Talk:Ted Nugent/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

New Stuff

New stuff and "solo career" are given huge space, yet pre-1980's history is, well, no existent. Could the reason be that Ted Nugent Astro Turffer be at work? 2601:8:9180:604:219:D1FF:FEA8:25F0 (talk) 18:56, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Unable to marry

It is not correct that "Due to the age difference they could not marry" [Nugent and "seventeen-year-old Hawaii native Pele Massa"]. They couldn't marry because Nugent was already married. Apart from that there was no legal impediment to marriage. Age different is not a legal impediment.Royalcourtier (talk) 23:26, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Got any sources? Meatsgains (talk) 17:35, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Unreliable source

@Instaurare: do you mean the Detroit Free Press is unreliable? [1] as reported in Media Matters For America [2], Salon (website) [3], Houston Press [4], Huffington Post [5], Wikiquote [6] etc. zzz (talk) 04:49, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Detroit Free Press was not the source cited. Media Matters and Salon are certainly not reliable. Instaurare (talk) 18:26, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Detroit Free Press is the original interview from 1990, which is cited in all the other refs. The Media Matters ref is useful, because it contains a link to the entire interview. --zzz (talk) 11:47, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Possible vandalism by KamiBroyles

Between February and May 2016, User:KamiBroyles made a series of edits to this page removing controversial elements of Ted Nugent's life (see Special:Contributions/KamiBroyles). Given that these edits were made with no discussion, are clearly one-sided, and the user has made no major edits outside of this page, it's clear that these edits constitute vandalism and should be reverted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:5500:34:37FF:6C6C:3C1:B7A:D122 (talk) 23:23, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

No, it's not clear from what you say above that those edits constitute vandalism. (Yes, your description makes it likely that they're vandalism; but the likelihood of vandalism isn't vandalism.) I could take a look and see whether or not they are vandalism, but I can't be bothered. And why not? Attribute it to my laziness if you like, but the edits were made months ago, since which time (i) other editors have been at work on this article, and (ii) this editor has dropped out.

A more important matter: Putting aside KamiBroyles' motivation in editing, did they remove any material that (i) really should not have been removed and (ii) hasn't subsequently been reinstated? If so, please specify this material (and its sources) below. -- Hoary (talk) 08:30, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Chop off their heads

Ted Nugent said in 2012 of Obama, Biden, HRC: "We should ride in there and chop their heads off". Why is this quote not on the main page???

Even if you have a source to confirm, it would more than likely be WP:UNDUE. Meatsgains (talk) 01:10, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Band members

I just saw Nugent in concert. Jason sang backing vocals and Greg sang the lead on a couple songs, I think that backing vocals should be added to Jason and lead vocals should be added to Greg. 4Guitars (talk) 15:14, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Percussion in infobox

Nugent is well-known for his percussion playing? Or equally as well-known as for his guitar playing?? I realise the article says "Ted Nugent – lead guitar, vocals, bass, percussion (1974–present)" in the "Band members" section, but this is the only mention in the entire article. And it's wholly unsourced. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:12, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Joe Rogan Experience

He was on the Joe Rogan podcast a couple of days ago (6/28/18). In it (towards the end), he says he made up the story about the draft dodging, because the people who interviewed him never got the facts right anyway, so he started messing with them. He also says the 4-F classification in Wikipedia is inaccurate. 206.174.231.219 (talk) 01:02, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Military Service

Mr. Nugent appears to represent all things conservative including gun rights. His bio does not mention a college education and based on his age, he was prime draft material. In the interest of full disclosure, it would be appropriate to disclose why he choose not to serve his country or provide comment on why he was not called. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.81.222.160 (talk) 02:32, 2 April 2018‎ (UTC)

Do you have any sources? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:28, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

