Talk:Jesse Ventura/Archive 2

new picture
please, someone get a new picture of him. the current picture looks like shit.

The picture on the NavySEALS.com site (http://www.navyseals.com/jesse-ventura) is the same picture as the current blurry one. If a lower-resolution picture is considered a work of the US Government, wouldn't a higher-resolution version of the same photograph taken from another source also be considered public domain? Senatorpjt (talk) 11:17, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Kudos to Smithj 33 for adding a clear, high-resolution version of the photo. Much better!--JayJasper (talk) 17:35, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

The reference to him being a Seal is patently incorrect.

Janos served with UDT 12 and was never a Seal nor does he have the right to call himself one. He does so by claiming the UDT and SEAL teams were combined, which they were, 9 years after he left. Only those soldiers who served after this time have the right to call themselves Seals. Janos is a fake using appeal to authority. 98.226.124.64 (talk) 19:07, 18 May 2009 (UTC) That is correct, UDT was nothing like the seals back in Vietnam. Janos, later known as Ventura, never saw any action what so ever and was never a navy seal. Why he couldn´t just tell people he was UDT is beyond me, that´s not a bad accomplishment at all. On the contrary, it´s bloody well done. I guess it quite didn´t give the "braggingrights" he wanted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.179.12.93 (talk) 17:02, 1 December 2009 (UTC)


 * First, you should learn to spell "SEAL". Ventura served his reserve duty with SEAL Team One.  Ergo, a SEAL.  Capt. Larry Bailey confirms.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.171.176.155 (talk) 21:20, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I would like to reiterate that the Seals and the UDT were different units with different missions. The Website cited above "NavySEALS.com" is not an official Navy website, (it doesn't end in .mil) it doesn't claim to be and shouldn't be used as a reference for a biography. V7-sport (talk) 03:22, 11 March 2010 (UTC)v7-Sport

He was not SEAL team during his service. His book says UDT 12. However after the UDT merged it's possible the Navy changed his designation as UDT from NEC 5321/22 to SEAL Combat Swimmer NEC 5326, his DD 214 form would show his designation. Retroactively paperworked a SEAL maybe. He could be getting by on a technicality. Satanico (talk) 23:10, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Since Ventura was out of the Navy for 8 years before some of the frogmen became SEALs I don't think they went back and retroactively changed his designation. Thing is, the SEAL teams existed when Governor Ventura was in the UDT. Ventura could have gotten the additional training and transferred had he wished to do so. There is absolutely nothing to be ashamed about being a frogmman IMHO, but they didn't see combat like the SEALs did. V7-sport (talk) 03:22, 11 March 2010 (UTC)v7-Sport
 * Since Ventura served as NEC 5321 and it no longer exists what would his NEC be when he claims benefits? Does the Navy classify retirees using obsolete codes? Many sailors have multiple codes could he be 5321 and 5326? Only he can show the specifics but the general practice of merged ratings might answer it, regardless of the reality of his service or how he describes it the NEC officially classifies him. Satanico (talk) 23:34, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Re his NEC designation; it wouldn't matter what the latest NEC code is by the way, only what he mustered out with. V7-sport (talk) 02:37, 14 March 2010 (UTC)V7-Sport
 * Wouldn't matter to who? If the US Navy is officially designating him a SEAL that does matter. Satanico (talk) 20:14, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Do you have information that the US Navy officially designated him a SEAL? My (admittedly unclear) point was whatever is on your DD-214 (discharge papers) is arguably what your status should be and I have never heard of that being changed retroactively. For benefits like TRICARE the occupational specialty code isn't even asked for. V7-sport (talk) 23:30, 14 March 2010 (UTC)V7-Sport
 * After he was released from active duty in 1973, he joined Reserve SEAL Team ONE. So he should be able to produce a DD-214 today that has a SEAL NEC. Larry Bailey, Captain, USN (Ret.) Navy Special Warfare Command is supposedly the source for his reserve status reported by channel WCCO-TV in Minnesota. Satanico (talk) 19:45, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Rank?
"Petty Officer" isn't a rank. Does anyone know what his paygrade was in the Navy? HedgeFundBob (talk) 04:00, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Not a Libertarian
Jesse Ventura is not a true libertarian.67.188.207.19 (talk) 23:49, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * He self-identifies as a "moderate libertarian", so the category tag is valid.--JayJasper (talk) 19:13, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Jesse Ventura was not a SEAL
Please stop removing the section and references that that show this. Rapier1 (talk) 22:24, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Please take a look at this . We can have the controversy in, but not the way it has been added recently. It's really trivial in any case. Dougweller (talk) 07:59, 13 March 2010 (UTC)


 * "Later a writer in California would question whether Ventura was even a real Navy SEAL. Bill Salisbury, a San Diego attorney and former SEAL, wrote an article for the San Diego Reader, questioning Ventura's credentials. Ventura went through SEAL training, but actually served with an underwater demolition team, or UDT. SEALs (Sea, Air, and Land units) conducted combat and clandestine operations during the Vietnam War. UDTs performed, as their name implies, underwater demolition operations and reconnaissance missions. "No one from UDT during the Vietnam War would dare represent himself as a SEAL," Salisbury wrote, claiming SEALs always faced more danger."


