Talk:James Stewart

Jimmy

I'm intrigued as to why the entry for "James Stewart" is redirected here. The man's name was James Stewart, and he appeared in films as James Stewart. Surely Jimmy Stewart is just a nickname, and that's where the redirect should be, not under the proper name. user:Deb

He's credited as James Stewart, but in my experience he's universally known as Jimmy Stewart. See the section "Use common names of persons" under Wikipedia:Naming conventions. --Brion VIBBER, Saturday, July 13, 2002

There was discussion about this and the decision was to house articles at the most popular name with redirects from legal names if necessary. For that reason, Bob Dylan is the article and Zimmerman the redirect; Bill Clinton the article and William Jefferson is not, etc. Koyaanis Qatsi

I see. I suppose it must be an American thing, then, because in Britain he's less often called "Jimmy" - it's definitely not "universal". Bob Dylan's stage name is Bob Dylan; Stewart's is James Stewart. However, my main problem with this way of doing it is that there are other people called "James Stewart" - for example, most of the King James-es of Scotland, and also the Old Pretender. I think "James Stewart" should be a disambiguation page rather than a redirect. user:Deb

Kings and Queens have their own naming conventions established by JHK and others to prevent problems with ambiguity--for instance King James I of England, King James II of Scotland, etc. You should talk to JHK to find out what those conventions are; I haven't been following them. Who is the Old Pretender? I've never heard of him. Koyaanis Qatsi

Does this mean you don't mind if I change the "James Stewart" page to a disambiguation page, then?" user:Deb

I'm not worried about it really, if the Old Pretender (whoever he is) is also named James Stewart, but I don't know about the kings--I'm not up on my history and so I've been letting the people who are take care of that. (Better for me not to meddle in it). Koyaanis Qatsi

I just went through and changed the links to [[James Stewart]] to [[Jimmy Stewart|James Stewart]] to bypass the new disambiguation page (there were no links to that page that weren't for the actor). --Brion VIBBER, Sunday, July 14, 2002

I just did that again (about 10 more had been made since July). All the new [[James Stewart]]'s were meant for [[Jimmy Stewart]]. -- Someone else 19:02 Mar 29, 2003 (UTC)

USAF

he served in the U.S. Air Force in World War II and was heavily decorated.

It was the U.S. Army Air Force (USAAF) back then. It became the USAF in 1947.

Question for the military buffs present: is it customary to refer to the U.S. Air Force by that name when referring to periods before it came into existence as such? --Brion VIBBER

Actually prior to it being the USAAF, it was the Army Air Corps. I think for any reader concerned about it, the evolution is common knowledge. Being ex-Navy, I tend to refer to Army Air Corps at any time it's apopriate (to remind the "zoomies" of their humble beginnings). my favorite gag to pull on a USAF veteran, is when they say "When I was in the military..." I will stop them and ask "Oh you were in the military? I thought you were just in the Air Force." --Woolhiser 12:37, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

From 1926 to June 1941 it was the United States Army Air Corps and from June 1941 to 1947 it was the United States Army Air Forces (not United States Army Air Force). In 1947 the United States Air Force was made into a separate service. Stewart was in the USAAC in March 1941, 3 months before it became the USAAF. During the USAAF period, most people continued to call it the "Air Corps", even though it wasn't the correct name. Does that answer your question? --rogerd 13:17, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Somebody listed his being promoted to Major General by Pres. Reagan and references Public Law 108-375 sec. 563. I am not aware of this happening, and the referenced law refers to Chuck Yeager, not Jimmy Stewart. http://www.dod.mil/dodgc/olc/docs/PL108-375.pdf I'm changing this until further reference can be made. The closest thing I know to this happening was an interview I saw with Jimmy Stewart where Ronald Reagan, in his presidency, was asked by a reporter about Brig. Gen. Stewart, whom he corrected as being Major Gen. Jimmy Stewart later told the Pres. that the reporter was correct, but didn't want to speak up at the moment because "it sounded so good." Shawn 06:14, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Did Stewart participate in the Dresden raid? 69.108.67.193 15:08, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Nothing I've been able to dig up suggests that Stewart's unit was part of the Dresden raid. Monkeyzpop 17:58, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Appearance in World at War

I remember his appearance in World at War and was the one who mentioned his being identified only as "James Stewart, Squadron Commander", but was the segment specifically about the October 17, 1943 Schweinfurt Raid? He hadn't even arrived in theater at the time. Lyle F. Padilla (lpadilla@voicenet.com) 209.158.189.60 15:40, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

help me name the film

which James Stewart western is it where at the end of the film rock of ages is sung in the church and Stewart's youngest son `blue` walks in on crutches? anyone remember. The film where most of his family are killed and buried next to his wife in the graveyard in the garden

Shenandoah (1965) [1]--Kevin Myers 02:01, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)

American Aviators

Jimmy Stewart should be included in the category American Aviators.

