Talk:Kevin Sorbo

Untitled

Is he of Italian descent? Newager 15:22, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Kevin Sorbo is of Norweigen heritage — Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.27.46.73 (talk) 22:31, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I have a link to a page of mine about his hometown of Mound, Minnesota. It is www.MoundWestonka.com. I'd like some opinions about whether or not it belongs on this page, before I would post it. As far as I know, the last time he was here was in 1997 for his class re-union. My pages have a picture of the park named after him, and him appearing on a mural.

And yes, I would say he is a Lutheran Norwegian, from what I recall, and his parents first names. Ask him if he eats Lutefisk sometime? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.214.202.204 (talk) 18:37, 24 February 2007. Edited 18:38. (UTC)

As to what a Lutheran Norwegian is, see Garrison Keillor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.214.202.204 (talk) 18:40, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

It's been a couple weeks, and no one has commented on my above. I'd appreciate an admin posting the link on the page, so that I can stay in Wikipedia's good graces. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.214.202.204 (talk) 15:37, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

He can act!

I'm watching The Santa Suit as I write this -- and Sorbo can actually act! He gives a subdued and affecting performance. WilliamSommerwerck (talk) 11:43, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

No. No, he really can't.

On The Guild

Kevin Sorbo had a cameo in Season 5 Episode 8 of The Guild http://www.watchtheguild.com/its-a-celebrity-party/ --Vampus (talk) 14:48, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Why Christian faith not mentioned in the Personal section?

In this 100 Huntley Street interview he openly talks about being a Christian in Hollywood, including mentioning he has turned down roles due to his faith http://www.youtube.com/watch?&v=bn4MnuSGIko 142.229.80.250 (talk) 01:17, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

His Christian activism really belong into the article:

"As he takes on Christian films, such as What if … and Soul Surfer while also leaving room for secular films, his only wish is to change the face of Hollywood as we know it. His personal worry is, what will the public consider normal when most things portrayed tell us that our innate moral views might probably be wrong.“Hollywood likes to put out their own message out a lot of times, and that message isn't the best one for everyone,” he noted. “If you keep saying two plus two equals five over and over again, then that is what people are going to think. Maybe it does equal five if we keep changing the definition of what’s normal and what's right and what's wrong.” Sorbo’s concern also carries over to how much Christianity is being bullied by the press over and over again. He lamented, “Christianity takes this beating that I really don’t understand and yet you can't say anything negative about the Muslims because that's horrible, you can't say anything negative about other faiths.“ Through his new roles, he hopes to not only stop the big bullies from beating down Christianity but also transform Hollywood by refining its definition of what is truly right and what is truly good."(Kevin Sorbo – Christian Hercules in Hollywood March 2011 interview on ChristianPost.com)84.152.41.50 (talk) 18:57, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Julia X

This film is missing from his history. Was this an oversight? 2601:D:1100:430:3510:DB05:B0DD:D6B3 (talk) 06:00, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Ferguson Controversy

Extended content

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Should Sorbo's recent appearances in the news for his commentary on Ferguson be a part of this page? 05:50, 28 August 2014 (UTC) My thoughts: Hullaballoo_Wolfowitz removed additions to this entry regarding Sorbo's controversial comments about demonstrators in Ferguson, citing them as distortion not true to the sources (though they were quotes from Sorbo himself unaltered, so that seems odd.) Perhaps the wording of that content is questionable and should be altered, but if so some suggested edit would be more appropriate than deleting the content wholesale. Consider these points, however: 1) This is probably the only time Sorbo has made headline news in years. 2) His politics and personal beliefs (including his belief that he's the target of industry discrimination) are all over this article as it stands, and not including this part seems like cherry picking. If we're going to devote time to talking about his relationship with the media and his beliefs, this seems like the most notable example of that playing out. Does anyone agree, or have a better way of writing it, or is the consensus that this information shouldn't be included? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.64.211.150 (talk) 00:26, 28 August 2014 (UTC) Of course not. Wikipedia is not a place where we memorialize any stupid thing a celebrity may said, or transiently embarrassing press reports. And, given the amount of vandalism/nonconstructive editing from this IP, coupled with their knowledge of how to start an RFC, is there any good reason not to identify this editor as a "bad-hand" sock? The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 17:16, 28 August 2014 (UTC) Thanks for opening up a line of dialogue (even if it took some prodding.) I'm not an editor here and use public wifi, so I'm not sure what other history you think I have, but I only know how to start a discussion because I Googled it—it doesn't take a genius. Even so, if I were a sockpuppet (again, I'm not) that seems like an ad hominem issue unrelated to whether I'm wrong or not. And it's certainly not assuming good faith, which I do know to be a thing we're encouraged to do. To your point, however—"Wikipedia is not a place where we memorialize any stupid thing a celebrity may said" — no, certainly not, at least not just for the sake of doing so, but controversial events (related to celebrities or not) are indeed something common in entries, and in this case I maintain that it's the most noteworthy instance of Sorbo's activities even being relevant in modern years. Mainstream news didn't follow the gripping story of the time he hurt his shoulder filming Kull the Conqueror or whatever, but it certainly has followed this. Is it not noteworthy just because it's "embarassing" to the subject? I'm not going to argue it, I certainly have better things to do, but that's my point of view—I'll leave it to others to form a consensus and whatever happens, happens, but I honestly don't get where you're coming from (or your passive-aggressiveness about it.) 50.194.39.67 (talk) 18:30, 28 August 2014 (UTC) So... are we having a discussion about the "Ferguson Controversy" or are we here to do a battle of complaints about other editors. If it's the former, let me know and I'll read the Diffs and offer an opinion. For the record, I am and editor here and will take the issue seriously, if that's what we're here to do. Just let me know. Vertium When all is said and done 01:23, 29 August 2014 (UTC) Yes, I'm trying to, hence my first paragraph and opening up a tag for discussion. Your comments are both invited and more than welcome. None of that has anything to do with Wolf; I was simply responding to him dismissing my comments because he thinks I'm someone else or whatever. 75.64.211.150 (talk) 17:00, 29 August 2014 (UTC) Okay, here's my two cents. I believe the original content is both accurate and worthy of inclusion. It is relevant to the individual, provides context and support for other aspects of the article and does not appear to violate WP:BLP. It includes content that complies with WP:BLPSELFPUB as a source and furthers the reader's understanding of the article's subject. It is well cited with reliable sources, and I see no reason to not include it. Further, when a notable individual says something "stupid", that can be notable, particularly when it furthers the reader's understanding of the individual, which this content clearly does. That said, Wolf... I don't know you, and how you behave here is entirely up to you. However, the edit warring in which you engaged and commandment of "do not restore unless the applicable discussion is closed/resolved consistent with inclusion" is at the very best, impolite. It is not your position to tell others what they can or cannot revert. You might do well to read WP:AGF and if that doesn't suffice, a lesson in being polite, both in your edit summaries (a well placed "please" goes a long way) and in your talk message (example above) might be helpful. In case you're not aware, edits from an IP address can be done by multiple people. Lastly, I don't know who 75.64.211.150 is either, but I would suggest you create a registered account name to clearly distinguish yourself from your IP address. That is by far the easiest way to avoid the confusion between multiple editors on an IP address. Thanks to all for participating in the dialogue. I am in favor of including the content as originally added to this article. Vertium When all is said and done 19:06, 29 August 2014 (UTC) You're simply wrong on at least two important points. First of all, the "original content" was certainly not accurate; it went well beyond the sources it cited, and sensationalized this very minor incident. Second, it is longstanding BLP policy and practice that when content is reasonably challenged under BLP, it is not restored unless/until there is consensus that the "burden of evidence" for inclusion is met. And I find your hectoring of me here quite rude and inappropriate; neither I nor anyone else should be faulted for doubting the good faith of an IP editor when the IP address's history consists of little more than attempting to add embarrassing content or outright vandalism to BLPs [1] [2]. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 22:32, 29 August 2014 (UTC) We'll see what others think, I suppose. And thanks for the comments, both of you. I have no beef with just talking it out and not reverting as nauseum; that seems counterproductive. So I'm not opposed to not restoring it without consensus, whether or not that's policy or not. As for assuming bad faith, Wolf, those two examples seem to be really obvious vandalism, and I'm not sure if you're implying that my contribution here was, but it's not and does not resemble that, even if it were relevant to the discussion. Let's try and stick to the subject. Harsh personalities seem to be common enough here anyhow (and the reason I don't care to bother registering for an account.) 