated and never opposed it but opposed the rhetoric.

For biography pages they should adhere to WP:NPOV and not be dumping grounds for trivia. This is an encyclopedia and the entries should be encyclopedic. Sorbo is an actor with opinions like any one else. That does not mean they should be in the article. He is mostly known for Christian films and 90s tv shows and views of Hollywood.

The article already has a photo of him in a political event by the way. Turning point USA. I think that is good enough for the article. Not sure how important his CPAC was. He is only mentioned as being a part of it. Not that he did anything notable. He was promoting his films there. The misconduct stuff was also discussed above. Serious accusations should have strong sourcing. Kevin Sorbo has claimed Gianni Versace sexually assaulted him. But this looks like it does not belong in this article either. Wikipedia is not a tabloid. Ramos1990 (talk) 19:13, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Oops! Your response overlapped with my edit above.

I will give you a bit of time to respond to my additional query should you wish to do so.

As previously stated, I completely agree about NPOV (and UNDO). But you are removing public information of biographical significance (=encyclopedic significance, for articles that are biographies), and you are doing so in what appears to be a selective manner to remove unflattering statements and activities considered notable by multiple publications.

I intend to solicit additional opinions from the BOLP board if you do not do more to address my objections. If the folks there agree with your reading of the policies and the merits of the facts, I will happily check out of this discussion (for real this time!) and get back to Hegel.

Cheers, Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 19:25, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

I do not believe that any of these are "tabloid accusations". Many people would, with good reason, find that characterization extremely offensive.

In any case, one can be a victim of sexual assault or misconduct and also a perpetrator of the same harmful behavior. (In fact, I believe this is quite common.) The allegation against Versace may very well belong in the article, but I do not see any plausible way this allegation in the other direction could be pressed into service as justification for omitting negative media coverage of the subject of the article himself. Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 20:08, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Just wanted to mention that the sexual misconduct claims were not removed by me initially. For example User:Emir of Wikipedia removed such content with WP:NOTNEWS [13] and reverted that a few times [14],as did other editors [15] for sloppy sourcing, and for IP block evasion of poorly sourced material [16]. I merely commented on it as it made sense in the discussion above. Please do not assume I am being "selective" since it was not just me that found this material questionable and did revertiong. The sources boiled down to two tweets - no legal action or substantial actions were taken by the women whne looking at the sources used. And no news source states otherwise. Better sourcing is needed at least to take this stuff seriously for wikipedia purposes. Ramos1990 (talk) 06:18, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the post on the noticeboard.

I agree with Ramos1990, Emir of Wikipedia, Ponyo, and Blablubbs on the sexual misconduct removal for very poor sourcing and potential WP:SYN on one of them. Much stronger sources are needed and I could not find any online. No issues were ever raised legally or seriously by either women. No recent updates at all on this either. WP:BLPREMOVE applies here.

In terms of the politics stuff, it does not seem like much of the content is relevant to the article. Much of the sources revolve around commenting on Sorbo's tweets - which can be taken out of context and slanted by any source. I agree with Ramos1990 in that not everything that is published on a person belongs on Wikipedia. His views on vaccines are not relevant anymore. The pandemic is gone and since he did get vaccinated to do filming in another country, it makes no sense to use Wikipedia to spread such content per WP:BLPGOSSIP.

In terms of political views, everyone has one and everyone has an opinion on every topic. But that does not mean it belongs on Wikipedia. It can be challenged and removed either way since it is true that political affiliations do change and is a private matter. Even if reliable sources exist, that does not mean it belongs in the biography of a person. From what I looked at, Sorbo is barely mentioned in passing on the source for CPAC and for the other stuff like his opinion on the vaccine stuff, it is all based on his tweets and end up being opinion pieces than true journalism. These are not news. I am sure you can find actors commenting on almost any topic from natural disasters to political candidates especially through twitter, but much of this is not relevant to the biography and requires higher quality journalism than opinion pieces.

We should really strive for better sourcing and better relevance when controversial matters are being considered on a biography page. We do not want Wikipedia to contribute to defamation or misinforming about an individual if we can avoid it. It should contain neutral content too.desmay (talk) 19:37, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Desmay,

Thanks for this considered response! I have reposted it to the noticeboard.

It is not clear to me, however, why you would think that the political positions Sorbo himself has voluntarily publicized to his 1.8 million followers, and which have in some cases been picked up by independent media, are not biographically relevant and of potential interest to folks who visit his Wikipedia article.

What he himself goes out of his way to publicize is not "private matter".

Cheers, Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 23:45, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

snippet result says Sorbo is an openly gay actor - suspected griefing

I suspect the snippet of the page which shows up when you search it has been griefed to say he is gay:

(my bold) "Kevin David Sorbo (born September 24, 1958 [1]) is an openly gay American actor. He had starring roles in two television series: as Hercules in Hercules: The Legendary Journeys, and as Captain Dylan Hunt in Andromeda. Sorbo is also known for acting in the Christian films such as God's Not Dead and Let There Be Light ." BonkeySmoke (talk) 18:05, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

recent edits

I am hoping that the politics stuff is adequately sourced and close to a consensus version. The reason that I feel strongly about the inclusion of this material is that according to Google, Google News, and DuckDuckGo, this has become the primary source of Sorbo's current notablity, as is evidenced by many of the sources cited. There should also be a sentence about this in the lead, something along the lines of "In recent years, Sorbo's political statements have caused some controversy." I welcome other suggestions for how this part of the article should be described in the lead.