"He did indeed receive a high school student deferment (1-S) in 1967 and then (as he stated) a college student deferment (2-S) in 1968. However, he was reclassified as “available for military service” (1-A) in 1969 and then subsequently rejected as a result of a physical examination and given a 1-Y classification. (The 1-Y classification denoted persons “qualified for service only in time of war or national emergency” and was generally assigned to registrants who had exhibited medical conditions that were limiting but not disabling.) After the 1-Y classification was eliminated by the Selective Service at the end of 1971, Nugent was reclassified as 4-F (“registrant not qualified for any military service”)." [7] zzz (talk) 20:37, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

I am dubious of the current account of how he ended up not being drafted, even if there are sources for it. It is hard to believe that a man as extraordinarily patriotic as Nugent, as tough as Nugent, with Nugent's incredible marksmanship skills, would dodge the draft. You would think he would have been eager to join the military. Timothy Horrigan (talk) 10:44, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

In all seriousness, there are no non-primary sources saying he deliberately failed his draft physical at all, let alone that he failed it by pooping in his pants for a week. His recent interview with Joe Rogan is also a primary source. I think it's fine to report that he has made various claims about his draft physical. His selective service record is a non-primary source and it shows that he failed a draft physical at a time which doesn't contradict (but also doesn't prove) his various tales. Timothy Horrigan (talk) 04:36, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

it would be interesting to read in the article a little bit more regarding his college career...did he have a major ? sociology ? physiology  ? elementary education ? music ? art  ? how long did he stick it out ? what kind of grades did he make ? did he sing in the glee club ? just curious 2600:1702:2340:9470:418C:5849:5BFF:3FE5 (talk) 01:29, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

"Notorious liars at snopes"

Nugent further stated that his 4-F rating on Wikipedia was "made up,"[22] despite the fact that the article sourced it to the notorious liars at snopes.[19][23]

New to this Wikipedia editing thing, so not sure if this is the right place to ask about this. The end of this sentence seems a bit weird. --73.136.69.61 (talk) 04:28, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

•  Done. Thanks for the note. I reverted the vandalism you saw. Binksternet (talk) 07:08, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Misuse of "dubious" tag

The part with his interview on the Joe Rogan show says

He also stated he was eligible for military service and passed a draft physical in 1969

And this was tagged as "dubious". Well the tag is only appropriate if it is dubious that he said it, not if it's dubious that what he said was true. See the difference? So I removed it, and lets use our tags correctly lads. Herostratus (talk) 04:20, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Adopted a 17 year old girl for sex?

whttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/larry-womack/ted-nugents-jailbait-problem_b_4840060.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:3B03:FD20:54B3:D1F8:8750:6018 (talk) 19:47, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

The huffpo link is not a news article, it is an opinion blog by someone who is clearly biased against Ted Nugent. The blogger's source of information links to a buzzfeed list titled "The 10 Craziest Things Ted Nugent Has Done". The buzzfeed list's source of information links to a vh1 page titled "100 Sleaziest Moments in Rock" which leads to a 404 page. This is not a credible source of information, considering the accusation being leveled here. This claim should be removed from the wikipedia page, at least until someone can provide a valid source of information.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.73.221.10 (talk) 19:54, 31 July 2018‎ (UTC)

I agree that doesn't look like the best source. Although not really sure what that 404 proves. But you may want to read this, where Pele Massa herself seems to confirm the claim made in the article, that you have now removed? The article says this:

"In an interview for a VH1 Behind the Music documentary about him, Nugent, who hit the peak of his career in the 1970s, acknowledged that when he was young — and even not-so-young — he was 'addicted to girls'.... 'I was a wang-dang addict, I was addicted to girls. Addicted. It was hopeless,' he said in the video. 'It was beautiful.'"