Anyone know why he went on that bombing run over North Vietnam?

Anyone know why he went on that bombing run over North Vietnam?

To help win the war.

New books coming out

I did, in fact, find the Michael Munn book on Amazon.com, and also found that it was published by (a) a non-notable author (almost no Google presence), on a (b) non-notable publisher, and (c) it's Amazon entry had no comments. Combined, those things point to a non-notable book which is not good source material. Just because something's been published doesn't make it true (look at the New York Post or any of the gossip mags). My guess, is the guy who added it is either the author of the book or a fan/friend/family of the author or book. Volatile 17:44, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

And that is not to mention the fact that when you search for "Michael Munn" and "James Stewart" in conjunction on Google, you get the James Stewart wiki page! Incredible, right? Unless government documents or a legitimate book (written by at least marginally known writer on a relatively established publisher) is written, please leave this kind of libelous stuff out. Thank you. Volatile 17:50, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

So, it sounds like Volatile has a personal POV issue here. Facts:

• the book exists
• it makes some new, interesting claims about Jimmie

What's wrong with adding them, marked simply as claims? Does it somehow offend you, Volatile? That is not a good enough reason to not allow it. Even if these claims later prove untrue, Wiki should cover recent developments. Beanbatch 18:56, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Gossip is not good material for an encyclopedia, no matter how you cut it. And unsubstantiated claims don't belong in an encyclopedia either (I'm guessing this is the argument you're making). Also, the book, to the best of my knowledge, is not anywhere near a "bestseller" and hasn't created much of a debate anywhere. While I think the claims of a popular, if false or unproven, book may fly; this is by no means a popular or notable book. Is Michael Munn a Hollywood historian, an aviation historian, or just a guy from New Jersey who put two and two together and got five, so he decided to write a libelous (once again, that word) book? I'm willing to put this matter up for comment, but please use your common sense. Unsubstantiated "claims" have no place in an encyclopedia. If I still see this up here in a few days, it's going for comment. Volatile 23:56, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

• unsubstantiated: your opinion
• libelous: your opinion

Why does only your opinion count? I guess someone will have to read the book, and let us know if Munn's sources are reliable. Volatile, have you read it? I am not trying to defend the author or his work, I do not know either of them. I am just trying to defend the right to add "new claims" because they are interesting, as long as such claims they are labeled as "claims". I see no harm there. Beanbatch 20:11, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

I have no connection to the Munn author. I found this little bio on him here: [2] This is not his first book on Hollywood. He has several. Beanbatch 20:24, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Avoided making (fiction) War movies

I think it's worth noting that (Brigadier General) James Stewart, (combat veteran), avoided making (fiction) War movies during most of his career. There were two notable exceptions: (1) "How the West Was Won (film)", where he is just a dead body on the operating table at the battle of Shiloh, Tennessee, (1862). (2) "Shenandoah (film)", where he is a man who wants to avoid taking sides in the American Civil War until fate forces him to get involved. He does not kill anyone in the movie,but, he goes through extreme hardship and grief. I do not regard "Strategic Air Command (film)" as war movie,it's more of an attempt to deter war. Considering all the fiction war movies that were made after WWII, it is significant that James Stewart did not appear in any of them.204.80.61.10 18:20, 18 May 2006 (UTC)Bennett Turk

He starred in a war film called The Mountain Road. And he had no problem making right-wing propaganda like The FBI Story. (HarveyCarter 09:51, 10 February 2007 (UTC))

I recently saw "The Mountain Road" (1960) on the Military Channel. It is an low budget, mostly forgotten, fictional WWII film about US Army soldiers blowing up bridges and mountain pass roads in China to stop the advance of the Japanese Army. It gets almost no airplay on tv. It is unique in that the Japanese are not shown, and the climatic battle is between the Americans and Chinese bandits. This might be because in 1960, Japan was an ally of the USA and Communist China an enemy. It is not a film with a happy ending because James Stewart falls in love with a Chinese woman and she leaves him, because he gives into instinct and kills the bandits instead of avoiding an unnessary battle. It is not a typical WWII movie from the early 1960's and it certainly does not glorify killing people even if they are bandits, or wearing the uniform of the enemy nation.204.80.61.110 18:39, 29 May 2007 (UTC)Bennett Turk

Most war movies in the early 1960s were anti-war anyway. It was only in the years after World War II that they were still gung ho. (InLikeErrol 17:31, 15 June 2007 (UTC))

