Talk:John Wayne

Please read and understand Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:Citing sources, and Wikipedia:Reliable sources before making additions to this article, or making suggested additions on this article's talk page. Additions made without references which meet this criteria may be deleted as vandalism. Blogs, emails, fansites and statements made on the radio do not meet this criteria.

Archives 2006 and earlier 2007

Why is this article protected?

Do people really feel the need to vandalize John Wayne? Shame on them for defacing such a revered American hero!Here, Have Some Of My Germs (talk) 20:53, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Take a glance at the recent history -- User:HarveyCarter's IP socks are actively vandalizing many mid-20th century actors' pages again. