Talk:Ace Ventura: Pet Detective

Transphobic?
I think there should be a discussion of this movies transphobia. Lois Einhorn is a trans woman who is brutally sexually assaulted by Ace, and there is no mention of that in the article. This is not true at all. If your simple mind understood the movie you would realize that Ray Finkle dresses up like a woman to get revenge on Dan Marino. He is not Trans!!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.65.70.36 (talk) 05:29, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually Finkle engages in rape by fraud in the movie, so he is the one who sexually assaulted people not the other way around. And obviously someone getting breast implants does not necessarily indicate any kind of trans status.  He still has testicles, was never diagnosed with gender dysphoria, and was never granted a legal sex change by the government.  You might be unaware of this but many schizophrenic people attempt to have trans treatments done to them.  http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10226303 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.207.136.200 (talk • contribs) 09:58, January 6, 2015 (UTC)


 * Spoken like a true transmisogynist. Trans women are women regardless of surgery, legal status, professional diagnosis, neurodivergence, and every other nitpick you might come up with - if someone tells you she's a woman, she's a woman. It's in absolutely no way "fraud" for a trans woman not to tell someone she's trans, especially not a violent transmisogynist who goes on to assault her. This film is shockingly reactionary in its transmisogyny and incredibly harmful to transfeminine people, and Wikipedia's article should at least acknowledge the issue. 00dani (talk) 00:34, 3 February 2017 (UTC)


 * I agree that there should be discussion of transphobia in this article. Many commentators have talked about this, so there are plenty of good articles for sourcing/referencing. The film really is horrendously transphobic: it ends with THE GOOD GUY fucking hazing a trans woman in front of a crowd of cops. When I was a child, I walked away from this film in absolute tears.


 * And yeah, you can try to make the argument, "Oh, Finkle wasn't really trans! He was just crossdressing as part of a wacky convoluted revenge scheme!" But here's the thing: loads of movies try to get away with transphobic violence by having obviously trans characters be "technically not trans". Remember The Silence Of The Lambs? That movie has done more to cement the "trans people as crazy murderers" image in people's heads than any other in history.


 * Ace Ventura – Pet Detective is widely considered a transphobic movie by commentators, you can find many good sources supporting this analysis, and I think it should be mentioned in the "Reception" section.


 * Lionboy-Renae (talk) 17:53, 31 March 2017 (UTC)


 * I have been returning to this article periodically to check if anyone had touched upon the blatant transphobia exhibited in the film - as of today (11 January 2018), no one had, so I went ahead and added a subsection under reception to touch upon this. I have also noticed that in the plot description the author of that section intermittently switches pronouns when referring to Lt. Einhorn - I intend to resolve this at a later time (among other grammatical inconsistencies), unless someone else can get to it first.


 * Ghostsax 16:23, 11 January 2018 (UTC)


 * , BuzzFeed may be challenged by others. I recommend looking up results in Google Books. You can search for "ace ventura" transphobia|transphobic to find results like this. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 16:39, 11 January 2018 (UTC)


 * , thank you for pointing this out, I had kind of figured that it might be. The article that I cited did seem well researched and written, but I will work on finding another one regardless. Ghostsax 16:51, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

This is why wikipedia is so shitty. This right here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.138.213.196 (talk) 06:43, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is a space for unbiased encyclopedic information, and this film is objectively transphobic. There's no motive or bias at work here, just plain old historical accuracy. If you don't find that to your liking you might want to reconsider your reasons for being a contributor here (although attempting to remove an entire section out of spite and personal distaste isn't necessarily much of a contribution).
 * Ghostsax 9:41, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
 * When it comes to trans issues, there is simply no objective truth, only perceived feelings of entitlement. What might be offensive for one person might be a signal of empowerment to others. After all, as mentioned above, the fact that this movie and Silence of the Lambs contain trans characters at all can be perceived as a sign of inclusiveness and tolerance to the collective, even if the characters themselves are flawed, petty or outright villanous. That shouldn't mean that all trans-people are like that, the same way that I do not believe any individual speaks for the entirety of the group they adhere to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.249.150.94 (talk) 19:52, 16 September 2019 (UTC)


 * I've re-removed that section per WP:UNDUE and WP:SYNTH. I suggest you yourself consult WP:CIVIL. Jtrainor (talk) 08:08, 20 March 2018 (UTC)