 * "Ventura wouldn't comment publicly about Salisbury's claims, but, as he's often fond of saying, it turns out to be "much ado about nothing." In 1983 UD'Is merged with the SEAL teams and there is now considered little distinction between the two. Most UDT members from Ventura's era now consider themselves SEALs with the Navy's blessing."
 * I think we should mention the controversy but make sure that the article doesn't say he falsely claimed, and include the last bit of the quote. Dougweller (talk) 08:46, 13 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The following is of course not a definite source for comparing UDTs and SEALs with regard to the risks they faced in Vietnam, but it shows that UDTs apparently did much more than demolish stuff that happened to be under water:


 * Cs32en  Talk to me  14:32, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Have to go on vacation for 10 days, so I'll let other editors hash this out. My edit was based on the fact that Ventura himself refers to himself as a Navy SEAL in his book, and the source listed does an excellent job of showing why that simply isn't the case.  I appreciate any correction.  Thanks! Rapier1 (talk) 16:25, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I couldn't access Dougweller's link but this is from The San Diego Reader from the same author. The UDT co-existed at the same time as the SEALS and were tasked with different missions. They had different training, different uniforms and different requirements. What is not in dispute is that Governer Ventura was in the UDT while there were SEAL teams. Ventura has also stated that he was not in combat;("Ventura had never specifically claimed to have fought in Vietnam.") Someone like Ventura could have raised the profile of the UDT, it's a shame he didn't. V7-sport (talk) 03:02, 14 March 2010 (UTC)V7-sport
 * Combat is not the only thing that is difficult, demanding and risky in war. If you go past the enemy lines to demolish things, you would want to do it in a small group, and most likely you would avoid to get into combat. I don't know, however, if Ventura was involved in such activities. Cs32en   Talk to me  02:33, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I found an interview on Minnesota public radio where "Governor Ventura's office confirmed that Ventura was never a member of the elite Navy SEALs" and "his spokesman, John Wodele, confirms Ventura was in the UDT's, and he says the Governor has never tried to convince people otherwise."V7-sport (talk) 06:45, 16 March 2010 (UTC)V7-sport
 * I removed 2 links from the "Early life" section which violated WP:NPOv However the San Diego Reader and Minnesota Public Radio citations are absolutely credible BLP citations. V7-sport (talk) 09:32, 21 March 2010 (UTC)V7-sport
 * The credibility of the San Diego Reader article is extremely debateable. It is written in a very derogatory fashion and is simply a self-published opinion piece. If these accusations are in any way notable they should have been covered by a more reliable source - indeed for inclusion in a BLP they must have been. In addition the accusations were given further undue weight by their inclusion in the 'early life' section. These accusations do not form a part of Venturas early life and if actual reliable sources are found they should be included further down the article in a different section. Weakopedia (talk) 10:58, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

The San Diego Reader article is not self-published and it was posted because it prompted the governors office to rebut it on NPR which is absolutely a reliable source. Minnesota Public Radio "operates a regional network of 34 stations (not all of which are in Minnesota) and is a major station-based producer of public radio programs for National Public Radio." The NPR source is simply unimpeachable and that NPR source specifically refers to the San Diego Reader article. As for moving this into it's own section that a possibility would open up space to expand on some of his contradictory statements however as it is the citations are absolutely legitimate. V7-sport (talk) 17:21, 21 March 2010 (UTC)V7-sport
 * Well then, put the allegations in an appropriate section and we can deal with their validity, but adding them to the 'early life' section is inappropriate. A criticism section should be easy enough to establish, Ventura has had criticism but not, as far as this article states, in his early life. That came later. Weakopedia (talk) 19:19, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * As you wish, I will add a "military Career" section in chronological order, one down from "early life". V7-sport (talk) 20:22, 21 March 2010 (UTC)V7-sport
 * I did as requested and added a "Navy Career section, even though the page looked better before. I hope that satisfies everyone. V7-sport (talk) 20:22, 21 March 2010 (UTC)V7-sport