Martinevans123 (talk) 20:27, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

The 404 page was the source that buzzfeed, and by extension huffpo, were citing when quoting the marriage to a 17 year old. Since the page doesn't exist, we can't use the huffpo page or the buzzfeed page as valid sources. The politico page you linked to just now also fails to prove anything. It links to a vh1 documentary as it's source, but the link leads to another 404 page. The quote you posted also says nothing about marrying a 17 year old. I'm perfectly willing to believe that Ted Nugent is a scumbag, but Wikipedia is supposed to be unbiased and use real sources to cite facts.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.187.217.83 (talk) 22:11, 31 July 2018‎

Could you please sign your posts? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:13, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Which link in the politico.com story is giving you the 404? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:19, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

The politico article states "“I was a wang-dang addict, I was addicted to girls. Addicted. It was hopeless,” he said in the video. “It was beautiful.”" The word "said" is a hyperlink to a vh1 article. Clicking the link leads to a 404 page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.187.217.83 (talk) 22:23, 31 July 2018‎

Thanks. Could you please sign your posts? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:27, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

That's interesting. I get a link to the VH1 Facebook page. Similarly, that Buzzfeed link to""100 Sleaziest Moments in Rock" list" links to the same VH1 Facebook page. Not that that's very useful, of course. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:29, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

I checked the sources in the article when I looked over your edit, and I disagree with your assessment of them. To quote WP:SOURCE, "Source material must have been published, the definition of which for our purposes is 'made available to the public in some form'." A quick google search confirms that the VH1 documentary exists, was broadcast, and can even be watched on Youtube - saying that the info should be removed because you followed a broken link is ... well, a bit daft, really. Especially since sources also don't have to be available online. The Politico article is also clearly not an opinion piece, so even if we dismiss all the other sources on the grounds that they're opinion pieces (which isn't a valid reason), that one would remain. Essentially, I think you've misunderstood the verifiability policy. Marianna251TALK 23:02, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

The broken link I followed is what wikipedia was using as a source of information, which you've just added back to the page. If broken links and tabloid count as valid sources of facts for wikipedia, then wikipedia is clearly an unreliable source of information. Also, posting that one song in the same paragraph as the accusations is clearly an attempt to create bias. Song lyrics are not evidence of real life actions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.187.217.83 (talk) 01:30, 1 August 2018‎

None of the references linked in the article here are 404s, so I'm still not sure why you have a problem with that - this Wikipedia article was flatly not using a broken link as a source of information. Even if it was, WP:DEADLINK explains how to rescue a dead link, and WP:KDL explains that dead links can still be useful (although we should try to find alternative sources in support). It's also why references should include more information than just the link, so that the source can be identified in other ways if/when a link breaks. I agree with you that the song lyrics don't belong there, but I disagree that it's an "attempt to create bias", if only because we're not psychic we need to remember to assume good faith. Thank you for removing them, regardless.

Once again: please sign your talk page posts. If you're not sure how, please check your talk page - I left a note there explaining how to do it. Marianna251TALK 08:48, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

I wholly agree. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:19, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

This is a pseudo-discussion. The statements he made in the video do not support in any way the underage girl story, which he denied on the Rogan podcast.138.246.2.50 (talk) 17:37, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Source contradicts 'fact' about family life

Under the subsection 'Family' in the section 'Personal life', the article states that knowledge of Nugent's first two children (that he gave up for adoption) only became public in 2010. However, the existence of these children had been reported 20 years earlier, in the Detroit Free Press Magazine of July 1990, which already serves as a reference and a source for other information in the Ted Nugent Wikipedia article: https://www.scribd.com/doc/214489436/Ted-Nugent-Grows-Up-The-Detroit-Free-Press-Magazine-July-15-1990 The relevant info is low down on page 10 of the document: "He had given a son up for adoption in 1967. His first daughter, Starr Stricklin, was born in 1970 to a woman he dated before his marriage."

I don't really know the most appropriate way to fix this myself, but perhaps someone can check the reference to make sure I'm right, then make the necessary amendments to the article. Ninkerty Nonk (talk) 13:29, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Joe Rogan Experience

FMSky I find it risible that Wikipedia would include a retrospectively reputational rehabilitative statement made on some guy's podcast.

but that's just me soibangla (talk) 06:48, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

on second thought and after reading his statements in Behind the Music i agree its BS --FMSky (talk) 07:01, 21 January 2024 (UTC)