 * , Meredith Talusan is a BuzzFeed News Reporter, which is different from just any BuzzFeed contributor. The reliability depends on the context of the piece. The Guardian has a description of her: "Meredith Talusan is a transgender writer and photographer based in New York. Her work has appeared in The Nation, The American Prospect, and is upcoming in Vice." Furthermore, the Google Books link I provided above shows that there are additional sources about the topic in this film. Pinging as an involved editor. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 16:36, 20 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Thank you for pinging me on this. My original concern was the removal of the section that I saw had no comment referencing discussion on the talk page, making me suspect a vandal edit.  That issue is resolving itself as we discuss this here, though.
 * EDIT: As a personal favor, I ask anyone making edits to this section please be sure to flag a reason and indicate any consensus in the edit comments when you make your changes. Otherwise, it looks a lot like a vandal edit and might get reverted by someone else on vandal patrol.  -- KNHaw   (talk)  20:13, 20 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Weighing in on the merits of this discussion, I remember watching the film years ago and the word "transphobic" literally was not in my vocabulary. Reflecting on it now, though... yeah, the Einhorn character is basically mocked/humiliated for laughs because she is trans.  The kidnapping plot is pretty much irrelevant to the characters' reaction after that revelation.  She's basically (in the logic of the movie) a sexual predator by nature of being trans.  Yes, the notion of rape by fraud/deception in this context and the possibility that she is schizophrenic are both valid and would make a great idea for a movie - but that movie is definitely not Ace Ventura.  Einhorn is not arrested for the supposed rapes - instead she's publicly punished in full view of the entire police department.  If that isn't singling out her behavior for special punishment, I don't know what is.


 * I like that the section has multiple sources now. It also clearly labels the opinions of those who feel it is transphobic as opinions.  If someone wants to weigh in in the section and make a well sourced counter point (the rape/schizophrenic discussion above might be the foundation of such a counterpoint - taking care not to get into "she deserves humiliation" territory), I think that'd be a great thing to see.  But I think the section as it stands should stay.  I haven't seen a call for a formal vote on this, but if there is one I vote it should stay.


 * -- KNHaw  (talk)  19:17, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

A couple of points about the section as it currently stands (a) I think the section title should be Transgender representation downplaying the transphobia, because as the sources point out, the film was a product of its time and Transgender representation is a more neutral term. (b) the first sentence of the section doesn't mention the film making the whole section seem to come from left field, this needs to be tweaked / rearranged. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:21, 20 March 2018 (UTC)


 * To update on this discussion, I've updated the section heading to be more to the point per 's suggestion, not because I find it necessary to "downplay" anything, but to make the heading more succinct. The discussed transphobia is a reaction to the transgender character. Also, while condensed the section, I thought it a bit too much since I found the academic sources to qualify as due weight. Not that I had an issue with BuzzFeed News or Slant Magazine, but I was fine with focusing on the academic ones to avoid a "coatrack" concern (meaning much more focus on this sub-topic than any other sub-topic). In this vein, I've also expanded the box office and critical reception sections to move away from this appearance. Not sure if there is any retrospective coverage about this film beyond the transgender representation sub-topic, but if there is any, we can include it to continue making the article well-rounded. Lastly, due to IP vandalism, I've requested semi-protection of this page. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 13:37, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Just for the record. I agree with Eriks decondensation of my condensed version. Good job. Kleuske (talk) 15:15, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree, that the current version (and sources) are significantly better than earlier. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:32, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I reworked some of the sentence structure & fixed a few grammatical mistakes, but otherwise it seems to be objective and well-sourced. Thanks to everyone contributing to this. Ghostsax 12:08, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

i think this is a fringe issue and ultimately unimportant to 99% of wikipedia users — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.98.102.138 (talk • contribs) 00:39, January 27, 2019 (UTC)

I think this answer was perfect and the transmisogynist stuff that came ahead is nonsensical. I've scrubbed that off. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.21.91.10 (talk • contribs) 21:42, January 5, 2021 (UTC)


 * IP editor blanked most of this discussion as seen here, and I reverted them. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 23:35, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't your fringe repository / place to display your political agenda. That information is not objective or encyclopedic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.66.255.183 (talk) 10:33, 6 January 2021 (UTC)


 * The topic has been covered by reliable sources. WP:FRINGE does not apply. Take it up on Fringe theories/Noticeboard and see where it gets you. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 12:33, 6 January 2021 (UTC)


 * CNN has this article here that mentions this film as one of a couple of examples that "feature cisgender straight men vomiting repeatedly after learning they had touched a trans woman". Not fringe at all. Presentation of the content can be discussed, but blanking is inappropriate per Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 12:42, 6 January 2021 (UTC)


 * A couple more:
 * The Ringer here says, ''The [trans woman] revelation causes Ace, who had kissed Einhorn in an earlier scene, to become violently ill." (more in article)
 * The Hollywood Reporter here says, "Ventura's over-the-top negative reaction to his discovery that Lt. Lois Einhorn is transgender (she was previously Dolphins kicker Ray Finkle) has been a source of controversy since Ace Ventura's debut."
 * Thanks, Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 12:47, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

There's no difference between three or five biased unencyclopedic sources. The section is not encyclopedycal, it's WP:FRINGE and it's totally biased on some personal political agenda of few people. Transphobia is a real issue, but this movie doesn't potray it at all. Stop bringing your political agenda to wikipedia, this has to stop. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.64.164.96 (talk) 15:48, 6 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Please comment under . Despite your claims, these sources are reliable. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 15:50, 6 January 2021 (UTC)


 * i have no intention of wasing my time over some random guy on the internet that thinks he's right. biased sources are not reliable for definition. the entire section was put up just because you and another guy kept pushing it until it became part of the section. stop ruining wikipedia with this shit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.66.230.187 (talk • contribs) 15:56, January 6, 2021 (UTC)


 * You are wasting your time, though, trying to remove reliably-sourced content because you disagree with its coverage. Wikipedia didn't lead the way with the coverage, it summarized preexisting coverage and continues to summarize it. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 16:04, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Transgender issues
Someone persists in trying to remove the "Transgender portrayal" section. Pinging those last involved in the discussion about it:, , ,. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 11:40, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree with Someone that the section gets undue weight. However, removing the entire section (repeatedly and w/o discussion) qualifies as disruptive editing and is, ultimately, a matter for WP:AIV rather than this TP. Kleuske (talk) 12:16, 12 April 2018 (UTC)


 * I'd suggest asking for temporary protection on the page, but this arises sporadically every few months so the protection would likely expire and we'd be back on this treadmill again. And, frankly, asking for permanent protection seems like overkill.  Does anyone have any other suggestions on this?
 * Irrespective of the vandalism discussion, what are your ideas for the section? Streamlining it?  To be clear:  I'm not suggesting (and I don't think you were either) caving into vandals by reducing a section, but I am interested in hearing your ideas.  We can break this into a new section in the talk page if you want.
 * -- KNHaw  (talk)  17:20, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I can live with a paragraph on this topic, referring to a more specific article on the subject. You could even (legitimately) use the main part of the current section to provide a notable example. Someone is right that the article is on a (rather unsophisticated) comedy, not transgender issues. But vandal or no vandal, the issue has been raised, so let's talk... Kleuske (talk) 17:55, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
 * What exactly does "undue weight" mean here? Too many words on the sub-topic, or not enough words on other sub-topics, existing or potential? I had expanded the box office and critical reception sections to the best of my ability. In some researching, there may be some more retrospective content about the film in matters of comedy history as well as portrayal of masculinity. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 17:59, 12 April 2018 (UTC)


 * It is worth noting that the sources in the paragraph are basically the only recent sources in article (except the reboot one). As such they embody the the current view of the film, so I don't see a problem with balance of the article. I might suggest compromising by making it a subsection of the legacy section though, which makes the time-frame clearer to the casual reader. If anons have a problem, request indefinite semi protection for the article. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:10, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree that migrating it to the legacy section might be more appropriate, since the film's misrepresentation of transgender people is a large part of that. This might additionally help to reduce the perceived "undue weight" that it is given, in the context of the rest of the article. Also, indefinite protection might be a necessity at this point; it seems that many pages containing mention of transgender people or issues are consistently targeted for vandalism (Transgender has been indefinitely protected since 2011). Ghostsax (talk) 12:42, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Hate to say it, but the "Legacy" section as it stands does not warrant keeping. The first sentence is unsourced (and untrue since Carrey was known as TV talent before the 1994 films), and the award-related ones could be in their own "Accolades" section (IMDb mentions a few more, and we could do a table for all of them). So that means nothing left for the "Legacy" section itself. We would need to research other sub-topics so the "Transgender portrayal" section is not the only one. I did find another source that discusses in retrospect Carrey's acting. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 13:46, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm in favor of deleting the section entirely as it represents a blatantly WP:FRINGE viewpoint. The first clue is that all three cited sources deal specifically with transgenderism; there's absolutely nothing from film critics (or the mainstream media in general, apart from the New York Times op). Nor is there any response from the film's creators to suggest that they take these assertions seriously or have even noticed them. Second, even these sources seem to mention the film only in passing, and do not identify it as exceptional in its portrayal of transgenderism.