75.64.211.150 (talk) 07:14, 30 August 2014 (UTC) I'll just reply to the situation without going into detail about the passive-aggressive comment on "hectoring. Repeated reverts is edit warring, which is neither productive nor permitted. In any case, this was not vandalism at all, so to call it such is neither appropriate nor appreciated. And, since it appears that anyone who disagrees with Wolf is just plain wrong, we'll let others voice their opinion. Vertium When all is said and done 16:23, 30 August 2014 (UTC) I have read WP:BLP and the above discussion. I don't think information on the interview should be included. In 100 years time if this article were to be written to its full potential, the interview probably would not rate a mention. I think that whilst the encyclopaedia is built we should be mindful towards WP:RECENTISM, particularly as it relates to BLP subjects. PNGWantok (talk) 13:39, 1 September 2014 (UTC) Hi PNGWantok, and thanks for taking the time to comment. Even though I didn't start this RFC, I do desire that we come up with the best result. I personally think that the 10-year hurdle suggested in the essay on WP:RECENTISM would be cleared by Mr. Sorbo's freely-offered statements (it wasn't an interview), but if the consensus (short of Hullaballoo's opinion, since I have no respect for it) is to keep it out, I'm fine with that result as well. Thanks again. Vertium When all is said and done 14:59, 1 September 2014 (UTC) Hi User:Vertium, my apologies. I did not realise it wasn't an interview. TBH, I did not look at the information being added as I didn't want it to impact my view. People say many things, and celebrities by their nature often have their comments reported by the media. If this was Angelina Jolie and she was commenting on the situation in Darfur, then it could warrant inclusion because she has a long and notable history in humanitarian causes. If Jolie was instead commenting on the Ferguson standoff it would be a different story. In relation to Sorbo it is more trivial in nature. I do understand your viewpoint, and I respect it, but we have a different opinion on this issue I think. If you would like more input from myself, please leave me a message on my talkpage I am happy to do so if required. Thank you. PNGWantok (talk) 21:55, 1 September 2014 (UTC) Nope, PNGWantok, we're good. I get your point completely, and as I mentioned, if it's excluded, I can certainly live with that. I again thank you for the time you took to consider it and respond. All the best... Vertium When all is said and done 22:23, 1 September 2014 (UTC) PNGWantok, thanks for chiming in. I'd concede that that all of this is less notable ("more trivial" was your phrase) than your Angelina Jolie example, sure—that's reasonable. In fact, anything in this entry probably is, since Sorbo's general level of notoriety is worlds lower. He does, however, also have a long history (though less notable) of polarizing sociopolitical talk, hence his own assertion (mentioned in this entry) that his success has been limited by his political and religious beliefs, so in that sense I see it as the very same kind of relevant. That's very much how he's chosen to portray himself. So while I don't agree with you, I see where you're coming from. And thanks for commenting. 75.64.211.150 (talk) 02:58, 2 September 2014 (UTC) Hi User:Vertium and 75.64.211.150. It was my pleasure to offer comment here. I will take this talk page off my watchlist for now. But, if you need an uninvolved third opinion in the future, my talk page is open for you. PNGWantok (talk) 09:36, 7 September 2014 (UTC) Oppose inclusion of the material based on this diff. This is purely an "online" controversy over his own personal momentary rant to social media (he apologized hours later) driven by the magnitude of the Ferguson controversy & newsblog sites with a stated political agenda which seized on the comments. I don't feel there's a meaningful connection between Sorbo & Ferguson, nor a history of Sorbo activism over race issues, which would make this encyclopedic material, and this is unlikely to receive any further significant coverage... Roberticus talk 15:41, 6 September 2014 (UTC) Actually, he does have a long and colorful history of activism over racial and/or class issues (he had a good one about lazy welfare recipients right after the Ferguson comments, to name one), and as has been pointed out, this very article points out his belief that he is persecuted for daring to speak the truth. And these comments (and others) were national news, not just featured on partisan blogs. But you're right that it's not very encyclopedic perhaps; he's not relevant enough to make the cut, I guess. Thank god we have several sentences devoted to funny goofs from the set of Kull the Conqueror instead, though. Keep doing the Good Work, wiki. 75.64.211.150 (talk) 07:51, 14 September 2014 (UTC) Comment There is a bit on the actor's political views in one section. If editors were to add one sentence about this controversy, if based on RS, then it should not be a major problem. I don't think it should be blowed out of proportion though. Here is a news report from E! News. --Precision123 (talk) 14:20, 8 September 2014 (UTC) Oppose If what Roberticus said is true that he's retracted the statement and apologized for it, I don't think it would be encyclopedic to include as of now. Tutelary (talk) 00:13, 14 September 2014 (UTC) Oppose Celebrities and politicians say dumb shit all the time, then are forced to apologize for their comments. If he was habitual in making such comments, then I could see a reason for inclusion, but Alec Baldwin he's not. Isaidnoway (talk) 03:20, 17 September 2014 (UTC) Comment Summoned here by bot. This RfC is poorly drafted as it fails to provide diffs or otherwise state to uninvolved editors what particular comments are at issue here. Coretheapple (talk) 16:07, 17 September 2014 (UTC) If this[3] is what you're taking about, my position would be to not include it. It's utterly unrelated to this person's notability and the sources are pure tabloid. Coretheapple (talk) 18:31, 17 September 2014 (UTC) Oppose This information is completely unnecessary for an encyclopedia. Fraulein451 (talk) 16:30, 19 September 2014 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Infobox photo caption