Vietnam Bombing run untrue

The following appears to be unsubtantiated by every other cite discussing Jimmy Stewart's career. Also, Jimmy Stewart would have been 58 in 1959, which is much too old to be making a bombing run. I deleted it, and also deleted the reference to it later in the paragraph. His final mission for the Air Force was a B-52 Stratofortress bombing run during the Vietnam War —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Musical Socrates (talk • contribs) 23:06, May 19, 2006 (UTC)

It is absolutely true. It is mentioned in Jimmy Stewart, Bomber Pilot by Starr Smith, who served with Stewart in WWII and knew him in the postyear wars. Stewart flew along as an observer and didn't participate in the mission. The book even has a photo of Stewart in the pre-mission briefing and another standing next to the B-52 after the mission. I have my copy of the book open as I read this. If you want to see more about the book, check this out. --rogerd 03:42, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

According to IMDB: "In 1966, two years before his retirement from the US Air Force Reserve, he requested and was given permission to follow as a non-duty observer on a mission over North Vietnam in a B-52. This has often, specifically on the internet, been mistaken as his last mission as a pilot. He never flew B-52 as a pilot, nor did he fly any combat mission at all as a pilot in Vietnam!"

I think this article should be changed, since now it gives an image that Stewart actually flew several missions during the Vietnam war. Latre 19:02, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

fixed. Night Gyr 01:19, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't think anybody should hold this against Stewart, because he was only following orders, and although he was a right-wing Republican he did not like violence.

Blacklisting

The article should mention how Stewart strongly and actively supported McCarthyism, as well as spying for the FBI. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.93.21.105 (talk • contribs) 03:21, May 26, 2006 (UTC)

If you have any evidence, please add it to the article and cite your sources --rogerd 12:31, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

From imdb:

Along with his friends John Wayne and Ward Bond, Stewart strongly supported blacklisting in Hollywood during the late 1940s. According to Michael Munn's biography "Jimmy Stewart: The Truth Behind the Legend" (2004), he worked as a secret agent for FBI leader 'J Edgar Hoover' , rooting out suspected communists from Hollywood. Hoover knew the actor was a right- wing Republican and asked him to work undercover for the FBI in 1947, because Stewart's status as a famous, decorated war hero and officer in the American Army Air Force Reserve Corps made him the perfect choice to help flush out subversives in LA, Stewart's late wife, Gloria Stewart, recalled. The biography claims the star was so keen to assist Hoover, he spied on his closest friends, including Cary Grant and director Frank Capra, who had directed him in It's a Wonderful Life (1946). Stewart's wife recalled, "Jim went barefoot up the mountain and saw the burning bush - only God's name was 'J Edgar Hoover' . When Hoover realized Jim was willing to fight crime he played on it. Jim would have done anything to get those gangsters out of town. But, he was concerned about how it would turn out for friends like Cary Grant who'd developed friendships with these people". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.93.21.105 (talk • contribs) 08:10, May 28, 2006 (UTC)

Removed the text in question from the article. First, the text is taken directly from IMDB.com - plagiarism. Then, the book sourced is of a dubious nature to begin with. With a little research, I've found that Michael Munn has published several "exposé" books/articles with little actual merit. On top of all of this, the book hasn't even been published yet. How can any statements on Wikipedia be sourced to this work if they can't be looked up and examined? The fact that "Barricade Books," the publisher, is a fairly new independent publisher who has published similar types of books ("The Real Law and Order," "The End of Food," ...) doesn't bode well for the authenticity of Munn's claims. Find a real source, preferably government documentation or a non-fiction book or article from an established author, and the statements would have some legitimacy. Volatile 06:09, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

The book has been published in the United Kingdom, and nobody has disputed it accuracy because they know Stewart was a right-wing activist.

Popularity of James Stewart in the Web

Hi,

If you want to know the popularity of James Stewart on the Web, look at http://www.thepoplist.com/card.data/James%20Stewart_1414376.htm He is ranked as 69th. Sportsperson and 943th. Popular personality on the internet. In the sports he is behind David Smith but ahead of John Ford ….. too bad! The site says his popularity has been falling and growing since last week. he also happens to be 80th. Aquarius

Seeya!

Question about the First Film Unit association

I haven't changed the reference yet, but Starr Smith's biography "Jimmy Stewart : Bomber Pilot" does not support the statement that Stewart aligned himself with the First Film Unit in Hollywood. The only public appearances after he went into flight school were limited appearances scheduled by the air corps. "Stewart appeared several times on network radio with Edgar Bergen and Charlie McCarthy. Shortly after Pearl Harbor . he performed with Orson Welles, Edward G. Robinson, Walter Huston, and Lionel Barrymore in an all-network radio program called "We Hold These Truths," dedicated to the 150th anniversary of the Bill of Rights. But mostly, Stewart's days and nights were spent preparing for his upcoming flight tests, ground school, and academic examinations for his commission." (Page 31-32, softbound edition).