 * There is no claim in the article that Ventura was a SEAL; nor have you provided any documentation that he ever claimed to be a SEAL. A refutation of a claim never made amounts to nothing but a pot-shot. Removed. Yworo (talk) 23:08, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The sources you removed contained both the claim and the refutation, that was the point. This article may not claim that Ventura was ever a SEAL however the source you removed did say that he claimed to once be a SEAL. The question is whether or not the source is reliable. It wouldn't ever be up to a Wikipedia article to make such a claim, only to report on claims made by others that can be reliably verified. That said I am not sure that the sources which you removed were reliable or proved notability of the discussion, so I agree with you but for different reasons. Weakopedia (talk) 23:19, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * If you want to go back through the articles history you will see that there has been a persistent effort to call him a Navy SEAL, (I can only speculate that it is from his fans) and include the Navy SEAL tag, linking him to lists of notable SEALS etc. If I were to post "reliable documentation that Ventura claimed to have been a SEAL" like "I'm a warrior at heart, I'm an ex-Navy Seal, said Mr. Ventura, who is clearly enjoying his campaign. " or "I couldn't care less what a person's sexual orientation is, and I'm an ex-Navy SEAL." or from his autobiography "We're a proud organization. If anyone tries to pretend they're a SEAL, God help them." (I Ain't Got Time to Bleed) etc.... If I were to include any of those or the other instances where he has claimed to be a SEAL, which is why Cmdr Salisbury wrote the article would that be fair? Or would there be an issue with that? I seriously don't want to create controversy, that's why I have sourced everything carefully and removed anything that doesn't pass WP:BLP. V7-sport (talk) 00:24, 22 March 2010 (UTC)V7-Sport
 * Back from vacation and I just wanted to say that I'm very happy with this compromise that is in place. It states the two sides of the argument clearly and also states the final position of the Ventura Administration.  Just the facts.  Good work all. Rapier1 (talk) 05:51, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I have no problem with the refutation so long as the claim can be sourced from an independent source. I see that's been done, sourcing the claim to his autobiography. I have no further problem with how this has been done now. Yworo (talk) 14:57, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

WP:WEIGHT says that how much weight is appropriate for a topic should reflect the weight that is given in current reliable sources and that an article's coverage of individual events or opinions involving its subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the topic. It notes that the placement of the text within the article can give undue weight. Given that the issue over Ventura's claims about his military record hasn't been shown to have been widely reported in the press does it justify it's inclusion so soon into the article?

The text begins 'Responding to comments Ventura made on the campaign trail and in his autobiography' so is there any reason not to have the text within the section that deals with his political career? Or the post-gubernatorial career section where there are other pieces about things he has said that folk have disagreed with. But having it as one of the first things a reader sees suggests that it was something widely reported as significant which hasn't been shown. Weakopedia (talk) 15:35, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * If we are going to move this section down to the criticisms section we should probably remove the navy career section in it's entirety and insert it back into the early life section. I have to say that this additional compromise doesn't lend proper weight to the facts about his career in the USN considering that he references his service frequently, which can also be demonstrated. V7-sport (talk) 23:46, 24 March 2010 (UTC)V7-Sport
 * I moved the Navy Career section to just above the Criticisms section and reincorporated the SEALS section into it. Separating the two sections will force the reader to hunt around for pertinent information and doesn't make any sense as this had nothing to do with his political career. The fact that he frequently cites his "SEAL" experience (Look at his portrait and you will see a SEALS trident on his jacket, if you look at his previous portrait he is wearing a SEALS tee shirt) gives this more weight than the current position would indicate. I further think the rest of the criticisms should be incorporated into their respective topics. If Rapier, who authored the criticisms topic wishes I will do it or if not, Ill leave it alone. V7-sport (talk) 03:19, 25 March 2010 (UTC)V7-Sport
 * Thanks for being a great editor V7 and for your willingness to work with others to get an article right. I agree completely with you.  The only reason the "Military Career" section was put in was to put this aspect of his life in it's proper place, and then we got complaints that it was given undue weight because of it's (chronological) place in the article, so I created the criticism section.  If you would like to do it you probably have more time than I do.  Thanks again Rapier1 (talk) 04:16, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the positive words SeanNovack, I completed the edits proposed and moved/consolidated acting and religion. V7-sport (talk) 18:55, 25 March 2010 (UTC)V7-Sport
 * That he 'frequently cites his SEAL experience' is not relevant to the amount of coverage rebuttals of that has received. His Navy career has received lots of coverage - this challenge to his credentials has not. In addition I have just reverted, for a second time, V7s attempts to colour the issue. In the military career section V7 has stated that along with the two medals we can verify Ventura received that there was also another medal he didn't receive because he 'wasn't in combat'. However there are many medals that Ventura didn't receive, so singling out one of them and inclusing it requires a source. The provided source shows that Ventura received the two medals - it does not mention anything about NOT receiving a third. V7 has reinserted this material which has earned him a warning message. Further reinsertion requires adequate sourcing - finding evidence of the two medals and extrapolating about other ones unreceived is original research at best, and begins to look like there may be some editors with a less that neutral POV here. Weakopedia (talk) 06:42, 25 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Okay, a couple of points here: 1. Your first sentence is completely nonsensical. You are stating that Ventura's military career has considerable coverage, but that the challange to him being in the Navy SEALS did not.  This is simply not true.  A simple Google search could provide dozens of sources, but since there is no Wikipedia rule requiring dozens of sources that isn't a problem here.  2. If you believe that stating that a person did not receive a medal is "coloring an issue", then debate that point.  What you are stating right now is that despite the fact that Ventura was not in combat and therefore could not have earned a Combat Action Ribbon (which requires that a person actually be in combat to have earned it), that this requires a source.  Not true.  3. You are the one that "warned" V7 for something that you seem to feel is a problem, rather than discussing it here.  This is rather ham-handed and not constructive at all.  By mentioning it you appear to be attempting to shut down further discussion on this issue (Shut up or you'll get in trouble!) which again, is not constructive.  I'd say that there may be a POV problem, but I think V7 isn't the problem.  You've brought up several points and people have made good faith edits to try to accomodate them, but each time you change the argument and try to continue it from a different angle.  Please try suggesting alternatives instead of simply reverting and complaining.  Rapier1 (talk) 07:14, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Once again, there is a source for the two medals that Ventura won. Did you look at it? It mentions both medals, and that fact is included in this article. It does not mention that Ventura did NOT receive a third medal. If you think that Ventura not winning a medal is news then please provide the source you have to show that, as I am sure you are aware of Wikipedia policy on providing sources.
 * V7 inserted the statement that Ventura did not receive the third medal without a source, and without discussion. That is why he got the warning. Your bad faith analysis is wrong. If you feel you have the weight of evidence to state that Ventura did not win this or that medal or anything else then do so. If V7 comes up with a source that's also fine, but adding the information despite being reverted and without a source is vandalism. Regards. Weakopedia (talk) 08:05, 25 March 2010 (UTC)