I'm not a regular editor here and have no plan to return after posting this. Just wanted to point out that, as I write this, the infobox photo caption reads: "Sorbo at GateCon in 2013" while the file description by the photographer at Wikimedia Commons reads: "Kevin Sorbo on the set of "House of Fears" in 2013." 5Q5 (talk) 17:44, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

 Done. I returned and revised the caption to just "Sorbo in 2013." I did some research on the photographer and he's a camera operator in film/TV so he must have been working with Sorbo when it was taken. 5Q5 (talk) 17:42, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Kull more notable then the Jim Beam commercial?

I replaced "Kull" with the Jim Beam commercial as one of the roles, he is most known for, and this edit was just undone. I find this rather odd. "Kull" was a generic direct-to-video Fantasy flick, which was rather "most known for starring Sorbo, who at that time was already known as Hercules", then the other way round.

The "Jim Beam" commercial on the other hand was the one production, his face at least (of course not his name) was getting some buzz. The "This ain't Jim Beam" line was often cited, and also I remember, when the first four "Hercules" movies were aired, virtually everybody, in class room as well as in TV guide articles, stated: "That's the guy from the Whisky commercial." I even know a couple of guys, who got their first drunken stupor with that brand of liquor, because of that commecial. And I think, it was aired as well for a long period of time after he became "Hercules", and even in commercial breaks during the Hercules show. So, add that together, there is NO WAY, that he is better known for "Kull".--93.111.43.22 (talk) 11:41, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Changes like that need to be supported by sources: see Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Such sources do exist for the Jim Beam commercial, and it probably should be added, with sourcing, to the body of the article. For example, here's the Los Angeles Times, from 1994:

Sorbo is one actor who doesn't mind being identified with a character. He appears in commercials and is now in the second year of a contract with the makers of the bourbon whiskey Jim Beam. He's played "the Jim Beam guy" in countless commercials--which are played everywhere in the world, except in the United States. His catch-phrase, "It ain't Jim Beam," is often quoted back at him when he travels. "Like I've never heard it before," he says laughing. [4]

So there's good reason to add the Jim Beam commercials to his bio. But I don't think this necessarily warrants removing Kull the Conqueror from the lead: it was still his first starring role in a feature film. --Arxiloxos (talk) 14:21, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

That source is more than 20 years old, and can't possibly support what he's known for today. In the absence of sourced content in the body of the article, the claim absolutely didn't belong in the lede. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 15:05, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

I'd dare to say, outside the USA, he is better known for the Jim Beam commercial, then the bible belt feature film production, even today. Not sure, how good a source this is, but a quick google search of "Sam Raimi Jim Beam" found e.g. this site: https://phantanews.de/wp/2016/01/kevin-sorbo-in-neuer-serie-von-raimi-und-tapert/

Final sentence (as a punchline) translated from German: "It is still to be confirmed, if Jim Beam will get a cameo."