And, later, "Still, the war was moving on. For the thirty-six-year-old Stewart, combat duty seemed far away and unreachable, and he had no clear plans for the future. But then a rumor that Stewart would be taken off flying status and assigned to making training films or selling bonds called for his immediate and decisive action, because what he dreaded most was the hope-shattering spector of a dead end." (Page 49-50) So he appealed to his commander, a pre-war aviator, who understood, and reassigned him to a unit going overseas.

Doesn't sound like Jimmy had ANYTHING to do with the Hollywood unit...

Mark Sublette 04:07, 11 January 2007 (UTC)Mark SubletteMark Sublette 04:07, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Content out of place

Some of the content in the opening few paragraphs is listed twice, both in that opening section and in his biography section. This information, such as his birth location and his architecture interests, should only be present in the biography section. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fistful of Questions (talk • contribs) 02:01, 14 January 2007 (UTC).

Sexuality

When Jimmy arrived in Hollywood he had no girlfriend or interest in girls. It was such a worry to studio executives that he was forced to go to a brothel owned by Mayer and find a girl. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.212.41.196 (talk) 10:36, 17 January 2007 (UTC).

Yes, it is believed he repressed his homosexuality for most of his life. The preceding unsigned comment was added by HarveyCarter (talk) 01:49, 10 February 2007 (UTC).

He probably was not gay or bi. Even if he was, there is no proof either way now that he is dead (aside from the fact he had a wife and children, which isn't necessarily conclusive). Volatile 00:40, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Let's just call everybody in history gay and be done with it. --204.126.173.139 17:21, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Stewart lived with Henry Fonda for years and didn't marry until he was 41. The article should mention his racism. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JohnRobertsly (talk) 21:24, 5 March 2007 (UTC).

Since he "lived with Henry Fonda for years" that makes Fonda gay, too. Right? Arnold Schwarzenegger didn't marry until he was 39, so I guess that makes him gay? As for "Yes, it is believed he repressed his homosexuality for most of his life" (there seem to be a lot of unsigned comments in this section), I'd think that was a very droll and ironic comment except for the sinister "most." Nice way to imply there are skeletons in the closet. Perhaps he supressed his heterosexuality for part of his life? Gee, isn't this fun? And the less facts there are, the more fun we can have.--Paul 14:00, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Don't put Stewart on a pedestal. We know for a fact that he was a racist, supported McCarthyism and the Vietnam War, campaigned for Nixon and Reagan, and was as right-wing as John Wayne. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JohnRobertsly (talk) 19:19, 6 March 2007 (UTC).

Oh, oh. Looks like he was part of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy!--Paul 21:25, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

It's a shame they don't make them like they used to.Isaac Crumm 12:28, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Military rank

A recent post indicated that there was a postumous promotion to Major-General. The Jimmy Stewart Museum which continues to keep up-to-date on any related events, has no knowledge of this. Bzuk 17:09, 3 March 2007 (UTC).

Racism

In the interests of presenting an accurate picture of Stewart, the article should mention his racism, which is well documented in Donald Dewey's superb 1996 biography. (Granville1 17:17, 23 April 2007 (UTC))

You've seriously misread the Woody Strode story. Stewart told that story on himself in Peter Bogdanovich's DIRECTED BY JOHN FORD and in other places, as a laugh on himself about how Ford PRETENDED to tell the entire cast of THE MAN WHO SHOT LIBERTY VALANCE that Stewart "hated Negroes" merely because Stewart had mentioned that Strode's old-age makeup looked a little heavy-handed. Strode himself laughed about it and mentioned it in his own memoirs. Stewart was a racist the way Mother Teresa was a racist. I'm wondering a little bit about why you keep going from article to article pointing out that various people are "racists," even those whose lives clearly and seriously were built on non-racist principles. You're starting to sound a little like that Hadleigh guy who writes those "Everybody You Ever Heard Of Was Gay" books. I hope maybe it's not you but rather your sources that are so wildly and inaccurately accusatory.Monkeyzpop 07:14, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

From Dewey's excellent biography:

NBC producer Hal Kanter was shocked when Stewart insisted on firing black actor Hal Williams from "The Jimmy Stewart Show" (1971). Kanter recalled, "One day somebody comes running into my office and says you better get down and see Jimmy, he is absolutely furious. I go down to his dressing room, and he's really hot. The problem was he had just found out that we were casting Hal Williams and he related that to a script for a show in which there was a cop lashing into the professor character. 'Blacks are bossing white people all over the country,' he says to me angrily, 'and now we're going to have the same damn thing on prime time television? A black is going to be lecturing me with millions of people watching? No way. I get casting approval and Williams is out.' I couldn't believe it. Aside from everything else, he'd screwed up the shows, because Williams had been hired to play an FBI agent on another episode. But his anger about the thing was frightening. He acted chagrined when I told him about the mix up he'd made, but both of us knew that he'd let one cat out of the bag that he would have preferred not to. He didn't have an easy relationship with blacks even as fictional characters." Others had seen the cat at least in the bag for some time. Director John Ford had picked on Stewart's Achilles heel during the filming of The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance (1962). Readers of interviews over the years may have been struck by everything from his descriptions of the antics of "dusky" housekeepers before World War II, to his complaints during the 1960s and 1970s that motion pictures had fallen under the influence of special interest audiences, among them "teenagers and colored people." Beverly Hills friend Leonard Gershe recalled, "I don't think there's any question that Jimmy was uncomfortable with black people. But I wouldn't lay it all on Indiana, either. This is Beverly Hills, USA. It is possible to go to dinner parties for years and, except for maybe Gregory Peck's home, never run into a black person, even the rich ones like Sidney Poitier and Quincy Jones. When you consider that Jimmy has spent almost his entire life in either Indiana or Beverly Hills, and is of a certain generation, you're not talking about someone who figures to be particularly sensitive to race. Like a lot of people with his kind of mentality, any kind of militancy, like the civil rights demonstrations in the 1960s, made him very uneasy, were just another threat to the way he was used to living, like admitting women to Princeton."

James Stewart was indeed a racist, just like his father Alex, and just like his friend John Wayne. James Stewart was a racist and all his friends and family knew. (Granville1 08:25, 24 April 2007 (UTC))

The extrapolation of racism from one source is not sufficient. I have reviewed a number of alternate references and found that Marc Eliot's biography for one does not corroborate these assertions. Dewey has rightfully tried to describe Stewart in the light of his times, he was fundamentally conservative and reflected his small-town turn-of-the-century origins. In trying to paint him as racist, you have made a sweeping assertion that was not made in the Dewey biography. James Stewart tried to explain his persona, "I have my own rules and adhere to them," he said in a press release from that time. "The rule is simple but inflexible. A James Stewart picture must have two vital ingredients: it will be clean and it will involve the triumph of the underdog over the bully." The "uncomfortable with black people" statement is an accurate quote, going farther needs to come to this forum first. Constantly trying to assert your viewpoint is considered a violation of the WP guideline. You have to have widescale support for your substantive research findings from at least two-three reputable sources or else this racism claim falls into the same category as the earlier claims that Stewart was "gay" or a "war monger" or any other gossip that can be dredged up. IMHO Bzuk 13:00, 24 April 2007 (UTC).

Being born in 1908 is no excuse. Clark Gable and Gary Cooper were seven years older than Stewart, yet neither were racist. Being uncomfortable around black people is indeed racist, and Stewart's tirade and pathetic press release are no defense. Both Stewart and Wayne were racist far right Republicans, and the article needs to be more honest. (Gibsonism 00:31, 25 April 2007 (UTC))

Your conflating of "racist" and "far right Republican" is very telling. Don't let your personal political views color your editorial judgment. Wikipedia must present factual balanced information. "Balanced" does not mean that for everything good, there must be something bad. Balanced means focusing on what is important in a subject and presenting all credible views, NOT presenting ALL views. The literature does not support the allegation that Stewart was racist. --Paul 01:46, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Dewey's book proves Stewart was racist, just like his father Alex before him. I guess if you can't see that it is because YOU are also racist. (Gibsonism 11:09, 25 April 2007 (UTC))

(Gibsonism, in reviewing your latest comments and earlier submissions, it is evident that you are not acting in good faith as a Wikipedian. You have contravened all five general "guides" to conduct. Treat this comment as a well-meaning yet illustrative request to adhere to the tenets of this forum. Calling people names is unconscionable and will result in administrative consequences to limit or deny you rights to edit Wikipedia. Further comment posted on editor's talk page. Bzuk 12:18, 25 April 2007 (UTC).

Since that extract shows Stewart to be a racist, the Hal Williams incident should definitely be mentioned in the article. After all, John Wayne's entry here mentions his infamous Playboy interview, and Elvis Presley's biography discusses the racist remarks he allegedly made in 1957. (BillRodgers 11:23, 22 July 2007 (UTC))

Again, make the addition, adequately cite the reference and put it into context. There is evidence that Stewart was genuinely chagrined at making the outburst. Michael Munn also refers to Woody Strode's belief that Stewart exhibited racism. FWIW Bzuk 11:35, 22 July 2007 (UTC).