 * And to answer your specific points...
 * 1. Having googled 'Jesse Ventura Bill Salisbury SEAL' I don't see the multitude of reliable sources you claim exist covering this topic. Since the placement of the refutation in this article relates directly to the amount of coverage the issue received the burden of proof rests upon whoever is trying to insert said material. That isn't my policy, that is Wiki policy and it is especially enforced on BLPs.
 * 2. There is no need for me or anyone else to debate the insertion of unsourced material - it is simply not allowed. Verifiability is the cornerstone of this encyclopedia, all information must be sourced. 'Must be', not 'Would be nice if it was'. Ventura did not receive a host of medals - singling one out without a source to explain the significance is original research, which is not allowed. Sourcing policy is designed to combat original research and is especially enforced on BLPs.
 * 3. As explained V7 REinserted the material without a source. Doing it once is a violation of Wiki policy but doing it twice becomes edit warring and can be considered vandalism. All editors are reminded that the burden of proof rests upon the person who is inserting material and unsourced material can be challenged or, in the case of a BLP, directly removed.
 * I hope this answers your specific points. You have chosen with your comments to attack the editor (me) rather than the content or policies - that is unwise and also against Wikipedia rules. All statements in the article must be verifiable and sources provided, and must be depicted relative to the amount of coverage any particular issue had. Regards. Weakopedia (talk) 10:03, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I'll try one more time. 1. Try Googling something that will actually get responses, for example, when googling "Jesse Ventura SEAL claim" (http://www.google.com/search?q=Jesse+Ventura+seal+claim&rls=com.microsoft:en-us&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&startIndex=&startPage=1) you will see many sources. 2. You evidently missed my point. You are arguing sourcing, and that isn't the real issue. The issue is whether or not Gov. Ventura was awarded a particular medal is germaine to the article. If it is, then let's have that debate (you'll note, I did not revert your edit because I don't particularily care), if not then the sourcing argument has no bearing. What is going on now is a highly charged debate about whether or not a person that was never in combat (St. Paul Pioneer Press, January 21st, 2002 - note, sources need not be online, only on public record) could have received a Combat Action Ribbon, which he obviously could not have because he was never in combat. It has no bearing whatsoever on the article itself. 3. Discussion is always encouraged when reverting, but no Wikipedia policy is "violated" until WP:3RR is breached. At that point it becomes "edit warring". An administrator can, based on editing history, make the determination that reverting once or twice is edit warring, but a.) there is no history of that here, and b) you aren't an administrator. 4. At no time did I attack you personally. I attacked your arguments, and at the end I suggested to you that your POV was getting in the way. I gave you a suggestion that would, in my opinion, make you a more effective editor. Please do not accuse me of something I did not do. Thanks Rapier1 (talk) 15:50, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * My response to Weakopedia RE combat action ribbon.
 * Logic dictates that there are any number of medals he DIDN'T receive, but without a source describing that fact it is entirely non-notable.

"Logic dictating" isn't proof. Assuming it is, is original research. If you can find some proof and citation that he has won additional medals I would be happy to include it. You further wrote
 * Adding the information without a source was against policy, but adding it twice is bordering on vandalsim.

Which is true, I have sourced the citation from citation from KMSP/FOX 9 Minneapolis if you can find an additional source please post it. If not do not vandalize the page by removing it.
 * Please do not edit any more material into the article that you do not have a source for. Thanks.

I haven't. Please do not remove any more material that has been sourced. Thank you. V7-sport (talk) 18:16, 25 March 2010 (UTC)V7-sport
 * I think the point being made was it that it can also be proven that he also didn't receive (for example) the Congressional Medal of Honor, but that doesn't mean we add the statement "Ventura did not receive the Congressional Medal of Honor" to the article.--Cube lurker (talk) 18:26, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * RE:Weakopedia "I have just reverted, for a second time, V7s attempts to colour the issue."