It seems to me that the Career section would be made stronger by trimming mentions of jobs for which the article provides no context or discussion. All of that information is nicely displayed in the Filmography. I don't mind doing this myself, but I wanted to check in here to see if there is support for this or if someone who has been more involved in the article would like to step up. This might eliminate some of the claims tagged as in need of better sourcing, and it should also eliminate the need for the banner I added objecting to the apparently indiscriminate selection of what information is included. (Another approach would be to impose more structure with subheads.) Right now it's just clunky and will probably put off some readers.

This section also needs to include something along the following lines:

In 2019, Sorbo was accused of sexual harassment during the 2015 filming of Single in South Beach. Haley Webb alleged on Twitter that he attempted to pressure her into sex during the filming and tried to shame her on set for rejecting him, before trying to convince the film's director to add unnecessary sex scenes between their characters. Sorbo did not publicly respond to the allegation, and it did not lead to litigation.

It does not require its own header, but you can't just leave out a #MeTo allegation. This is definitely of potential interest to many readers, and the fact of the allegation is not in dispute. We just must take care to present it neutrally avoid giving it undo prominence with disproportionately extended coverage in the article. (I found nothing, incidentally, that would support including Kandyse McClure.)

The inclusion of this material would remove my only remaining objection to the neutrality of the article currently flagged by the banner at the top.

The one other thing I would note is that there do appear to be good sources on Sorbo's allegation against Versace. I didn't do the research, but this could be added as a short section under "Personal life" at a later date.

Cheers,

References

Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 00:59, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

I still think better sourcing is needed for this. But for the time being, the add should be to the point and with context emphasized. The dot source says ""Webb did not elaborate on any of her accusations, nor did Sorbo respond to her tweet." This summarizes the case. We should be neutral avoid weasel wording on these topics since material on wikipedia should be encyclopedic. Not slanted. The article says "Actress Haley Webb, who starred with Sorbo in 2015's Single In South Beach, and who has now accused the actor of propositioning and sexually harassing her on the set of a film." Something like this would be reasonable and to the point. I propose the following wording:

"In 2019 Actress Haley Webb, who starred with Sorbo in Single In South Beach (2015), accused Sorbo of sexual advances and sexually harassing her on the set. However, Webb did not elaborate on any of her accusations, nor did Sorbo respond to her tweet." Ramos1990 (talk) 01:28, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

I would also prefer the LA Times or NPR. But I think it is fine since we are not citing any critical remarks or commentary about the allegation, just a minimally contextualized report of what she published to Twitter. (Anyone doubting the veracity of the reporting can find her tweet still online[17]. There's a link in the sources.)

Your rephrasing is okay with me.

Do you have any position on trimming the Career section? It would make sense to restore this at the same time. If we add it as the section currently stands, another editor might suspect someone is trying to bury it and create a full section. The TOC, however, should not suggest that Sorbo is a sexual predator on the basis of a single allegation, however serious the behavior alleged.

Cheers, Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 01:50, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

I have no particular opinion on the career section. It looks like it can possibly be condensed or combined to more compact statements since the minor roles are mentioned the filmography better. Major career moves can remain the career section. Maybe add a controversy or allegation subsection to which his own allegation of Versace can be included too? Both are career related. Ramos1990 (talk) 02:16, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, the various "firsts" should all stay, and others notable, e.g., for being where he met his wife or starred with her. But otherwise the current article doesn't provide much to go on in terms of particular hits or disappointing flops. It would also be nice to quote a positive review of something to offset the negative one from the New Yorker. He seemed to be working steadily, which I imagine would not be the case if he weren't getting at least some good reviews—and was reliable at the box office or with the ratings. Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 02:39, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Okay, I've done the best I could with this without (or with only a little) more research. Please check to confirm the Webb allegation appears properly neutral and not of undo prominence.

If things stay relatively stable for at least a few days, I think the neutrality banner at the top of the article can be removed.

Cheers, Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 15:04, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

I changed the sentence in the lead to more appropriate "Sorbo connects with his audience through social media on his upcoming work, current events, and politics; with the latter sometimes causing contention." It is more comprehensive and neutral. Sounds more encyclopedic and less sensational. Technically, any opinion from any political view can lead to strong disagreement to the opposing side of the political aisle. Ramos1990 (talk) 11:02, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm fine with anything that fulfills the task of the lead in alerting readers to the contentious views described below. Your version fits the bill. I would only point out that it is a bit odd to use this space to describe the way that basically every public figure uses social media. One could also quibble that he says many of the same things in interviews, which I believe are also sources for the article. But I call this to your attention just in case you should wish to do another revision. I've no interest in arguing these minor points.

I'm going to remove the neutrality banner and also add hidden HTML comments in front of the #MeTo allegation and Politics section to alert future editors that they are the consensus result of discussion on the talk page. That might help prevent folks from making non-trivial changes without discussion or the addition of new reliable sources.

Cheers, Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 13:51, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Sam Sorbo

Article states he married Sam Sorbo (nee Jenkins). I guess it's *possible* that she changed her name before they were married, but it's quite likely that she was Sam (Sandra) Jenkins at the time they were married. If true, he did not in fact marry Sam Sorbo, as her legal name was, at the time, Jenkins (and that's likely what's on the marriage license).```` 71.31.145.237 (talk) 19:07, 11 September 2024 (UTC)