Talk:Ted Nugent/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

LACK OF A CONTROVERSY SECTION

I just put this up here to note that the article lacked this section. Also I wanted to know why illegal hunting charges were listed under Nugent's activism. I made no changes to the article itself only asked some questions and made some comments here on the talk page. Now it seems some over zealous editor erased my question I'll ask it again. Why is Ted Nugent's illegal hunting charge listed under his activism? Zeelog — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.78.183.102 (talk) 14:13, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

There is a controversy section here, but it's called "activism". Much of it is just attacks on him, much like every controversy section in Wikipedia, but without the integrity to call it that. 98.101.227.58 (talk) 22:24, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

I would like add, why isn't there a section on Nugent's long history of racism? 1. He was banned from the city of Houston's venues for a racisr rant vs Latinos. 2. He has a long history of dressing up in racist parodies of American Indians. 3. He appeared on a white supremacist radio show. 4. He gave a racist rant in a show in Iowa about how he was glad to have an all white audience. 5. His hatred for Obama is in many eyes largely motivated by racism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.62.43.120 (talk) 23:47, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Apparently, some people think Wikipedia's "Biographies of Living Persons" rule means that no one can mention anything about this clown's personal life before 1990 - no matter how well sourced and accurate - because it was just THAT disgusting. Carlo (talk) 22:29, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Cited /Credited quotes

As a person who is an activist in addition to a musician, perhaps the following quotes by him, as published by NY Daily News, should be presented to better frame Mr. Nugent's political views.

Immigration policy: "We should put razor wire around our borders and give the finger to any piece of s— who wants to come here."

Middle Eastern policy: "We want to go to Saudi Arabia, man, and see if we can't get a four iron and knock people's laundry off the top of their heads. Wear laundry on your head and die, is the basic theme of the Damn Yankees [Nugent's band in the 1990s\]."

Health care policy: "The government must stay out of my life. If there are weenies who are in the liability column of our nation, tough s—."

Non-Americans: "Foreigners are a—holes; foreigners are scum. I don't like 'em; I don't want 'em in this country; I don't want 'em selling me doughnuts; I don't want 'em pumping my gas; I don't want 'em downwind of my life."

Gun control and rape policy: "Anybody that doesn't think it is better to blow someone's brains out than to be raped, deserves to be raped."

Hillary Clinton: "This b— is nothing but a two-bit whore for Fidel Castro."

Heidi Prescott, president of the Fund for Animals: "Who needs to club a seal when you could club Heidi?"

The apocalypse: "The war is coming to the streets of America and if you are not keeping and bearing and practicing with your arms then you will be helpless and you will be the victim of evil."

Source: NY Daily News

Uncredited quotes

Fixed the reference for the 1968 jam session in New York with Jimi Hendrix, et. al. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.169.189.226 (talk) 18:03, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I deleted the follow paragraph in accordance to wikipedia's standards on Biographies of living persons:

Nugent's right-wing views translate to his politics. During a concert in 2007, while Barack Obama was campaigning for president, Nugent said to the audience "Obama, he’s a piece of shit. I told him to suck on my machine gun."need more than a broken link In the same interview, he said regarding Hillary Clinton ,"I was in NY and I said hey Hillary—you might want to ride one of these into the sunset you worthless bitch." In an interview with Royal Flush Magazine, Nugent was asked about his views of U.S. President Barack Obama, and he responded: "I think that Barack Hussein Obama should be put in jail. It is clear that Barack Hussein Obama is a communist. Mao Tse Tung lives and his name is Barack Hussein Obama. This country should be ashamed. I wanna throw up."

Besides the obvious formatting issues present in the paragraph, there are no sources cited. Wikipedia's policy on Biographies of living persons says, "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." I did just that. If you object or have credible references to the section in question, please post here and allow for discussion. Eaglecap Backpack (talk) 19:00, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for pulling this until we get a source. There are a ton of sources, though the trick will be determining the best or most reliable. Here's one, and a search reveals more.

For the second quote, we find this article, and more. I'll add the ones I found, and others can improve as desired. Again, thanks for taking the initiative. Bakkster Man (talk) 21:44, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

"White Town" comment

Is this: [1] worth mentioning? Stonemason89 (talk) 00:06, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

No. Violates BLP NPOV and Undue Weight. 72.128.202.20 (talk) 07:34, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

It does not violate BLP, as the material can be sourced reliably. For that reason I do not believe that the 3RR rule should be overridden. Nor does it violate NPOV, as the article does not take a stand on the declaration. However, it may violate undue weight. (That's not a BLP violation.) This incident did receive attention in Dubuque, but I don't see any coverage beyond Dubuque. Since the subject is a nationwide star, an incident in a small city that didn't get wider attention might not be worth including.   Will Beback  talk  08:09, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

This talk page needs Archiving

• Unless there is opposition I will copy/paste old discussions into a archive page and consider auto archiving threads maybe after 30days. Any and all comments welcome. Mlpearc powwow 16:04, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

*Well it's done. If anyone disagrees then undo it. Mlpearc powwow 23:03, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I'll be back. Mlpearc powwow 01:20, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Archiving is fine, but I disagree with your decision to restore off-topic postings. This is not a forum, and it's typical to remove comments that are unrelated to improving an article. I don't see what purpose is served by restoring a comment that says, "HI TED, YOU ARE SO VERY MUCH A PART OF HOW I THINK. MY PA MADE NINE LANDINGS UNDER FIRE IN THE JAPANEESE ISLANDS IN WW2. I WILL SAY NO MORE UNTIL YOU CONTACT ME. " Can you explain why you think comments like that could result in improvements to the article?   Will Beback  talk  00:51, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