You are not assuming good faith on my part and it is not appreciated. "However there are many medals that Ventura didn't receive, so singling out one of them and inclusing it requires a source." I have sourced it. If you can provide a source that states otherwise please post it. V7-sport (talk) 18:55, 25 March 2010 (UTC)V7-sport
 * What I think is missing is anything discussing any notability to his not receiving that decoration. Your source proves that he recieved those two medals.  That source alone doesn't give any reason to list decorations that he did not receive.  Do you have any reliable sourves discussing why it's noteworthy that he specificaly didn't receive the combat action ribbion as opposed to the dozens of other decorations that he never received?--Cube lurker (talk) 19:14, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The reason his record was petitioned in the first place is because the Governor made numerous references to being in combat, including "hunting men" while in Vietnam. ("Until you hunted man, you haven't hunted yet.") KMSP/FOX 9 Minneapolis petitioned his record to verify that he had not been in combat. I suppose we could further muddy the water by including the quotes that he has made and then providing the evidence that they are false but that actually does border on original research. I believe the article should be left as is, the alternative being including the claims and refutation. V7-sport (talk) 19:36, 25 March 2010 (UTC)V7-Sport
 * That actually would be synthesis. IMHO what we really need here is a reliable source that says something like "Ventura claimed to have seen combat, however the fact that he was never awarded the combat action ribbon...yada yada yada".--Cube lurker (talk) 19:47, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I got sick of all this and decided to edit with all information presented here. What I have is a factual account of what has occured, complete with sources and logical explaination of who did what when.  If someone doesn't like it, please state why here, but at this point I think it's fair to say that sourcing is not the issue, and all that are stated are facts.  I've said before, I'm pretty neutral about Jesse Ventura.  I didn't vote for him, but I really didn't have a problem with the job he did while in office, despite the fact that the established political machines and the mainstream Minnesota media went out of their way to try to destroy the guy.  In any event, here is my final edit. Rapier1 (talk) 20:35, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I can certainty get behind that. Thanks Rapier1 - V7-sport (talk) 20:56, 25 March 2010 (UTC)V7-Sport

Rapier writes that he has provided a 'logical explaination of who did what when'. That sounds like original research and a violation of WP:SYN already, and looking at the article that is what has happened. There is no source given for who requested Venturas military record. There is no source to say that anything missing from that record is impoortant. There is no source mentioning the Combat Service Medal. Of the three sources provided, #37 is the interview with Ventura (no mention of medals), #38 is ABC saying that Venturas remarks drew fire, but no mention of any medals, and #39 only mentions that the interview took place. Wikipedias policy on original research forbids the inclusion of material that is unsourced. WP:SYN states 'Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources.', which is what has been done here. There seems to be a concerted effort to retain this information despite there being as yet no source provided for it, which is expressly against Wikipedia rules. Should there be no source supplied for the aforementioned claims the unsourced information and undue synthesis will be removed, as per WP:BLP. Weakopedia (talk) 03:22, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * See below
 * I agree completely with Weakopedia. Nowhere in the citations provided there is any mention of anyone "responding" to anything. Even in Salisbury's article there is no mention that he responded to Ventura. There is no mention of "campaign trail" either let alone that Salisbury *responded* to *campaign trail* claims by Ventura. This is a clear case of WP:SYNTH if I ever saw one and it misleads readers blind. Dr.K. λogos πraxis 06:17, 27 March 2010 (UTC)


 * In addition Cs32en did quite a good job cleaning up all the SYNTH and they were reverted, as I was, by V7 for no good reason because the basic info is still there minus the SYNTH garbage and the POV editorialising. If this edit warring continues I will file a report on AN/3RR and I will ask for page protection. Dr.K. λogos πraxis 06:23, 27 March 2010 (UTC)


 * You haven't written "I am responding to you" even though your post is a response. What word would you like used? "Answering?" "In response"? Even though it was assuredly in "response" he certainty is "Referring" to Venturas comments and he certainty referenced his autobiography. V7-sport (talk) 07:14, 27 March 2010 (UTC)V7-Sport


 * That's not the issue. You do not know what Salisbury had in his mind when he undertook to prove Ventura wrong. He may have been motivated by other things when he wrote his article, other than a response. I cannot read his mind. Apparently you cannot either. Because you wrote that he responded to Ventura's "Campaign trail" claims. Yet in Salisbury's article there is no mention of "campaign trail". See what I mean? Dr.K. λogos πraxis 07:26, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I see what you mean and agree, the "campaign trail" was an artifact left over from a half dozen edits ago. I struck it and wrote that he referenced Venturas autobiography. V7-sport (talk) 07:40, 27 March 2010 (UTC)V7-sport
 * I agree with your latest edit and I just replaced "claiming" with "stating" per WP:WTA. I also replied on your talk. Take care and thank you. Dr.K. λogos πraxis 07:53, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I have restored material that was removed Cs32en removed material from the San Diego reader and MPR. I removed the "in response" and replaced it with "following". The quotes included are almost direct and are not Synthesis. V7-sport (talk) 09:16, 27 March 2010 (UTC)V7-Sport


