Talk:Ted Nugent

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)

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)

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)