In an article I can see your point. You can remove whatever you like from this page. To me, whatever is posted to a "Talk" page becomes part of that page regardless of topic. Mlpearc powwow 01:20, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Ordinarily it'sunderstood that on-topic discussion is sacred and ought not to be touched by others, except, say, for a bit of indentation corrections to keep things straight. But strong personal attacks, vandalism, and chatty off-topic fan/forum stuff regularly gets deleted, the last on the basis of WP:NOTAFORUM, a link I failed to mention in my earlier clean-up. WP:TPOC says merely disruptive chatter is a borderline case, so I didn't press the point, but I think it's usual (IME, anyway) to excise these unconstructive insertions. If it weren't, pages like Talk:Justin Bieber would be even worse than they are now. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 02:28, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Ref 35

Regarding ref 35 ^ "Texas Monthly Talks". Texasmonthly.com. Retrieved 2010-11-25. I am having trouble finding the original quote. The website does not list Nugent. Additionally, the quote makes no sense as MA has an alive and well concealed weapons law. Any ideas on where we can find the actual quote? Is there any possibility that it's fabricated? Basket of Puppies 04:50, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Professional musician?

"Performing professionally since 1958" ---> Really? Ted has been a professional musician since age 9? That seems highly unlikely, can this statement be somehow clarified or sourced? Maybe he has been performing publicly since 1958. DFS (talk) 00:07, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Good catch. I found a source from 2008 which says:

• It's a milestone night for the Motor City Madman, who will celebrate both his 50th anniversary of performing and his 6,000th (or thereabouts) concert with this home state appearance at DTE.

I've altered the text to match.   Will Beback  talk  00:45, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

residency?

Is Mr. Nugent a resident of Michigan, Illinois, or Texas? The article claims he's a "longtime" resident of Texas, but he's only been registered to vote here since January 2009. I wouldn't call that a long time. I can email his voter registration information to anyone who's interested; it's also publicly available from the Texas Secretary of State.

It would appear from the article -- in multiple places -- that he's a long time resident of Michigan. In fact, as late as 2007 he was considering running for governor of that state. But he also lived in Illinois for a time as a teenager, and that state's Republican party wanted him to run for the U.S. Senate. Someone (not me) recently added the category of "Michigan Republican" to the article. Someone else (also not me) deleted that very same category.

So where is he a legal resident? Is he registered to vote in more than one place? Can the article be a little more consistent about where he's from?

Thanks, 70.116.91.46 (talk) 05:29, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Self admitted draft dodger

This really needs to be added into the article, He admitted in a Rolling stone interview in the late 1970's that to avoid the draft, he took very intense steps to avoid being drafted which included urinating and defecating on himself without removing his pants for several days until he showed for his draft appointment.

http://www.newshounds.us/2007/08/26/proof_ted_nugent_is_a_draft_dodger_will_hannity_keep_defending_him.php

www.liveleak.com/view?i=9a1_1250550290

www.huffingtonpost.com/.../the-common-bond-between-d_b_564288.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Americium-con (talk • contribs) 23:23, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

I added the link to the selective service history in the appropriate section with questions about 1Y and 2S. Bakkster Man (talk) 12:49, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

ha ha, apparently you lost the edit war to someone more determined! Considering his actively putting himself forward as a patriot/public figure you'd think draft dodging would be note worthy. 66.129.224.36 (talk) 17:58, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

If he is a draft dodger it needs to be here. I've asked stack exchange's history beta: http://history.stackexchange.com/questions/7410/ted-nugent-and-draft-dodging Protectthehuman (talk) 12:30, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, very suspicious that this is not mentioned here, is some PR agency cleaning this page? http://gawker.com/5983634/patriotic-american-ted-nugent-shit-his-pants-to-avoid-the-draft --Hontogaichiban (talk) 07:19, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

His last examination in 1972 designated him 4-F

The Selective Service record only shows one medical examination 8-28-69 designating him 1-Y.The 4-F designation happened 12-15-72 after the classification system was changed and all 1-Y's were reclassified 4-F.

http://msgboard.snopes.com/politics/graphics/nugent.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selective_Service_System#Classifications 007TLH700 (talk) 10:53, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

per [the independent, 28 May 2006, via snopes]: He admits to being a draft dodger but denies the High Times account

(interviewer)"So basically ... you didn't want to get your Michigan ass blown off in Vietnam" (Nugent) "Correct. I did not want my ass blown off in Vietnam"

While I can see why one might dismiss a high times interview as a reliable source, I think The Independent, 28 May 2006 quoting the man himself counts as a reliable source. Perhaps someday a quotable source will ask the Nug (and be answered) how he got his 1-Y in 1969. 66.129.224.36 (talk) 18:18, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

In the Independent interview he does not admit dodging the draft,he admits not wanting to be hurt/killed in Vietnam and being enrolled in college.According to the Independent article He doesn't even realize that a 1-Y is a health deferment so it's possible he has no idea why they gave him the 1-Y.He tells the same story on CNN.He says the High Times story was a prank on the "high" reporter and told the prank story to the Texas Tribune.The videos are on Youtube if anyone wants to find them.

The Independent,5-28-06,from Snopes "Correct.I did not want my ass blown off in Vietnam" "But you did dodge the draft." "I had a 1Y [student deferment].I enrolled at Oakland Community College."

