Talk:Arnold Schwarzenegger

Better Picture

Do we really have to use a picture of Mr. Freeze, and use a better picture of arnold? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.85.160.161 (talk) 05:34, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

-I'm thinking exactly the same thing. Honestly, that wasn't a very smart move on whoever decided to upload that picture. :P —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.246.70.126 (talk) 15:02, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

254 kg stone lifting - impossible

In 1967 Schwarzenegger competed in the Munich stone-lifting contest, in which a stone weighing 508 German pounds (254 kg/560 lb) is lifted between the legs while standing on two foot rests,and won.

At his peak, he's able to bench-press 227 kg. So there's no way, even in theory, he could lift a 254 kg stone, let alone 2ft off the ground. Anyone got a ref, or a pic of the event? If he did lift some stone, that one definitely < 227 kg. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.220.146.82 (talk) 10:38, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

It is not impossible. Bench-pressing is not the same as lifting; bench-pressing is almost all arm strength whereas lifting uses arms, legs, back, etc. It is concievable that if he could bench-press 227 kg at some point in his life, he could also lift 254 kg. It would still be good to confirm the information, however. --69.118.38.225 (talk) 22:28, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Not only is it not impossible, but it's fairly easy to find someone who can do this. I'm sure there are many gyms throughout the United States where any day you can walk in and see a 560 pound deadlift. Here's some random guys on YouTube lifting 600 lbs. [1][2] [3]--Yankees76 16:54, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

You got me wrong. Deadlift is easier than bench-press, very true, but that's when you talk about barbells, whose shapes are conductive to lifting, and the weight is distributed with the bar. But stones are another issue, the weights are highly concentrated, and their shapes...oh well! I've watched some Strongman competitions, whereby they lift 300 lbs stone balls with great difficulty, yet these same guys have no problem hoisting 300+ barbells overhead, which's obviously more difficult to perform than bench-pressing the same amount. That's why atlas stone lifting records are far behind bench-pressing's. No way Anrold lifted this much, since at his peak(not in 1967 for sure), he's able to bench 227 kg. It's impossible! If I recalled correctly, the latest record for stone lift is some 237 kg.

It not that hard, and this event did happen. See this link - an excerpt from Arnold Schwarzenegger: A Biography By Louise Krasniewicz, Michael Blitz. [4]--Quartet 02:20, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Quarte, actually I read about this event long ago, in greater detail than in this excerpt. At that time I had no clue and thought it's poss. But now re-read it and witnessing stone lifting, wsm events, it appeared that if Anorld did lift some stone, it must be at best, equal his bench-press. I have nothing against Annorld myself(actually quite enjoy his personality), but stone-lifting is truly supremacy, it's not like lifting some barbell, you know. That said, I don't believe it at any rate. The world record for stone lift this year is 237 kg, and it's lifted with great difficulty, i would say with agony, especially after hearing the guy answering the interview. Just read what I wrote above, and you'll see my point. Even Franco Columbu, who benched more than Arnold, never achieved anything comparable. But it's ben 40 years already, so perhaps we might just forget it. It's fun to discuss though.

To Yankees76, just one more thing: While it's poss that every now and then, some guy in some gym at some place is able to deadlift 254 kg, it's nowhere near as common as you said, no way! It's the real weird, not the norm! Take Stallone and Dolph Lundgren for ex: Dolph had lifted weights for years before rocky, and during the 1 year he played Drago in Rocky 4, he trained much more intensely in gyms. And in the movie, there's 1 scene in which Dolph lifted a guy way up with his left hand(he's right-handed), guess what? At that time, the peak of his life, he's able to bench 135 kg, or 300 lbs. And Stallone, who had been training just as intensely 10+ years by the time of Rocky 4, and who was even hiring Franco Columbu, one of the world's trongest man at the time, twice, to be his body building coach, was able to bench about 175 kg(385 lbs) max. And also in Rocky 4, when he's the strongest in his life, there's one scene where he lifted a big rock('bout 65 kg) by both hands with great effort,despite being able to bench 175-180 kg. Converting to dealift, Stallone may be able to lift 254 kg, may be! And I'm sure that Dolph and Sly are stronger than most men you find at any gym anytime thruout the States, then and now. We know none of the background of these youtube guys, who knows what they do 8 hours a day? So deadlift 254 kg is possible, but not for most of gym visitors. It you happen to see it(and i'm sure it's really rare), just come and ask the guy about his background. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.220.147.34 (talk) 02:47, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

This has gotten completely off-topic, but I'll bite. First off, bench press strength has nothing to do with how much weight you can pick up off the ground. I don't see how the two are even remotely comparable. Secondly, none of the people you mention are particularly noteworthy or well-known for being strong - besides Franco Columbu, who could have deadlifted 560 in his sleep (his personal best was 780 lbs). Lundgren and Stallone are actors who had good physiques at one point in time, but were built more for aesthetic purposes than for functional strength. In 1967 Arnold was a world-class bodybuilder near the peak of his athletic prime. As for Stallone in Rocky IV the "rock" in the movie was probably a prop that weighed considerably less than you think meant to be used to film a scene, with probably dozens of takes. Let me affirm this - A 560 lb deadlift (5 45lbs plates a side, plus 2 25's and some change) is not that uncommon. I'm not saying every gym has a 500+ pound deadlifter, but it would not take much searching to find people who can do this.