Moreover, even such trivial mentions of Ace Ventura in the context of transgenderism represent a gross misrepresentation of the film's plot, because the film does not portray transgenderism at all. The film is explicit that Ray Finkle was changing identities to avoid detection, only switching genders incidentally. This is such a fundamental plot point that the only way one could overlook it is if one lacked basic comprehension skills - or more likely, were simply scouting for fodder for the current outrage fad.--Martin IIIa (talk) 15:17, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The commentary is published in reliable sources, and there are additional such sources not included here for the sake of brevity. Another reliable source countering the commentary would be needed. Wikipedia follows what the sources have said about a given topic. Anything else said is POV and thus not applicable here. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 17:07, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Coverage in reliable sources is not the only standard for inclusion in Wikipedia. I never said counter viewpoints should be added; including a counterargument to a fringe theory is even worse than including the fringe theory itself, because it adds to the misrepresentation that the theory is significant.--Martin IIIa (talk) 23:51, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
 * What aspect of the section do you consider to be "fringe theory"? There's nothing theoretical about it; the section deals with honest retrospective observations concerning the subject matter in question. There are a significant number of reliable sources that support these observations & as such, it is relevant to the article, and should not be removed. Ghostsax (talk) 4:44, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The whole section is fringe, hence why I support deleting it. That these are "honest retrospective observations" is highly questionable, for reasons I've already given above, but more to the point, contrary to the lead sentence of the section they don't make any significant comment on the film; they just say "This film portrays transgenderism in the same way as every other film made in the 1990s does."--Martin IIIa (talk) 18:53, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

I've expanded the article further. It now includes the Los Angeles Times reporting that critics at the time considering it homophobic (as well as "mean-spirited" and "needlessly raunchy"). It also includes that Carrey sought such a provocative scene. Furthermore, this matter appears to have been discussed as early as 2007 with the book Into the Closet: Cross-Dressing and the Gendered Body in Children's Literature and Film, preceding the above claim of being related to "the current outrage fad". Furthermore, the section is not the extent of sources available writing about this scene, but we do not need to include any more text. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 16:29, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

0.6% of the population really don't warrant a paragraph half the size of the plot in a general knowledge encyclopedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.98.102.138 (talk) 00:44, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

As pointed out, there is no trans portrayal in the movie. Simply a deranged ex-NFL man attempting to hide identities to get revenge. Nothing suggests a transgender character, except for the mental illness the character was committed form PatentlyObtuse (talk) 09:49, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

I am unsure it needs quite this much attention, a paragraph in the body. Not its own section, as per wp:undue.Slatersteven (talk) 16:35, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

References to use
References to use. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 19:38, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
 * We Interviewed Cannibal Corpse About That One Time They Were in 'Ace Ventura: Pet Detective'
 * An 'Ace Ventura' Reboot Might Happen, But Fans Can Rest Easy In Knowing It Won't Be An Exact Replica
 * The Stars of 'Ace Ventura: Pet Detective': Where Are They Now?
 * Ace Ventura: Pet Detective review: Does it hold up to modern views?
 * Comedy in the ’90s, Part 2: The Year Jim Carrey Arrived

Trans portrayal is covered in the book Navigating Trans and Complex Gender Identities. Screenshot of the relevant passage is here (page 88). Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 17:51, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Joe Rogan
A few news articles have covered Joe Rogan bringing up the transphobic issues in this film, like this and this. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 17:26, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Fringe theories noticeboard