 * First, I did not remove the Minnesote Public Radio source. However I did remove the synthesis that you have attached to information taken from that source.
 * You actually did replace content based on an independent reliable source with your personal interpretation of an opinion piece. In this context, the Salisbury article is actually a primary source, as you were adding a description of the article into the text. The direct quote is a style problem. We use paraphrases instead of direct quotes, if the direct quote is not necessary. I will not revert your synthesis at this time, as consensus is being built on the talk page here. Keep in mind, however, that adding material in violation of Wikipedia policies, especially on BLP articles, is not just about content, but may be seen as an issue related to user conduct. Cs32en   Talk to me  09:44, 27 March 2010 (UTC)


 * RE. Synthesis WP:SYNTH After being schooled by Dr.K on that entry what I posted was not an interpretation but is in the text. Additionally I have broken the linkage in the second sentence by using "followed by" instead of "in response". (even though the MPR article cites the SDR article.)
 * The article in the San Diego Reader is important because it served as the catalyst to get people talking about Venturas SEAL/UDT service and the distinctions between them, as evidenced by the following Minnesota Public Radio article which does reference it. I'll remove the quotation marks from the end of the second sentence which is already partly paraphrased. V7-sport (talk) 11:03, 27 March 2010 (UTC)V7-Sport


 * You cannot simply present your own personal interpretation of the Salisbury article here. However, we may retain the link to the Salisbury article as a convenience link to an additional primary source. I suggest to rephrase the first part of the section as follows:


 * Cs32en  Talk to me  12:21, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
 * You wrote: "You cannot simply present your own personal interpretation of the Salisbury article here". Specifically, where have I done that? In the following sentence, which is what it has been whittled down to, what specifically is "personal interpretation"? "Referencing comments Ventura made in his autobiography stating that he was a US Navy SEAL, Bill Salisbury, a San Diego attorney and Navy SEAL veteran wrote an article which called into question Ventura's SEAL credentials".If you can point that out it will help me going forward. Thank you. V7-sport (talk) 19:45, 27 March 2010 (UTC)V7-Sport


 * Can you provide an independent reliable source for your interpretation of the Salisbury article? If not, it is your personal interpretation only. Should such a source exist, keep in mind that you must find the sources before adding content to articles. Cs32en   Talk to me  22:54, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
 * So this is what we are up against Cs32en. If I link the Sandiego Reader article to the Minnesota Public Radio article which references it, it is "synthesis". If I break the link it becomes "personal interpretation" (no matter how accurately I adhere to the text) and therefore original research. Right? V7-sport (talk) 23:44, 27 March 2010 (UTC)V7-Sport
 * Primary source material can be used to represent the subjects own words. However in this case the Salisbury says he investigated Venturas book only after seeing him on an interview, that bit about seeing the gold watch while he heard Ventura talking about skivvies, so it isn't accurate to say that he referenced only the comments in the book. Since there is no source to say that Salisbury refernced the book in preference to the interview in his article it would be wrong to highlight one and not the other. And since there is no source that mentions either as the significant reason for Salisburys investigation then adding it is an interpretation of what Salisbury wrote that hasn't been given significance in a secondary source. As well as not being completely representative because he did say that he only went to the book for answers - he was already asking questions because of the interview he referenced. So the book wasn't the only thing he referenced. Cs32en has tried to propose a way of keeping all the information that is important by referencing the secondary source - that doesn't take away any of the significance, just makes it completely verifiable. Weakopedia (talk) 23:54, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, the way the san diego reader article is written it can't be posted verbatim. Without the additional Reading Times reference it could have probably been written in a way that relied on the MPR reference without it being called Synthesis, but with the Reading Times reference the point becomes moot. Ill Post Cs32en language and have have the remainder of my weekend be Ventura free. Thanks to all, it's been illuminating.V7-sport (talk) 00:34, 28 March 2010 (UTC) V7-Sport
 * RE the inserting the above. Some of the sources like "online world of wrestling" and "SLAM! Wrestling" do not state what they are being cited as. Ill try to find alternative sources for them this evening or tomorrow afternoon and finish up. I'm already late at the moment. V7-sport (talk) 00:53, 28 March 2010 (UTC)V7-Sport
 * I am very glad everything turned out to everyone's satisfaction. Clearly the latest consensus version is the best yet. I wish to thank everyone for their constructive work and illuminating comments. This was a very interesting discussion about WP:OR and WP:SYNTH and I am very glad that I participated because I improved my understanding of these concepts. Last but not least I thank V7-sport for their civility and good humour. Overall it was a great experience for me. Take care. Dr.K. λogos πraxis 03:32, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks Dr.K. V7-sport (talk) 05:13, 28 March 2010 (UTC)V7-sport