Chagrined at making the outburst, or revealing his racism? (BillRodgers 16:48, 22 July 2007 (UTC))

I may be misreading the quote but is it implying that Gregory Peck was a racist, too? I believe Peck marched on Washington with Dr. King and Harry Belafonte so I don't get that comment at all. MrBlondNYC 21:42, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

No, I believe you are indeed misreading it. The quote says basically the opposite, that Gregory Peck's home was about the only home in Beverly Hills at that time where one might run into a black person (for the very reasons you point out, btw). Monkeyzpop 06:29, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Ah, yes thank you. MrBlondNYC 06:51, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Stewart's racism is also mentioned in the biographies by Marc Eliot and Michael Munn, so it should definitely be mentioned in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.159.105.81 (talk) 20:07, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Alzheimer's disease

It is now known that the real reason Stewart became a recluse in 1994 was not so much because of his wife's death but also because Alzheimer's disease was oncoming. The article ought to mention this. (Gibsonism 16:51, 24 April 2007 (UTC))

Mention of Alzheimer's is already given. Bzuk 20:12, 24 April 2007 (UTC).

Military rank in opening sentence

I think it is wrong to open the article with his military rank. His main notoriety is for his Hollywood work, not his military career. I think it should be mentioned in the opening, perhaps even in the opening paragraph, but not in the first sentence. There are two members of congress (Steve Buyer and Lindsey Graham) who are reserve Colonels in the military (one grade lower that Stewart's), but their rank is not mentioned in the first sentence. Consensus, everyone? --rogerd 01:53, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

• I agree, and made a change which I think made sense: eliminating the rank from the opening sentence, since Stewart is not BEST known for his Air Force career, and giving it an entire sentence later in the opening paragraph. However, it seems not to be enough for whomever first put it in the opening sentence, as it has now been put back in the opening sentence, in boldface now, with the subsequent remark about his promotion to the rank still (now redundantly) in the same paragraph. Maybe we should call him Brigadier General James Stewart every single time he's mentioned, hmmm? Monkeyzpop 17:57, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

General Stewart should be referred as such in the first sentence. It is the appropriate form of address for a military officer. It is not needed in the following references but as an introduction it is a show of respect that he earned. I agree that his notoriety is as an actor but his title is his title. I have not edited the article yet but would like to and correct the form of address. 166.217.40.213 01:28, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

You will not have consensus for that change. To the public, he was first an actor and that is how this article is written. FWIW Bzuk 01:34, 15 August 2007 (UTC).

Not sure this is an issue of concensus in a way. Compare this to the page on pope john paul II that page starts with the proper form of address. To me this is a standard writing style issue along the lines of proper use of punctuation. Whether the first paragraph is about acting vs. military service is a concensus issue, not using the correct form of address is just a writing mistake. (Though you are probably right that I won't get concensus) 166.217.40.213 01:44, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Well Mr. 166.217.40.213 (ever thought of getting a username?), the issue has been brought up before and consensus was to leave the introductory passage as is but include his military rank in the paragraph. The introduction statement was not put to a consensus request but it resulted from a number of reverted edits that established the accepted practice. FWIW Bzuk 02:17, 15 August 2007 (UTC).

How about precedence? Neither Ulysses S. Grant, nor George S. Patton, nor Erwin Rommel, nor George Washington, nor Robert E. Lee, nor Omar Bradley, nor Stonewall Jackson, nor Curtis LeMay, nor John J. Pershing have their ranks included in their names in the opening sentences of their Wikipedia entries. Why should Stewart be the exception to the list, especially when it is clear that the encyclopedic style is consistent throughout most encyclopedias of the world, and fairly consistent even in the anybody-can-contribute world of Wikipedia? He is no less honored for his military achievements in the first paragraph, in terms of their inclusion, than is George Washington. Would you also have Lee Marvin's entry read in the first paragraph "Private Lee Marvin was an Academy-Award-winning actor....?" Let's stick to encyclopedic form and a consistency of style, which is well established already. Monkeyzpop 03:27, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Tom Slick and the Yeti hand

Sumggled a Yeti hand for Tom Slick... in 1959? The link to Tom Slick says Slick wasn't even born until 1962.... something is not right there.... ?

That's dead in 1962, not born. {:0}) Bzuk 21:35, 10 June 2007 (UTC).