 * The applicability of WP:FRINGE to the "Transgender portrayal" section was requested at Fringe theories/Noticeboard permalink. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 15:39, 6 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Since there are two somewhat messy preexisting sections above, I thought it would be appropriate to have a new and distinct section for the applicability of WP:FRINGE. I hope you don't mind my moving your comment to this section. Will await additional feedback from the noticeboard's editors. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 15:39, 6 January 2021 (UTC) Was replying to editor who seemed like they came from WP:FTN, but apparently they prefer not to have their comment under this section as seen here. Apologies for assuming the connection. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 16:35, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * As I said over at the Fringe Theory Noticeboard, the invocation of WP:FRINGE for this section is entirely spurious. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 16:15, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I'd have no objection to it being trimmed, and to it becoming a paragraph in the 'critical reception' section rather than having its own section. I don't think it should be cut entirely though. Girth Summit  (blether)  16:30, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * There's definitely enough coverage that it has to be mentioned somewhere in the article, but yeah, I'm not sure giving it its own top-level section is WP:DUE. It could be a subsection of the critical response section, or just a paragraph of it, depending on how prominent this aspect is in modern coverage of the film (which would require spending some time going over sources.) Alternatively the section could be turned into a broader one (or a broader subsection of the critical reception section) about its long-term reevaluation; although, again, I'm not sure its long-term evaluation covers much outside of this, so I would expect such a section would still be largely about this unless people can come up with a bunch of sources for other aspects. If you look at eg. Gone with the Wind (film), which seems like the most comparable case, it has a top-level section for Analysis and controversy, with Racial criticism as a subsection of that - that seems like the way to go here, though I would avoid "controversy" per WP:CSECTION and there might not be enough sources to break it up into multiple subsections. (I definitely don't think this is WP:FRINGE, though - these views are definitely non-fringe based on the existing sourcing, the question here is WP:DUE and how much weight to give them, both in terms of overall text and in terms of the article structure.) --Aquillion (talk) 08:11, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't find WP:DUE applicable here. It is a matter of sorting content, and this subtopic is too distinct from other subtopics to be grouped with others. Commentary not from film critics have usually gotten their own section, like "Historical accuracy" or "Political commentary". Furthermore, the section is at the end of the article body after the staple sections. Also, from what I've seen, in recent sources that cover Ace Ventura: Pet Detective more than in passing, this portrayal gets brought up. Like this brings it up as part of revisiting the film. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 16:08, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Permanent links for referencing: Thanks, Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 20:56, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Fringe theories/Noticeboard/Archive 76
 * Neutral point of view/Noticeboard/Archive 87

Section heading
The article has had "Transgender portrayal" as the section heading for a long time now, and IP editor believes that it should be "Criticisms of transphobia" instead. I do not think this complies with WP:STRUCTURE. What do other editors think? Do we need to request a Third opinion? Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 17:41, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

For more in why I think WP:STRUCTURE applies, see the essay Criticism. I think "Transgender portrayal" is, per WP:STRUCTURE, a "broadly neutral" presentation. If Jim Carrey or the filmmakers were to respond to the commentary or do some kind of defending on comedy grounds, then that section heading would be even more appropriate since "Criticisms" would be too narrowly focused. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 17:51, 16 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Jim Carrey and the filmmakers haven't done anything like that, so that's not relevant here. The section details criticisms people have had of the film being transphobic. Ergo, 'criticisms of transphobia' is an appropriate subheading that describes what the section's discussing and applies to WP:STRUCTURE 92.10.13.209 (talk) 17:59, 16 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Actually, Carrey already commented on it at the time of release, as reiterated by The Ringer here. That is covered in the "Production" section. A more complete approach to WP:STRUCTURE would be to move Carrey's commentary to that section, thus rendering "Criticisms" ineligible. "Transgender portrayal" can cover the criticisms and the at-the-time explaining-away. I don't think you'll change your mind, though, so do you want to request a Third opinion? Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 18:05, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
 * No I don't. We came here to reach a consensus and see what other editors think, so that's what I want to happen. 92.10.13.209 (talk) 18:08, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, I mention WP:3O because it's what is suggested at WP:CONTENTDISPUTE involving only two editors. While this page is on 127 editors' watchlists (per page statistics), that does not necessarily mean that one of these editors will show up and weigh in for sure. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 18:31, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I know but they might, so I'm gonna wait. It's only been a few hours. 92.10.13.209 (talk) 19:59, 16 June 2022 (UTC)