Talk:Dave Bautista/Archive 1

?

"remove untagged pictures. In no sense was flooding the page with huge, low quality pictures a good move". The pics made the page better. I didn't add them and should have checked for a tag but maybe somebody could track them down again. The pic we have now is awful and the others were a good move if tagged properly. Marskell 22:19, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

The pictures were not an improvement. One was visibly copyrighted while the other was of poor quality, and both pictures were too large and disrupted the page. Wikipedia is not an image repository, and the continued saturation of the David Batista and Brock Lesnar articles with untagged, copyrighted, and excessively large pictures by Alm93 / 70.81.117.175 is becoming very tiresome. McPhail 00:49, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Age dispute

There seems to be a dispute over his age, and users reverting it because "his official website still says he was born in 1969". As for the rules regarding age disputes, there is Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Obviously, he couldn't have been born in both years, and most reliable sources give 1966. In this case where he is likely lying about his age, his own website is not a reliable source. There is no reason to give the 1969 date equal standing with the 1966 date.--Fallout boy 11:29, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Reliable sources? Virtually every wrestling website derives any news from a small selections of journalistic sources of dubious authenticity. Simply deleting information does not change the fact that there is an age dispute; this amounts to POV pushing. McPhail 17:12, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

First of all, there is no POV pushing in providing a correct age. POV pushing would be saying something like "born 1966, because he's a senile old man who's too scared to reveal he's almost forty). If anything, providing the 1969 year is a factual inaccuracy. Second, why are you so sure they are dubious in authenticity? Since this isn't going to be resolved here, I've listed this on Wikipedia:Third opinion.--Fallout boy 22:46, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

What's wrong with leaving it as it is now, where it reflects that a dispute exists, and the nature of the dispute? That all seems pretty verifiable and is what is done elsewhere on WP when there are reliable sources claiming contradictory things. ESkog | ^Talk 03:14, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

What's wrong is that he was obviously lying about his age, and has been caught. This dispute is very similar to the Nancy Reagan article, and whether she was born in 1923 or 1921. She originally claimed it was 1923, but she was discovered to have been lying. Even though she has never admitted to lying about her age (and likely never will) there is no mention of the 1923 date in that article because every source has changed to 1921. IMDb (typically the most trustworthy), and eand most others now say 1966.

"That all seems pretty verifiable and is what is done elsewhere on WP when there are reliable sources claiming contradictory things."

Which articles are you referring to? Every age dispute I know of has been resolved. This is the only article I've ever seen with an active age dispute like this.--Fallout boy 06:18, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm not referring to any other age disputes I know of, but other situations with different sources. I agree with you that IMDb is probably the most reliable source on this simply because they have no interest in lying either way. I would oppose strongly any moves to have the article only mention the 1969 date. I just think it might be encyclopedic that he claims to have a different age than most sources document. ESkog | ^Talk 17:35, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

There is no hard evidence whatsoever. Every article on this stems back to a vague claim that he "admitted" his age was fabricated when re-signing a contract. Only an admission by Bautista or hard evidence is acceptable proof, because internet websites with no sources whatsoever are not reliable. A dispute exists, and your attempts to dismiss this dispute are pov. McPhail 19:11, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

There only seems to be a dispute because user:McPhail insists Batista's defunct website says he was born in 1969. If anything, the fact that he constantly has to label anyone who disagrees with him as a POV pusher is POV in itself.

On the subject of his website, where the 1969 date originated, it is suspicious every copy of the page has been removed from the internet archive [1] (only the webmaster of the archived site can do this) and that his spokepeople have made no effort to dismiss the 1966 date.

If anyone wants someconcrete evidence, I looked on zabasearch and there is a record of one 'David M. Bautista' born in 1966, and none in 1969.--Fallout boy 23:14, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

It's probably not as shady as it seems. Google still has the page cached. ;) --Jtalledo (talk) 01:13, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I looked at the "zabasearch" link but didn't see the page in question. I have no personal interest in pushing either date as true, but Wikipedia is about verifiable fact, not blindly accepting the beliefs of the majority without questioning their veracity. McPhail 18:26, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

As for the Zabasearch site, it certainly isn't the best source but I tried to search for "David M Bautista" as well and there was at least one entry with a 1969 birth year. --Jtalledo (talk) 18:37, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I tried something called "peoplelookup" (http://www.peoplelookup.com/) and there was one entry of "David M Bautista (age 38)" living in Florida with a relative named "Angelia Bautista". Leo777 04:16, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Batista has now stated that he was born in 1969, and is currently 37. [2], . This should be taken as fact unless actual proof that his DOB is anything otherwise can be provided. McPhail 17:50, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Buddhist

Is there a source for the trivia bit about him being Buddhist? --Jtalledo (talk) 19:15, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Last i heard from the WWE that he is a practising Buddhist

there has not been anything saying that batista is a buddhist or is practising (Lil crazy thing 23:23, 19 December 2005 (UTC))

plus buddhist are supposed to be non-violent and wresling is anything but Trick man0112.179.231.30 23:17, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I doubt that he is a buddhist,lets see :

• he was in a "rich man's" stable sporting expensive suits and "partying all night long"

• Hes a professional wrestler,even though its staged,he still was in a hell in a cell match,ripping triple h up with barbed wire.

• he has been (in kayfabe) accused of sexual harrasment,dont think he would agree to that if he was a buddhist. Lord revan 14:03, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that his actions in the WWE would prove or disprove Batista being a Buddhist. If one considers the WWE as acting (which it basically is), then Batista is no different than Brad Pitt, Orlando Bloom, or Steven Segal (all who have played various roles where they committed violence upon others (particularly Steven Segal, who has done his own stunts at time)) Darquis 06:29, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

just wondering : is any of the guys you mentioned buddhist? just wondering. also, buddhism is after all EXTREMLY pacifist.Lord revan 18:26, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

According to List_of_Buddhists , all three men are buddhist, as well as a host of others. I just happened to choose them because of their roles in violent films. That doesn't by any means say that Batista is therefore Buddhist, merely that it is possible to play a role where violence is required and remain a Buddhist (assuming, of course, that the list is correct).Darquis 19:21, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

if that list is correct,those guys arent exactly very into their religion,its not like buddhists are supposed to spend the money that they do. just a comment Lord revan 15:37, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I couldn't tell you how faithful they are in practicing their religion/philosophy, I don't really know much about it. Heck, for all I know, that information is inaccurate. But until I've seen/heard otherwise, I'll believe it to be true. Not that it really matters either way, this doesn't conclusively prove anything about Batista being (or not being) a Buddhist (merely that his being one is a possibility) Darquis 18:12, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

i doubt that hes a buddhist,he said in an interview that if he gets mad after losing a ps2 game he stomps on the controller and breaks it...would that be considered violent?and theres the whole thing with the when he was a bouncer he hit a customer thing.

I seriously doubt Batista is a buddhist. He seems as un-buddha like as you can possibly get. >=( Besides...about the self-defense thing...If you were a bouncer and your whole job for hours at a time was to throw out rude, drunk, unrowdy, yelling guys at bars, wouldnt you get kind of annoyed/tired of it after a while also? I think even if it wasnt self defense that it was just out of annoyance. Being a bouncer is a hard nerve-wracking, button-pushing kind of job. =P Though hitting someone is never right. Anyway. I put my vote on NOT buddhist. lol! --Cookie 02:19, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

This isn't a question of whether or not his character, or even his choice of employment, adhere perfectly with Buddhist ideals. If he identifies himself as a Buddhist, then he should be considered one on his page. If there is a reference that can back up this point, great, if not, then we should take it off. It is not the job of this site to judge and condemn someone based on whether they fit the mold of what their religion entails. We don't question whether other celebrities are "actually Jewish" or "actually Christian" based on their behaviour. -- Dylagence 10)09, 21 March 2007