CNN video Intense Ted Nugent Interview 5-18-11 pt. 1-4

The Texas Tribune Video: Ted Nugent on Draft Dodging 007TLH700 (talk) 15:33, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Broken tooth

I'm not a Ted Nugent fan, but I've heard this story from a few people. During the late 70s , Nugent was playing at Arrowhead Stadium in Kansas City, Missouri. According to the story, someone threw a steel ball bearing at him, hitting him in his mouth, breaking a tooth. He said, again, according to the legend, that he would never play in Kansas City again. From an interview in the Bangor (ME) Daily News of July 28-29, 1979, he mentions his chipped tooth and how it knocked him out. http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=2457&dat=19790727&id=zhA9AAAAIBAJ&sjid=VS4MAAAAIBAJ&pg=2461,5196199 I don't know if this is worth including in the article on Nugent and it doesn't mention his claim of never coming back to Kansas City. Jtyroler (talk) 09:29, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Ted Nugent Military Service

I see that there is controversy out there as to whether Ted Nugent was a draft dodger or not, but there should be some mention of his military service regardless. Wilsonshire (talk) 21:14, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

If the Snopes medical examination is the real deal, then there is evidence that the story of Nugent's draft-dodging is true. Don't understand why it can't be noted that his last exam was 4-F when he is clearly a healthy guy. Stevetac (talk) 03:16, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

The source says: "Hard to read on the document, but it may say 4-F." I also don't see "clearly a healthy guy". It is also a lame source and a primary document.--Canoe1967 (talk) 07:01, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Why should there be "some mention" of his military service, when in fact he never served in the military? This seems to be a rather naked non sequitur. If he's a draft dodger, then he may be guilty of a crime and WP:BLPCRIME applies. Federales (talk) 23:04, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

His service, and the way he may have avoided it are notable via multiple articles and interviews he participated in. This is clearly a WP:WELLKNOWN exception. Even BLPCRIME itself specifically states "For people who are relatively unknown, editors must give serious consideration to not including"

Now, any particular detail in the story must be well sourced, and looking at copies of his medical report found online and interpreting them would seriously fail WP:RS and WP:OR imo. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:13, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I've added a short paragraph, well-sourced (I believe), with that added benefit of mentioning where he went to college. I've also tried to avoid WP:UNDUE by not giving this its own section. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 21:07, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

It's not well-sourced and you utterly failed to avoid WP:UNDUE. Federales (talk) 21:11, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Ah - perhaps you could enlighten me - and other editors - as to why you don't think The Smoking Gun is a reliable source? And also, how much text about Nugent's college career and his military deferments do you think is appropriate? -- John Broughton (♫♫) 21:47, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Mr. Nugent may have had fun telling false stories to High Times and others. Snopes and The Smoking Gun have vast collections of trivial things like this but we do not. If he fell in a puddle at one point they would probably mention that as well. If it were covered widely by mainstream media (notable) then we may decide to include it here as well. Since mainstream media probably considers these incidents as either trivial or untrue, then so do we.--Canoe1967 (talk) 07:31, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

TSG is tabloid journalism, and as such it is never a reliable source for contentious material in a BLP. Furthermore, the material in question is UNDUE because it has no bearing on any noteworthy aspect of Mr. Nugent's life or career. The only reason it has ever been published is that it has become fodder for sophomoric cheap shots by those looking to discredit Nugent's political views. Shorter version: it's non-encyclopedic gossip-cruft. I hope this helps. Federales (talk) 08:36, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

TSG is a tabloid. But Nugent took specific action to be interviewed in both High Times and Independent. Its not defamatory to quote Nugent talking about Nugent. If nothing else, it sheds light on his personality, and willingness to jerk interviewers around. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:16, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

There seems to be a misunderstanding with WP:UNDUE - that editors can decide that something is not a "noteworthy" aspect of someone's life, and thus should be excluded, no matter how much press coverage it had. Nor does Wikipedia policy say that editors should examine why something has been published ("to descredit Nugent's political views"), and then use that (subjective) evaluation to determine whether to include it or not.

What is at issue is whether there has been coverage of Nugent's deferment(s) in reliable sources. Here is what I've found:

• Jensen, Dennis. "Ted Nugent: Call Him Chickenhawk." Rutland Herald. 28 May 2006.
• The Independent. "Ted Nugent: Off His Rocker?" 28 May 2006. (at tednugent.com)
• http://www.contactmusic.com/news-article/nugent-ive-made-up-for-missing-vietnam_31_05_2006
• Cizmar, Martin. "Ted Nugent Talks Guns, Meth, and Hippies Before NRA Convention in Phoenix." Phoenix New Times. 14 May 2009.
• Rogan, Johnny. Byrds: Requiem for the Timeless. London: Rogan House, 2011. ISBN 978-0-095295-408-8 (pp. 136-138).
• http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0412/75309.html (April 2012)
• http://www.snopes.com/politics/military/nugent.asp (April 2012)
• http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/24/dee-snider-reminds-republicans-ted-nugent-dodged-vietnam-draft_n_2544864.html

-- John Broughton (♫♫) 16:01, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

"Nor does Wikipedia policy say that editors should examine why something has been published ("to descredit Nugent's political views"), and then use that (subjective) evaluation to determine whether to include it or not."

Wikipedia policy absolutely DOES say that. See WP:BLPSTYLE: "Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association, and biased or malicious content."

And I note for the record that aside from any issues about sourcing, you have still not established relevance. Federales (talk) 16:15, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

"Mr. Nugent may have had fun telling false stories to High Times and others". If so, I would say that lying about dodging the draft in magazine interviews is a rather relevant detail. Either the man dodged the draft, or he lied to magazines and CLAIMED to have dodged the draft. And almost anytime he's mentioned, SOMEBODY brings that up. It's not being in this article is a clear example of bias. Carlo (talk) 22:08, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

BLP violation removed

A BLP violation has been removed. -- Dianna (talk) 23:25, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 5 August 2013

Please add 'Ted Nugent Black Power 2013' under 'Tours' heading Stilyou (talk) 17:11, 5 August 2013 (UTC)  Done including rolling stone citation. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:16, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Remove controversial reference regarding gun ownership and hunting.

In this day and age everyone finds everything controversial, so I believe the remarks “some find controversial” adds nothing to the profile. Let’s start adding “some find controversial” to everything that Lady Gaga supports; or the same that Morrissey is a vegan…same difference. Wiki is to be neutral and pointing that someone finds controversial leads the reader. Remove it and let the reader decide. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Endoxa52 (talk • contribs) 17:58, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Tone

majority of the article is basically an anti-Nugent gangbang. so typical of wp for any non-leftist. the articles on any of the mass murderers like stalin or mao are more even handed than this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.128.140.137 (talk) 16:43, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Racism

At this point, a section should be added on his racism, including recently calling Obama a "subhuman mongrel", this is quoted by MSNBC. There are also other well verified racist remarks that could be added to this section. 2602:306:BDA0:97A0:6C19:A815:C0CA:5FCC (talk) 21:34, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Without comment about appropriateness of this comment, or appropriateness for inclusion in the article, I will provide a link the the MSNBC story for convinience. http://www.msnbc.com/politicsnation/ted-nugent-calls-obama-subhuman-mongrel Gaijin42 (talk) 21:37, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Also, here is a video of it (uncitable youtube tho). the bad words start at 7:00. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zvqu4oqfeso Gaijin42 (talk) 21:51, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing that for further discussion. One thought is that this also merits a controversy section. Alternately, another thought is to simply create a freestanding section on "allegations of racism" that could then include these quotes. 2602:306:BDA0:97A0:6C19:A815:C0CA:5FCC (talk) 21:57, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

One additional thought, his conservative activism should not be in a controversy section, but his racist remarks do not qualify merely as activism and so should be in some kind of seperate section. 2602:306:BDA0:97A0:6C19:A815:C0CA:5FCC (talk) 22:13, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

What "racist" remarks? In the introduction of the article it states, "Nugent has made a number of crude and racist comments against President Barack Obama." The "racist" part is not true , and defamatory, It needs to be removed. Once this protection is ended I am removing it myself. Trentc (talk) 19:05, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Calling a black man a chimp is about as obvious a racist insult as there is. See “Assassinate the Nigger Ape[]” : Obama, Implicit

Imagery, and the Dire Consequences of Racist Jokes for a history of how this argument has been made. "Subhuman mongrel" strikes me as equally racist, but there is less obvious scholarship behind this one. There is an article in Politifact in which they interview a number of historians on the use of mongrel and subhuman as part of Nazi genocidal propaganda, in reference to Wolf Blitzer's comments. A couple of the quotes that they come up with from Nazi propaganda are:

"Regrettably, there are still many people today who say: Even the Jews are creatures of God. Therefore you must respect them. But we say: Vermin are animals too, but we exterminate them just the same. The Jew is a mongrel. He has hereditary tendencies from Aryans, Asiatics, Negroes, and from the Mongolians. Evil always preponderates in the case of a mongrel."

"As long as there have been men on the Earth, the struggle between man and the subhuman will be the historic rule; the Jewish-led struggle against the mankind, as far back as we can look, is part of the natural course of life on our planet. One can be convinced with full certainty that this struggle for life and death is just as much a law of nature as is the struggle of an infection to corrupt a healthy body."

I am not saying that Nugent is trying to recreate Nazi rhetoric, but the territory in which he is moving is deeply disturbing, and when it shows up from someone who does engage in the obviously racist black man/chimpanzee comments, I am very comfortable describing Nugent as making racist comments. Tedperl (talk) 06:02, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Of course you are. Because race baiters believe anyone who doesn't blow Obama is a racist. This PREPOSTEROUS idea that mongrel is an Aryan Nation term is belied by the fact that Pres Obama used it himself. But liberal myopia has no cure. (Please donate to the cause however.) There are 3.2 MILLION returns to the word mongrel when you google it. There are mongrel bands, mongrel websites, mongrel hardware, you name it. But, if you insist on the linkage, then FIRST accuse Barack Obama of having ties to the Aryan nation for HIS use of the word on The View. 99.185.56.93 (talk) 11:45, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Please calm down and lay off the fellatio references and excess capitalization. Thank you. -- Hoary (talk) 14:11, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Criticism#Avoid_sections_and_articles_focusing_on_criticisms_or_controversies Gaijin42 (talk) 22:16, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

References

BLP violation removed

A BLP violation has been removed. Miguel Escopeta (talk) 22:18, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

I want to know if you consider any and all negative facts about Mr. Nugent to be a violation of BLP, since the material was sourced, factual and is commonly and regularly mentioned in many, many third party outlets. Carlo (talk) 23:37, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

No answer. Of course. What a sham. Carlo (talk) 13:07, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Quit whining. Go to Bill Maher's page and lay out your negative facts there, son. Then you'll know what the real sham is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.185.56.93 (talk) 11:40, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for pretty much demonstrating that you're biased as all hell, and are entirely concerned with shielding Nugent from all criticism for partisan reasons. Carlo (talk) 23:06, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 January 2014

Under the notable instruments section, there should be 3 additional guitars because Ted plays more than just a Gibson Byrdland. It should read like this:

Gibson Byrdland Gibson Les Paul PRS Guitars Gibson Howard Roberts Fusion

216.59.125.29 (talk) 19:55, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Note that "Notable Instruments" is not intended to be a comprehensive list of guitars he plays, it's meant to be the guitar(s) he's known for playing. --ElHef (Meep?) 01:43, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Family life

Article states Nugent has 8 children. I count two he gave up for adoption. Two from marriage, where the mother was killed in a car wreck, and one from his current marriage. Even counting the reference to suit for child support, that only makes 6. Does this count include the Hawaiian teen over which he obtained guardianship? That would equal 7. I'm not stating an opinion here -- only attempting to clarify. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:100D:B00F:8BB4:E2F8:47FF:FE05:301C (talk) 06:32, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

According to this wapo story, he claims 9 children (but there are many more rumored from groupies etc) http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/magazine/ted-nugent-guitarist-and-gun-lover-rocks-the-political-world/2013/07/02/7bb236dc-d203-11e2-9f1a-1a7cdee20287_print.html Thats echoed in this NewYorker story http://www.newyorker.com/talk/2011/06/06/110606ta_talk_wiedeman Gaijin42 (talk) 17:34, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

A third child from his first marriage is missing, a daughter, Starr Nugent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.50.67.199 (talk) 18:56, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Ted Nugent

The opening paragraph contains the entry "Nugent has made a number of crude and racist comments against President Barack Obama". Clearly this is editorializing. It is sourced to Media Matters which is a partisan left wing organization. Hardly an appropriate source. In short it is an opinion and has no place in the article. The content could more accurately be represented by saying something to the effect of " Nugent has be highly criticized for what some call "racist" statements about President Obama...or something or that effect.

Yes and once the protection is gone, those defamatory remarks need to be removed. Trentc (talk) 19:09, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

He called him a subhuman mongrel and a chimpanzee. Thats pretty racist. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:38, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

And what race is a subhuman mongrel and a chimpanzee? Nothing racist. Offensive, yes! Racist, no. Miguel Escopeta (talk) 21:30, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Calling a black man a chimpanzee is classic racism. See the article that I cite in the racism seciton. Tedperl (talk) 06:15, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Absurd. In any case, its repeatedly described as racist by reliable sources, of all political stripes. [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] Gaijin42 (talk) 21:36, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Looking at 4 of these sources, I see that the comments are called "outlandish", "crude", "inflammatory", etc., but not "racist". Other comments, not mentioned in the articles, were ascribed to Nugent and were called racist, however. Miguel Escopeta (talk) 21:41, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Everyone should be SUSPECT when some liberal accuses a conservative of being racist. . Especially when it comes to their messiah Barrack Hussein Obama. Did you know calling him by his name is racist? Oh yeah. It's true. haha. Face it. Liberals are the queens of 'false rape' charges in this regard and have ZERO credibility on the racism charge. Even the boy calling wolf is shaking is head at you guys. 99.185.56.93 (talk) 11:56, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, how come the FIRST paragraph of the Bill Maher or Jon Stewart article doesn't start with "They have made a number of crude comments against President Bush" There was never even a SUGGESTION that this happen over there. Why? Cause Wikipedia is OVERRUN by liberals. Their bias is sooo obvious that any article of a political nature in here is a JOKE. And EVERYONE knows it. Congrats liberals who control Wiki. You let the inmates run the asylum thus DESTROYING all the credibility accrued by others who selflessly spent countless hours trying to create a fair and objective encyclopedic source. 99.185.56.93 (talk) 11:54, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, yes. Now do calm down. Or go away. Whichever. -- Hoary (talk) 14:16, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

They're not liberals per se, they're engaging in capitalism - they're paid to edit. Wikipedia needs to AUDIT every account on its site for potential paid editors. Also, it needs to stop paying editors from within to edit articles like this. Hoary is a great example, so is Tedperl - these are obvious paid-to-edit accounts. ..... added in this edit (21:21, 1 March 2014) by 75.70.221.14 (contributions, talk)

Regardless of opinion, it is just that: opinion. Therefore, observations of "crude" remarks violate Wikipedia's rules. Citizen150 (talk) 18:01, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Obama Comments RFC

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.

---

Nugent has called Obama a "Subhuman mongrel" and "chimpanzee". These comments have been widely commented on in reliable sources. [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19]

Should these comments be described as (Note, not asking how we should describe Nugent himself)

• racist
• offensive
• been described as/called racist
• not qualified
• not included
• other

For those !voting "Follow the sources" - Do you have an opinion as to what that would result in in this case? What description is supported by the sources?

Survey

• racist patently obvious, and described that way by many sources. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:45, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
  • described as racist per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV Gaijin42 (talk) 21:27, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
• inflammatory, crude, outlandish, or similar, as described in the referenced articles, yes. But, the articles sourced do not describe the comments as racist. Neither were the same comments called racist when used previously to describe President Bush. Sounds like offensive political speech to me, but clearly not racist. See a summary of President Bush chimpanzee references here. Miguel Escopeta
• racist, per Gaijin42, and the notion that referring to a black person as a chimpanzee is not racist is, um, curious. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:22, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

  So when a white person, like the thousands that called and created images of Bush as a chimp for example, is called a chimpanzee what is it? Arzel (talk) 14:38, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

• Whatever the sources say There is no need (in my view) to have a discussion about this - anything else is OR. Now we might consider them racist, and I'd agree, however the term must come into the article only if it is being used by the sources. I think it's a little misleading to do a multiple choice list of bare terms without specifying which are used by which source. If "racist" was not used, then we should not use it. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 22:47, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Agree JoeSperrazza (talk) 23:33, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

• Racist - Mongrel: a derogatory term for the mixing of races. If that's not racist, then what is? Ropo153 (talk) 06:06, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
• By the sources. Like FreeRangeFrog, the only policy-compliant answer that I see here is to go by the sources. To characterize the comments as racist without a source is original research and thus a violation of WP:BLP. However, there are several sources who have characterized the comments as racist: NY magazine and a newsblog at the Seattle PI, for example. It would be alright to say, for example: New York magazine and the Seattle PI characterized the comments as racist. We must not editorialize in a BLP, no matter how obvious it seems. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 11:32, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
• Racist I have taken a strict line on "what the sources allow" (similar to those above) on other RfCs I've wandered on to previously. But this one passes that threshold easily. The comment is described as racist by multiple sources and appears clearly that it can be made in wikipedia's voice. The Washington Post source given above describes it as racist at multiple points, then you have New York Magazine and Seattle PI above, in addition the discussion in many publications is about how this fits into a racial (image) problem the GOP is having right now. See La Crosse Tribune, New York Times, The Guardian. Philip Bump (RS editorialist), in the Atlantic Wire, may have summarized it best "This was widely perceived as racist because it is racist". It seems "racist" in wikipedia's voice is fully in-line with sources and crosses every BLP threshold possible. AbstractIllusions (talk) 14:48, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
• Racist, or so I infer from "a direct racist slur" (New Yorker); "racist remarks" (Seattle PI); "racist language" (New York); "a racist comment" (St Louis Post-Dispatch); "Ted Nugent has a very specific shtick. He pops up, says something inflammatory about a Democrat -- usually a comment of the undeniably racist or sexist type -- and then watches as his name is repeated over and over by the national media" (WashPo). -- Hoary (talk) 04:40, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
• Racist, because, as I argued in the racist section, it does seem to me racist and more importantly, because there are a number of sources cited above that make that claim. Tedperl (talk) 23:08, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

• Not included Per WP:UNDUE, WP:NOTNEWS and WP:RECENTISM. This is a WP:BLP and this person's notability is the result of their musical career, not their politics. Given that we're in the middle of this current news cycle, there's absolutely no evidence that the importance of these comments will stand the test of time. I say wait a while and revisit the issue 6-24 months from now. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:58, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
• Not qualified or Not included per AQFK Let the reader decide if they are racist or not. If a reader believes that they are or are not, it will not matter what they are called. Charged language, such as racist, only invite a battleground. Arzel (talk) 01:56, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

I actually think a "characterized as racist" wording may be necessary for people who might not understand what the problems are. When I hear that stuff I think, "OK", since people call politicians names all the time, insult their intelligence by calling them apes or neanderthals, etc. I can imagine that a lot of people might not realize that it's been interpreted as having racial implications, especially people who aren't American or who aren't familiar with American race-relations issues. 0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 05:41, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

• Racist Ted Nugent's well-known for having opinions that are very much in-your-face. Racist is the best thing that can be said.  KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh   18:52, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
• Follow the consensus of the sources. If a handful call them racist, we shouldn't cherry-pick them to push a certain point of view. Instead, we should look at what we've got and find the common theme. Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:27, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
• Comments Somebody above says this person's notability is the result of their musical career, not their politics. Yes, if he'd been a clerk rather than a musician, it's likely that nobody would invite him to speak or pay attention when he did speak. But for the last couple of years (or more), what has put him in the news has been his (more or less) political commentary. This in general has got more quite a bit of coverage, and the particular comments whose presentation has been discussed close above have got more than trivial coverage. As for the request (immediately above) that one shouldn't cherry-pick sources, agreed. However, this is a WP article, not a PhD thesis; there's no time, space or effort for an argued formulation of the criteria for sources to be surveyed, a hunt for all such sources (or a sample, the sampling method itself carefully formulated and described). My impression, informally and of course unsatisfactorily acquired, is that the majority of mainstream comments either say or clearly imply that the comments were racist. However, if a huge amount of work must be done to back up any assertion that they are/were racist, then just say that they are/were widely described as racist[note]. The note can itself go to five or even ten references: the clearest assertions of racism in the most impressive publications. -- Hoary (talk) 14:31, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
• By the sources. I second NinjaRobotPirate's comment.Chhe (talk) 02:48, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
• Racist with reference If the sources say that it's racist it should be atributed to them. It should not read that Ted Nugent is racist. It should read that he is thought be because of what ever. Use the sources and do not add any personal bias.Sources can be found that say he's not raciist and he didn't mean that racially. It can't factually be said that Ted Nugent is racist. Here he repudiates accusations of racism: http://www.orlandosentinel.com/entertainment/blogs/tv-guy/os-ted-nugent-obama-a-bad-man-20140225,0,6431436.postSerialjoepsycho (talk) 19:40, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

The question is not whether Nugent is a racist, it is whether he made racist comments. As I argued in the racist section, calling a black man a chimp is a racist statement. I would say the same about "subhuman mongrel", but that ia a slightly dicier proposition. And since we can certainly find reputable sources that agree, I am in inclined to say that he made racist comments. Tedperl (talk) 23:16, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

He says his comments weren't meant to be racist. It's not our job to decide whether these comments are racist. The opinion that these comments were racist should be included but they should be atributed to the sources. Wikipedia should take no position on whether these comments were racist. This avoids all controversey while including all factual information.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 00:29, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