Motorcycle club
Why was this removed? Dougweller (talk) 11:32, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It wasn't - read the 'early life' section, it's the first one on the page. What the source says is 'The Mongols began in the 1970s in Southern California. Its most prominent member, at least for a nine-month period in 1973, was a young Jesse Ventura, now governor of Minnesota. ' and that is what is in the article. Weakopedia (talk) 11:37, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Navy Career section
I'm starting this afresh because the other section is getting way too long. I reverted an edit back to what I had written because it was obvious that the editor did not do any research on this issue before interjecting his opinion. The Ventura Administration stated in 1999 that "the governor has never tried to convince" people that he was a Navy SEAL, yet in 2001 he was still on the record trying to do exactly that. These paragraphs flow together and the new edit removed that. This is not synthesis, it is simple logic. Finally, there was a cn tag inserted by "national news" when ABC news (the source listed for the sentance) is obviously a national news source. There was no discussion here about his edit, so until a viable counterargument comes up to upset the consensus that was already agreed to, then I felt it should be reverted back. Rapier1 (talk) 23:58, 25 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Just on the "national news" issue. The information on this is not based on a source, thus there is no indication that would make the information that this would have been national news notable enough to be included in the article. You are not writing a thesis here, where you could follow your own narrative and then drop in a source after every few words or sentences. Cs32en   Talk to me  01:07, 26 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Hmmmm....If you are asking for a citation, might you not want to check the citations given? Nuff said. Rapier1 (talk) 02:13, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

As to this whole issue, I'm more than happy to take this to formal mediation if you are. I believe that I am simply stating the events as they occured. The media is the one that made these inquiries and came to these conclusions, not me. Governor Ventura made claims and insinuations, he was challanged on them, and in looking at the evidence to back up these claims and insinuations, it isn't there. That is all that was said at the time and that is all that is being stated in the article. This was huge news in Minnesota at the time. The media really had it in for this guy and was taking advantage of every possible way to get at him. There was even a serious effort to have him removed from office because he wasn't sworn in with his birth name. If you feel the need, we can take this to mediation and let a neutral third party decide. Let me know. Rapier1 (talk) 03:35, 26 March 2010 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict) I have left a note at the BLP notice board. Cs32en   Talk to me  03:37, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Request for Comment
Note: See also the sections and, which are related to this request for comment.  Cs32en   Talk to me  07:14, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

We have an issue regarding Governor Jesse Ventura's insinuations that he served as a SEAL. This has been an ongoing issue with some editors feeling that the information presented should not be there because the sourcing is flawed and it constitutes original research, and others feeling that the information presented is factual and explains the issue of the controversies surrounding this aspect of the Governor's time in office correctly. There has been considerable debate, and that debate has created a better section that is less POV and better sourced, but we've reached a point where things are about finished and we need to clean it up. I'd really appreciate some other input here, because it's really come down to about half a dozen editors working on this and it's very polarized. Rapier1 (talk) 03:52, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * There is no polarization - there is only Wiki policy and those who wish to include original research in violation of it. The sourced material is not in dispute, only your original research. Not all information in the article subsection has been sourced and there is no consensus that the article subsection in question has reached it's zenith. Weakopedia (talk) 03:57, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, I dispute your characterization of this issue. Threfore, it is disputed.  The Wikipedia policies that you are quoting ask for a neutral summary of the issue.  I presented both sides of the issue.  It seems to me that you would not have done the same, so I'm glad I'm the one that asked for dispute resolution on this issue. Rapier1 (talk) 04:04, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, you did ask for dispute resolution after I already had placed a notice at the BLP notice board. Cs32en   Talk to me  07:10, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Since the archive you created shows an edit conflict on your message, I'd guess that we did that at about the same time. I wasn't aware of your request when I put mine in. Rapier1 (talk) 07:23, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, I posted ADDITIONAL citations both here (Which someone thoughtfully deleted) and on the article page and found a further article from the Star Tribune which states "Ventura did not receive the Combat Action Ribbon, which was awarded to those involved in a firefight or who went on clandestine or special operations where the risk of enemy fire was great or expected." AND "Gov. Jesse Ventura, who has used his military record to deflect criticism and bash foes but has kept mostly mum on what he did during the Vietnam War, has disclosed for the first time that he did not see combat." http://web.archive.org/web/20020203035901/http://www.startribune.com/stories/587/1130195.html At this point I feel compelled to state that the Star Tribune and associated press are legitimate sources and pass WP:BLP Ill re re edit the Navy Section accordingly. Hopefully this will close the deal.V7-sport (talk) 07:29, 26 March 2010 (UTC) V7-sport
 * This thing has been sorted and documented up the wazoo, IMHO there isn't any original research, the "the article subsection in question has reached it's zenith" and the tag should be removed and the matter dropped. V7-sport (talk) 08:03, 26 March 2010 (UTC)V7-sport
 * @Rapier1: I didn't say that you would have been aware of my notice at the BLP notice board. However, you added the RfC at 03:52:28, while my edit at the BLP notice board was at 03:32:32. Cs32en   Talk to me  08:12, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Well done! It only took two warnings, listing on the BLP noticeboard, an RFC and a week of discussion to get you to find a source for the things you wanted to include. Have this Barnstar of Verifiability. Weakopedia (talk) 05:22, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Background
Can someone elaborate on Ventura's family background? I always thought he was half German and and half Hungarian, by the latter I mean ethnic Hungarian from present-day Slovakia. He identifies as Slovak yet the name János is distinctly Hungarian, neither Germanic nor Slavic. Any information? Evlekis (Евлекис) 19:54, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, Slovakia says there is some 10% Hungarian ethnicity... --jpgordon:==( o ) 01:40, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 * My point exactly. Ethnic Hungarians, for historical reasons, have a presence in all seven countries to surround Hungary, but the people would never identify by the eponymous demonym of those nations, so why would Ventura do so? Unless on that side of his family, his parent is half-Hungarian half-Slovak. Is that the case? Evlekis (Евлекис) 22:35, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