It's just an urban myth. (BillRodgers 11:13, 20 July 2007 (UTC))

The Pangboche Hand story is quite well documented. It's no urban myth. --Scottandrewhutchins (talk) 22:17, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Tabloids vs. Encyclopedias

My question is why is the sexuality relevant? Why should we quess if he was gay or state that he father a child that was aborted by Marlene Dietrich. Neither of these items can be proved, they are items for the tabeloids - not for an encyclopedia. Lizvas 19:41, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with this assessment, and am going to remove the rumor section once again. --Paul 19:32, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh dear. Can you not accept that James Stewart actor and George Bailey character were not the same person? Oh, well ... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JohnRobertsly (talk) 16:58, 15 April 2007 (UTC).

The Dietrich story is well known and is included in several of his biographies. It should definitely be mentioned in the article. (BillRodgers 11:14, 20 July 2007 (UTC))

However, there is quite a bit of dispute between biographers whether the entire story was:

1. Fabricated by Dietrich
2. A true incident that showed Stewart in a good light
3. A concocted rumour denied by both Dietrich and Stewart

If a mention of the Dietrich pregnancy is made, there should be adequate citing of the various opinions. FWIW Bzuk 12:56, 20 July 2007 (UTC).

From all that I have read the only dispute was whether the child was his or Gary Cooper's, or John Wayne's. (BillRodgers 17:23, 20 July 2007 (UTC))

Dietrich barely includes Stewart in her Marlene Dietrich: My Life autobiography and makes no mention of a pregnancy. Donald Dewey does not include the "rumour" in his authoritative James Stewart: A Biography, neither does Jhan Robbins in A Biography of Jimmy Stewart (he only devotes two pages to her) nor does Roy Pickard in Jimmy Stewart: A Life in Film. BillRodgers, I would be curious to know what sources you have? FWIW Bzuk 18:04, 20 July 2007 (UTC).

Gary Fishgall's "Pieces of Time: The Life of James Stewart" contains diary enteries describing the incident. Stewart was very honest about the fact that he had numerous affairs before getting married, the article ought to mention that. (BillRodgers 08:50, 21 July 2007 (UTC))

Be sure to cite the source when you make the entry but be aware that other biographers do not support this view. FWIW Bzuk 19:55, 21 July 2007 (UTC).

Requested move

James Stewart (actor) → James Stewart — The legendary actor is the primary use of this name so (actor) isn't necessary. There are plenty of other James Stewarts, but most people searching for "James Stewart" would expect to see an article about the actor, there is already a disambiguation link to James Stewart (disambiguation) for anyone looking for any other people called James Stewart. —Saikokira 18:30, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

• Oppose. I think seven Kings of Scotland have prior claim to the name. -- Arwel (talk) 23:12, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment, The editor is not asking for "James Stewart" -> "Jimmy Stewart" he/she is asking for "James Stewart (actor)" -> "James Stewart" --Paul 00:16, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I misunderstood, still oppose as there needs to be some rationalization. James Stewart (actor) is the best compromise. FWIW Bzuk 04:40, 8 August 2007 (UTC).

• Totally Oppose. Bearing this name are six Scottish kings, two English kings, a pretender, two Scottish dukes (including an archbishop), three earls, two congressmen, three MPs and the very first person ever to bear the name, named in honour of St James of Santiago de Compostela. The actor is nowhere near as important as any of these guys, but of course we're talking about usage. Don't think this actor is best known as James Stewart anyway, but Jimmy Stewart. I'd dispute too, and partly for that reason, that the actor is primary usage of this popular name. Page should go back to a dab page that it was before it was unilaterally moved some months ago, and if anything this page should be moved to Jimmy Stewart. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 05:11, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

Since this call for a consensus-driven move was launched months ago and hasn't picked up traffic, I would like to close the discussion now under the Wikipedia:Snowball clause (it hasn't got a snowball's chance in hell to succeed!). FWIW Bzuk 05:15, 15 October 2007 (UTC).

Military Service

May I suggest that BG Stewart's military carear recieve its own seperate section from his acting carear. This it can recieve its own highlight without it being hidden or obscured by his other notible achievements.