But anyway, is it really that importent, how old the LA Times article is? What, if Kevin Sorbo is complettely forgotten in 100 Years, should his entry then be ereased from Wikipedia? Don't think, that's what this site is aiming at? Regarding Kull, IMdB does not list a theatrical release. As far as I know, this was DTV. So what's the big difference to the four feature lenght Hercules TV-movires, the series started with? Other, then this made him better known, while the Kull movie was made withhim to participate on the Hercules publicity.--78.142.179.31 (talk) 15:51, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Notability is not temporary, but some descriptions are transient. If you're going to make a claim about what he is best known for currently, you need a reasonably current source. Courtney Cox was once best known for appearing in a Bruce Springsteen video. To say that's among the roles she's best known for decades later would be preposterously inaccurate. Bernie Sanders isn't best known for being mayor of a town in Vermont, either. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 16:16, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Regarding your second sentence, there still is no reasonably current source for the other parts, either. I won't argue his notability for Hercules and probably the other leading part in a TV-series (since it span as many episodes) to be the two top known performences in his carrere, but where is the source for "God's Not Death" or "Kull"?--78.142.179.31 (talk) 16:36, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

On some reflection, I think 78.142.179.31 makes a cogent point here; I would not oppose a change in the lead section to say simply that he's best known for his starring roles in Hercules and Andromeda—since I don't think anyone disagrees that those series are his best known efforts—and leave the rest out of the lead. I will also add a reference to Jim Beam in the Career section (but not the lead).--Arxiloxos (talk) 15:28, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

College attendance

Kevin lived on my dorm floor at MSU-Moorhead. In the celebrity ghost story section there is a reference to him graduating from college but I believe that is not correct. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.18.53.159 (talk) 01:56, 1 May 2019 (edited 02:02) (UTC)

Error Corrections regarding his health scare in the 90s

The time of his strokes is accurate, but the article states that this affected the last two seasons, season 5 & 6 being the last two seasons. This is not correct. This also affected the 4th Season, and probably more heavily than others, as large parts of the production wasn't finished until 1998, such as the episode "Porkules" which was shot in January of 98, several months after his health crisis. The episode, featuring Sorbo voicing over for a pig, as opposed to featuring him in a major on screen presence, even serves as an example of how they adjusted film production around. I suggest better wordsmiths than I, adjust the article to reflect that it was the 4th (in particular) and 5th Season that was most heavily affected by Sorbo's health problems.

173.218.98.78 (talk) 01:22, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

The Health section included "Sorbo experienced an aneurysm in his shoulder which caused four strokes.", but the HuffPo reference says "aneurysm followed by three strokes". cbn.com ref not useful, because now redirects to CBN homepage and wayback doesn't have useful text:

• without Ruffle: "You need the latest version of the flash player and JavaScript enabled to view this content." (but flashplayer defunct)
• with Ruffle: "Ruffle failed to load the Flash SWF file. The most likely reason is that the file no longer exists".

Changed "four strokes" to "three strokes". --EarthFurst (talk) 00:37, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Sorbo has been accused of antisemitism. [citation needed]

Is there really a need for citation right before the whole part of him saying that jews killed jesus? Seems unnecessary and self-evident.

Moopykins (talk) 09:00, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 January 2022

Under personal life, it should be included that Sorbo publicly supported the storming of the United States Capitol on January 6, 2021 via Tweeting from his verified account.

https://twitter.com/ksorbs/status/1346898602984144896

https://twitter.com/ksorbs/status/1346913575080759314 2600:6C67:5000:6448:6184:6599:6C01:6292 (talk) 00:40, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: Please provide reliable sources discussing this to show it's WP:DUE. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:42, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

I agree that this should be brought up in his personal life section. Basically his entire social media presence revolves around his political beliefs, which include the false claim that the 2020 United States Presidential Election was stolen. However, there is zero reference in the article to his political beliefs. Source: Nearly all of his Twitter posts. https://twitter.com/ksorbs Wikipedian24601 (talk) 02:05, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Stolen election claims: https://twitter.com/ksorbs/status/1326179983954505729 https://twitter.com/ksorbs/status/1324117412246147073 Wikipedian24601 (talk) 03:17, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

User:Wikipedian24601 this is the same IP that posted the same edit over and over. Will seek admin if this persists for disruptive edits. It may result in ban and it seems maybe even sockpuppeting.

Also, WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NOTGOSSIP policies apply to any biography. People say lots of stuff on twitter. None of it belongs on Wikipedia. Lucy Lawless does not have anything on her political views for example. Ramos1990 (talk) 06:04, 4 May 2022 (UTC)