In this Video at 1:52 Jesse mentions that his background is "Slovak" and in the past he has mistakenly identified himself as a Czech. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E2sVEkp1Xv8&feature=related —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.31.10.252 (talk) 04:09, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Well,I think that Ventura may be of Czechoslovak ancestry. I have seen a clip with him saying he's Slovak,but according to NNDB (which I think is a very reliable website)says he is Czechoslovak. 7:48 11 November 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.245.242.8 (talk) 01:49, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Pastor's reactions to religion comment
While I do not know if the below link qualifies as a reliable source, I do know that Ventura was a member of the church mentioned with Pastor Briel. If the link does not qualify, perhaps a more reliable source may be found.

http://web.archive.org/web/20010423182312/http://www.cuis.edu/ftp/lcmsnews/999477-PASTORS_RESPOND_TO_VENTURA.-991012 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.88.69.155 (talk) 05:45, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Seals
This Seals site claims Jesse as one of their own. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:53, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * It says he was in UDT-12 and also has the following disclaimer: "NavySEALs.com is a private web community of SEA Air Land athletes and Navy SEAL supporters.It is not affiliated with the US Navy. The views expressed here are solely those of the owners, and members, of NavySEALs.com", It fails Reliable_sources. V7-sport (talk) 22:18, 24 October 2010 (UTC)V7-sport

Re. Jesse V, the UDT and what has proved to be a long odyssey.
Howdy, The "Compared to SEAL teams, UDTs saw less combat and took fewer casualties" was compromise language to build consensus on the talk page and it is backed by the citation. It was the reason CDR.Salisbury wrote the article and why this has been a point of contention since. It would be great if you could have a second look at that edit in that it was vetted rather vigorously. Thank you for your consideration. V7-sport (talk) 10:02, 25 October 2010 (UTC)V7-Sport
 * I read through the conversation and see where it was proposed to be in the consensus version, but I do not see anywhere that sentence was discussed. What does that specific sentence have to do with Jesse Ventura?  I do not see it having anything to do with him specifically.  It appears to me that the sentence sheds Ventura in a bad light since he was UDT.  I still do not believe it belongs.   GB  fan  10:48, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe it belongs because has to do with why his credentials were questioned by CDR.Salisbury and why he asserted that it was important to make the distinction between UDT and SEALs. I believe it was important to include it, you may feel differently. Apparently the solution to disagreement (that I have recently observed) is for one of us to stage a world class hissy fit, impugn the others character, engage in sock puppetry,  refuse to read a single word the other is writing, drag innocent bystanders in to observe the hysterics and then skulk off when our wiki-shrine to ourselves is discovered which contains information that outlines a financial motive for bad faith edits.... Or I could just leave it to you, letting you know I think it is incomplete but trust in your judgment and temperament to do what you think is correct. Yeah, I think I'll do that second one... Cheers. V7-sport (talk) 20:03, 25 October 2010 (UTC)V7-Sport


 * I guess we both believe in our position, I will ask for a third opinion.  GB  fan  02:48, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * As to a third opinion, given the context of the material, I do see the disputed sentence as relevant. It explains why the person was making the accusation, and what the difference between the two is. Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:49, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Italic title
Why is this article italiczed? This is a biography, not a book or film. I can't find where the italic title is being transcluded, however. hbdragon88 (talk) 07:24, 18 November 2010 (UTC)


 * It was the Infobox television template that was causing the italicized article name. I added | italic_title = no to the template and it turned off the italics.   GB  fan  07:49, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Navy Career Redux
3 of the 4 paragraphs of his navy career paint Mr. Ventura in a negative light. Personally, I (and I am sure many others) would consider this a bias against his military career in general. Please seriously reconsider redoing it to make it more neutral. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gizziiusa (talk • contribs) 10:49, 29 November 2010 (UTC)