With regards to Arnold - the excerpt provided by Quartet (talk · contribs) states that the "contestants would grab the steel handle and lift a stone block weighing more than 500 lbs as high as they could". First - Arnold was using a steel handle - lifting a stone block (a block is square) - making this lift very different from simply grabbing an oddly-shaped rock off the ground. The challenge for Arnold was to lift the rock "as high they could". Arnold broke the record. How high did he lift it? We'll have to look for that - but he could have merely moved the stone a few feet or even a few inches to break whatever the existing record was. To say that a well-trained and from other sources, steroid enhanced, young athlete such as Arnold would find it impossible to lift 560 pounds even a short distance is simply an uninformed statement.--Yankees76 18:55, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree wih you that with the handle, things become a lot easier than when you've to lift it barehand. Arnold is about 188 cm tall, so 2 feet off the ground is not even a full deadlift(previously, I imagined him pulling the rock high in his chest). Plus, with 254 kg stone handle-lifting being probably equivalent to some 320-330 kg deadlift, I think this's quite likely for a 227 kg bencher. The stone lift that I mention is about people lifting stones no-handle and placing them on high platforms, a much harder task. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.220.147.131 (talk) 06:54, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree wih you that with the handle, things become a lot easier than when you've to lift it barehand. Arnold is about 188 cm tall, so 2 feet off the ground is not even a full deadlift(previously, I imagined him pulling the rock high in his chest)."

It sounds like you don't understand what a deadlift is. Two feet off the ground is about right. A deadlift involves bending forward, bending the knees, grasping a weight, and returning to a fully upright position. That's it. Even I, the weakest person on the planet, know this.

Illegal Immigrant status

I add a line in the "Moving to America" section that he may have violated the terms of his Visa in the late 60s or early 70s, making him an illegal immigrant at that time. --Darth Borehd (talk) 06:30, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

One hopes that your assertion is properly sourced and cited and not original research or conjecture. Robert K S (talk) 15:08, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Indeed it was! Well done. Robert K S (talk) 15:13, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

copyright activists

I removed the category Category:Copyright activists from Schwarzenegger. The only mention in the article of copyright is that he appeared in a PSA against "copyright piracy". (1) Appearance in a single PSA is not really "activism"; it's more endorsement of a cause. Moreover, appearance in PSAs might be out of sympathy with the cause, but it's not always -- it might be for hire, by court order, or simply a public relations issue. So "appearance in PSAs" is not a good general criteria for the Category:Activists tree. (2) A category is appropriate if it is a defining attribute per categorization policy. For example: When people think of Schwarzenegger, do they think "copyright activist"? Or when people think of copyright activists, do they think "Arnold Schwarzenegger"? If so then that would be defining. Activists are typically defined by full-time or significant work organizing or advocating (as private citizens, not as part of the government) a cause. To my knowledge this is not Arnold, but if anybody has any suggestion to the contrary, please post and we can consider whether the category really does belong. (I note that any category has to have proper sourcing in the article -- so it has to be at least noteworthy enough to be in the article, and a category, like I already said, needs to be a defining attribute -- so it really shouldn't be a mere passing mention in a long article, but would merit a significant chunk of the article.) --Lquilter (talk) 21:55, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Citation needed

Hi, I don't know how to add the 'citation needed' thing to the article, but I think it is definitely needed after "Around this time, Schwarzenegger was prematurely greying and began to dye his hair, afraid of growing old." (in the third paragraph of the section "move to the US") - he may or may not have been afraid of ageing but the simple fact that he was dying his hair doesn't show that so I think a citation is needed otherwise "afraid of growing old" should be deleted. Ollie senter (talk) 13:07, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Not NPOV

We like these movies --- not neutral POV! 6th day is good for many of us, and this article pans it -- this is opinion, not neutrality AmeliaElizabeth (talk) 06:45, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

How does it pan the movie? It simply states that the movie "failed to recapture his former prominance". Certainly not untruthful - the movie was a relative failure at the box office (opening weekend just over $13 million) and barely turned a profit. It was a far cry from movies like Terminator 2, Total Recall and True Lies.--Yankees76 (talk) 00:20, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Nationality?