• Other, Should be labeled as 'controversial'. 'Racist' and 'crude' are weasel words. Wikipedia is meant to be objective and encyclopedic. Controversial is the correct term for the comments he has made about Barack Obama. It's good to see that the paid, liberal supported editors have shown their bias in a clear light, but anyone who has any interest in fairness will choose a neutral POV term like controversial instead of anything with a negative connotation. ..... added in this series of edits (1 March 2014) by 75.70.221.14 (contributions, talk)
• By the sources I can see this having a "characterized as racist" wording, but he wasn't actually intending to be racist, so it would be original research to interpret his comments that way, and kinda irresponsible to act as if it is as obvious as if he said, "black people shouldn't be president" or something, you know, actually mentioning race. 0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 05:38, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
• Other, sources, while I'm not impressed with the accusations made by 75.70.221.14, there is some logic in describing the comments as 'controversial', but I think that leaving out the source material's characterization of those comments wouldn't be encyclopedic. I vote for something along the lines of "...controversial comments, which some have characterized as 'repulsive' and 'racist'" (including refs to the sources) while still acknowledging that Mr. Nugent has stated that he did not intend the statements to be racist (refs for this, too). I think this would match the sources, and present a relatively NPOV. My two cents..Chrisw80 (talk) 10:11, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

• Only as opinion of reliable sources If the majority of reliable sources describe them as racist, quote the most prominent source as calling them racist. Do not call them racist in Wikipedia's voice.Gsonnenf (talk) 17:19, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
• Racist as it seems to have been used by several sources. United States Man (talk) 01:21, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

• Quote the sources directly. We all have opinions about what those words mean. Our opinions do not matter. As Wikipedians, we report what the sources have said. - CorbieV^☊ 03:34, 4 March 2014 (UTC) P.S. Just to clarify, I support direct quotes from critics who are calling Nugent's statements racist, inflammatory, etc. If a notable person said it, they can be quoted. - CorbieV^☊ 03:39, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
• Not included as first choice. 'Offensive' if we have it. It is curiously racist to use the term 'racist' except in a direct quote. Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:44, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
• Not qualified. We write from an objective point of view here and it should be up to the reader to decide whether the statements constitute racism, etc. We should simply document what was said and what impact it may have apart from random individuals being offended. We could say "controversial" if there are substantial sources, but we definitely shouldn't go any farther.  — TORTOISEWRATH 18:27, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
• Other If the Nugent's statements are to be included on his personal page, why must an adjective be used to describe them? Yes, the claims he made were offensive, racist, etc..all of the above, but Wikipedia is not the place to slam his comments (however much he may deserve it). Rather, we should just state plain and simple, "Nugent said..." from a neutral point of view. Meatsgains (talk) 22:47, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

• Not Qualified I agree with Meatsgains. Personally, I think that Ted Nugent's comments are highly racist, but Wikipedia is not about the editors' opinions. I always try to be extremely careful with BLP pages since they can so easily defame the subjects. Also pertinent to this point, there's a sentence in the current politics section that states: "Following the reelection of President Obama on November 6, 2012, Nugent posted several angry tweets...", I don't agree with this either. It is not for Wikipedia to state what Nugent's mood was when he sent the tweets. JamesRoberts (talk) 01:37, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
• They are obviously racist, however, they should not be characterized by Wikipedia as such. We should note they are widely characterized as racially motivated, and inflammatory by media outlets. Wikipedia has to maintain an arms length. I'm also struck that this performer might be trying to boost their own importance, and thus grandstanding for their already confirmed supporters. I don't think Wikipedia should be endorsing their outlandish statements in any way but to note that they were acknowledge by media outlets, and characterized in a certain way. Sportfan5000 (talk) 08:34, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
• Definitely racist I know racism is an emotive subject but the word functions as descriptive as well, and this is clearly racism --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 20:26, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
• Whatever the sources say, however context will tell all I agree with croak that we must be careful not to confuse our own opinions with facts and rely on sources to do so. However, the statements can be framed neutrally if the context is 'Nugent has made a number of statements personally attacking POTUS in a derogatory light'...or better yet let's find a notable critic who makes a similar statement and have that source frame the context. Too soon for love (talk) 21:10, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

FreeRangeFrog The sources use a variety of descriptions, some "racist" some "offensive" etc. I hit google news and picked the top URLs that seemed reliable (skipping blogs, etc). There are surely many more that I did not cover in my links above. Our task is weighing the various sources. all of the various terms are sourecable without an WP:OR issue I think. Gaijin42 (talk) 23:02, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Thargor Orlando I don't find your !vote particularly helpful. Obviously we follow the sources. This RFC is to determine the consensus of what those sources say (Although I admit I could have perhaps worded the RFC better to that direction). Do you have an opinion as to what following the sources would actually result in in this case? Gaijin42 (talk) 15:21, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't, because I don't have a complete accounting of the sources or what that would entail. Personally, I think calling someone a racist outright is probably a BLP violation even if we have sources saying as such due to the subjective nature of it. Thinking more about it, do we even have to qualify the statement as described as anything? Thargor Orlando (talk) 15:56, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Do we ever have a complete accounting of sources? Note though, the suggestion is not to call Nugent himself racist, but Nugent's statements. There is a difference. However I can certainly see a fallback position of "been described as racist and offensive" etc being a valid outcome (although consensus does not seem to be leaning that way so far) Gaijin42 (talk) 17:44, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

WP:LABEL If the desire is the use of racist you will have to attribute it. "Been described as racist and offensive" wouldn't be a problem though as it doesn't actually take a position.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 13:10, 3 March 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.