I've rewritten the opening portion of the military section, because it consists of some excessively complex sentences, and because it was written in far too folksy a manner for an encyclopedia. WP style calls for simplicity and objectivity, something not served by saying "another Stewart would be in uniform" instead of "he served in the military." Yes, the latter is plain where the former is kind of colorful, but that isn't appropriate here. Stating that it was "inevitable" that Stewart would end up a military pilot is not objective, but colloquially subjective. I also don't see why the information about his being a trained pilot needs to be cluttered with the fact that he lost a civilian air race. I'm leaving it because the originating editor seems rather badly to want it and I don't think it's worth an edit war. But it's of no more pertinence to the point being made (that Stewart became a military aviator after having been a civilian one) than to list the destinations of his civilian flights or the type of planes he flew on those flights. It would fit VERY well in another section not devoted to his military career. But I'll leave that up to others. Monkeyzpop 07:34, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

It is not POV to write that due to his interest in flying was the reason for joining the USAAC, and that he was becoming proficient in flying. From Smith's biography, it is clear that Stewart devoted considerable time to becoming a pilot and rose to some prominence as an "expert" pilot, thereby the reason for his becoming a race pilot is now notable. He also went to considerable lengths to disguise his proficiency when he entered flight training, fearing that his background would inevitably be used against him. The prevailing notion at the time in the U.S. military was that accepting "celebrity" draftees and volunteers was a problem area. What if they were lost in battle? The loss of Carole Lombard on a war bonds tour even though she was not in the military caused a nation-wide grieving. Stewart believed that because of his skills as a pilot he would be kept in the United States as an instructor, far away from a combat zone, which was exactly what happened as one commanding officer after another, recognized that Stewart was a valuable commodity and was reluctant to send him off to war, with all the damaging press that would result if he would have been shot down or killed in action. BTW, I am a professional writer and editor by trade and I appreciate the backhanded compliments? in that you have characterized my editing as "colourful (note Canajan spelling)." Seriously, I have no issues about having my work edited; I only want to make the reader aware that Stewart had a passion for flying, became more than a proficient pilot and tried his best to live up to his family's record as soldiers who "took up the call". Whoops, there I go again, sorry, colourful language and idioms are hard to eliminate in a writer who makes his living from dolling up dross. [:¬∆ FWIW Bzuk 13:38, 7 November 2007 (UTC).

I didn't find the information POV, I found the expression of it subjective. The "wordsmithing" you've done allays every one of my concerns, and the section now reads perfectly in tune with encyclopedic style, IMNSHO :) Monkeyzpop 23:46, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Command Pilot

Is Mr. Stewart a command pilot?
What kind of pilot badge he wore? :D 59.121.169.196 14:06, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

External links, Life magazine

Can someone look at this user, Gregglbk, and the fact that he keeps adding a commercial link to this article? It is merely a link to sell back issues of Life magazine:

• Jimmy Stewart LIFE Magazine issues by OriginalLIFEmagazines.com

I have removed it once, but he has returned it. If you look at his user history, you will see all he does is add links to his commercial site on Wiki. Thanks. K72ndst (talk) 16:50, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Born on... ???

I always thought he had been born on May 20th, as the main text says. But lo and behold: the man featured on the photo within the article - one would naturally assume it's the same man who is the subject of the text - was born on August 5th, according to the caption. Unless James Stewart had an identical twin born three months after him - which should then be identified as such in the caption - I suggest the data to be corrected...

Oh and BTW, I don't think that statements such as "in an effort to make him lose his virginity in no time" (without any citation, to boot) really belong in an encylopaedia... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.61.80.196 (talk) 06:47, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually they do, since Stewart had affairs with everyone before finally marrying. (172.209.8.246 (talk) 18:59, 14 December 2007 (UTC))

Stewart's racism

Why isn't Stewart's extreme and very vocal racism mentioned in the article when it is discussed in great detail in every bioography I have read? (172.209.8.246 (talk) 19:00, 14 December 2007 (UTC))

All you need do is submit a clear citation with your information, and it will be allowed to stay. --Scottandrewhutchins (talk) 19:07, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Read lengthy discussion above where the issue was discussed and does not have a clear-cut consensus within the large body of historians/biographers. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 19:20, 14 December 2007 (UTC).

There is no doubt that like his friend John Wayne, Stewart was one of the most racist celebrities who ever lived. (172.209.8.246 (talk) 19:39, 14 December 2007 (UTC))

See WP:POV --Scottandrewhutchins (talk) 19:40, 14 December 2007 (UTC).

Also see the comments and discussion earlier; there is considerable doubt... Bzuk (talk) 14:34, 15 December 2007 (UTC).

Only right-wing nutjobs doubt Stewart's extreme racism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.159.24.203 (talk) 20:22, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

No need for that. Stop now. Bzuk (talk) 20:59, 16 December 2007 (UTC).

There is no need to comment in that fashion to your fellow editors, please be civil. There isn't any consensus among historians that Stewart was a racist. To add such content requires verifiable non trivial sources and a consensus to add same.--Sandahl 21:20, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Woody Strode, Leonard Gershe, John Ford, Hal Kanter, Hal Williams and Lucille Gipson have all confirmed Stewart's extreme and unforgivable racism. (172.159.24.203 (talk) 21:29, 16 December 2007 (UTC))