MoS guidelines on biographies call for the person's nationality to appear in the lead. Until a December 20, 2007 edit by an IP, [5] Schwarzenegger appeared as "an Austrian-born American". Now it reads "an Austrian-American". I prefer the former as it preserves information while the latter sounds like an ethnicity (like "Italian-American" or "African-American"). Is there any standard convention when it comes to listing nationalities of immigrants? Robert K S (talk) 14:49, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Quote from the guideline: Nationality (In the normal case this will mean the country of which the person is a citizen or national, or was a citizen when the person became notable. Ethnicity should generally not be emphasized in the opening unless it is relevant to the subject's notability.) This guideline is not very helpful in this case because it can be interpreted in many different ways. Arnold first became famous as a bodybuilder in the 70s and his citizenship was Austrian then. After he was naturalized in 1983 he became famous as an actor and then as a governor etc. This guideline obviously does not cover citizens of multiple domains becoming notable in multiple countries. The last sentence of the guideline: Ethnicity should generally not be emphasized in the opening unless it is relevant to the subject's notability. is not applicable in this case. Therefore either Austrian-born American or Austrian-American are equally acceptable. Given however that, in the article, his place of birth is mentioned, it is apparent to the careful reader that he was Austrian-born, therefore it seems redundant to repeat it. I would go with Austrian-American. --Dr.K. (talk) 17:06, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

By definition, "Austrian-American" is an American of Austrian ancestry. While this is certainly true of Schwarzenegger, and while many other sources indeed refer to him as "Austrian-American", "Austrian-born American" preserves the specificity that he was at one time (still is?) an Austrian national, not just a person of Austrian descent. That's why I said above that "Austrian-American" sounds like an ethnicity (and Wikipedia should try to avoid emphasizing ethnicity except where it is relevant to notability). I agree that careful readers would easily see that Arnold was born in Austria, but per guidelines it's best if the lead is a self-contained encapsulation of the article as a whole, and where we can avoid confusion and preserve the independence of the lead with the addition of a single word, IMHO it is a price well worth it. Robert K S (talk) 20:47, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Sure. No problem. As far as Arnold still being an Austrian citizen, I wouldn't think so since in order to become American one has to renounce the original nationality. Dr.K. (talk) 22:33, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I have changed the lead to read Austrian-born American. Incidentally, the U.S. naturalization oath makes the requirement of renunciation of prior nationality that you mention, but there are no laws actually governing such a renunciation. It is quite possible and common for naturalized Americans to retain prior citizenships. (See here.) Robert K S (talk) 23:28, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

It was my pleasure. Also thanks for the citizenship information. I see it is not an enforced requirement, but in Arnold's case, I think it would be politically sensitive to keep the Austrian citizenship given his governorship and any future presidential ambitions (with a suitable constitutional amendment, who knows). Dr.K. (talk) 01:08, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

One would think, but we shouldn't make an assumption about it in the article without sourcing. Robert K S (talk) 02:11, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

That goes without saying. Original research is to be avoided at all costs. Dr.K. (talk) 02:38, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I just noticed that according to the article, he holds dual citizenship. Incidentally, a new article on The Straight Dope web site covers dual U.S.-[other country] citizenship. Robert K S (talk) 07:59, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I am very surprised. I wouldn't have expected this under any circumstances. Good find. Thank you very much for sharing this. Dr.K. (talk) 13:09, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Checking the article fact I saw they don't cover the possibility of Arnold relinquishing his Austrian citizenship upon acquiring the US one. I think, if he did, the article entry may be misleading and should be corrected. Dr.K. (talk) 16:03, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) I guess I answered my own question. Dr.K. (talk) 16:14, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Redirect suggestion

I think "arnie" should have a redirect to this article, with a redirect notice for other uses at the top. I would have no doubt that Schwarzenegger is the person most known by the name, and it's sure to be a helpful redirect. Opinions? --Muna (talk) 17:39, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Order of Precedence at bottom of page

It seems the order of precedence while within California would often have a mayor between Schwarzenegger and Pelosi. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.244.85.2 (talk) 20:23, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

That's only when in a city that has a mayor. In California in general, there is nobody between Schwarzenegger and Pelosi in the order of precedence... I guess you could add a third row titled "when in a city with a mayor". Sancho 05:01, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Soapboxing

This paragraph from "Personal Life" sounds suspiciously like someone is on a soapbox. I see no point to the latter part.

"Schwarzenegger justified his actions by referring to the fact that his only duty as Governor of California was to prevent an error in the judicial system. "Schwarzenegger has a lot of muscles, but apparently not much heart," said Julien Dray, spokesman for the Socialist Party in France, where the death penalty was abolished in 1981."

172.142.41.8 (talk) 14:53, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Net Worth

Can we include this in his infobox? It's certainly large enough to warrant the attention. PulpatineFiction (talk) 04:41, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Weight?

Is it true that Arnold Schwarzenegger is now extremely overweight? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.7.167.219 (talk) 02:45, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Article and Fact Box Disagree

The article states that Arnold and Maria Shriver have four children, and gives their names.

The fact box at the top of the page indicates he has three children.

I assume the article to be correct?

Cjmr (talk) 02:44, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

1980 Mr Olympia

There is some controversy over Arnold's role in winning the 1980 Mr Olympia. Some believe that Mike Mentzer should have won. Should this be included? See external links:

• http://www.schwarzenegger.ca/forum/about1431.html
• http://www.mikementzer.com/character.html

--163.1.52.221 (talk) 23:18, 3 June 2008 (UTC)