POV Check

Extended content

It's about time for a very serious POV check on this article. There's some very obvious POV pushing going on (like most political articles on Wikipedia nowadays). Consensus is moving away from NPOV; which is usually a result of paid editing or internal involvement. Jimbo Wales hires a number of editors to reinforce his liberal viewpoints on Wikipedia and ascribe them to neutrality. This entire article needs to be reviewed and some people need to be removed, like Hoary and Tedperl who have obvious POV pushing agendas. The only way to reach NPOV is to remove all biased, paid, in-house editors from the discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.70.221.14 (talk) 21:36, 1 March 2014 (UTC) WP:TPNO Wikipedia is not a forum. Wikipedia in not a soapbox.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 13:16, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Ted Nugent

Hello. I have amended the following sections to this page as there are errors in various areas. Please refrain from future reverts:

1.) Notable Instruments: Nugent is known for using several instruments besides the Gibson Byrdland. These include a Gibson Les Paul, PRS Custom 24s, and a Gibson Howard Roberts Fusion. My edits to the notable instruments section will reflect this.

2.) The opening paragraph contains political opinion, which violate Wikipedia's rules. My edits bring the page into compliance with Wikipedia.

3.) My edits reflect Nugent's standing on global concert tour revenues. The citation is to Rolling Stone, a well-known authority in the music industry. Thus, it is compliant with Wikipedia's rules.

Please address your concerns to me here, rather than continuing to revert edits on the page to avoid being banned. Thank you.

Citizen150 (talk) 17:57, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

1) no objection but needs to be sourced. 3) no objection. 2) there is a large section just above discussing this, and there is clear consensus for inclusion. This issue has been very well covered and should not be censored. Please put in your opinion above to not include if you wish, but also please abide by the clear consensus for inclusion. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:31, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

1) The Byrdland is mentioned in the article. Your additions are not. Please provide sources showing they are notable for Nugent.

Nugent uses a Les Paul more than a Byrdland when performing. Set list breakdown over the last 25 years reveals his show contain more use of a Les Paul by about 3 songs. I am not sure why this is an issue, as this is obvious just by watching videos, but here is Ted explaining that he uses a 1959 Les Paul more than Byrdlands. This certainly warrants inclusion. Citizen150 (talk) 20:02, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

His use of PRS guitars in the 1980s and on stage today is well documented and PRS even mentions him as a featured artist on their website. If this does not constitute inclusion, I don't know what does. Citizen150 (talk) 20:02, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

His use of the Gibson Howard Roberts Fusion in the 1980s is demonstrated extensively by watching publically available live recordings. Citizen150 (talk) 20:02, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

2) There is no such "rule" against stating such facts if they are sourced properly. What is a proper adjective for this statement? "I have obviously failed to galvanize and prod, if not shame enough Americans to be ever vigilant not to let a Chicago communist raised communist educated communist nurtured subhuman mongrel like the ACORN community organizer gangster Barack Hussein Obama to weasel his way into the top office of authority in the United States of America."

On a website that is supposed to be completely objective, I would describe this as adamately scornful. The talk page is one thing to discuss, but on the main page that is supposed to be objective, it has no place and will be deleted unless rephrased in a way that reflects nonpartisanship.Citizen150 (talk) 20:02, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

3) No opinion on this.

--NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:39, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

He called him a chimpanzee and a subhuman mongrel. It is 100% objective to say that he made crude offensive racist statements about obama, particularly as a plethora of reliable sources have said so. There is clear consensus for inclusion a lesser consensus for description, and if you attempt to unilaterally remove content it will end up with you getting blocked. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:05, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Citizen150, as you have a source, no objection on #1. Also, please do not insert your comments in the middle of someone else's. It makes figuring out who said what difficult. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:14, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

I just reverted Citizen150's last edit due to a misleading summary that failed to mention they removing sourced content. As for the rest of what you added:

• Youtube is not a WP:RS, content sourced to Youtube needs to go.
• "Between 1976 and 1979, Nugent was the highest grossing touring artist in the world, according to Rolling Stone.", this is not entirely true. The article states: "His first self-production, 1982's Nugent, barely grazed the chart. By that point, however, Young Ted, as he referred to himself, had reaped the rewards of having been the top-grossing tour act of 1977, 1978, and 1979". So his 1982 flop should be mentioned as per WP:WEIGHT and I see nowhere stated that he was the grossing touring artist in the world. The article doesn't make it clear it but it surely means the USA, there is no way in hell Nugent was the worldwide grossing actor between 1977 (not 1976) and 1979. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 12:08, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Per the discussion above, I have made this edit [20]. In summary:

1. Youtube is not a reliable source
2. Ref does not support text "Between 1976 and 1979" (see above)
3. RvSourced text removed w/o consensus

Please use proper reliable sources, ensure text is fully supported by citations, and gain consensus for removals of cited content.

See also Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Citizen150_reported_by_User:NeilN_.28Result:_.29 Thanks! JoeSperrazza (talk) 22:43, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

References

Intro. Summary Edit

I suggest that the "rude" Obama comment sentence should be moved to the either personal or controversies section and not at the beginning summary for Ted Nugent, unless we agree to do the same for Danny Devito and several other celebrities who have made rude comments about current presidents.

Buddy Guy

"Buddy Guy" is mentioned only once in the article, and there, the name does not appear as a link to the Buddy Guy article on Wikipedia. I recommend fixing that. His contribution to the music world has been one of lofty inspiration, and immensely influential among the greatest performers of our day. 172.56.27.121 (talk) 23:20, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

 Done. Thanks for the suggestion! JoeSperrazza (talk) 16:14, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Claims of pedo

Is this true? I noticed nothing in the article notes his penchant for underage girls. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/larry-womack/ted-nugents-jailbait-problem_b_4840060.html

Discussed many times in archive. Not reliable enough sources for WP:BLP purposes. And remember, BLP applies to talk pages too. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:39, 25 July 2014 (UTC)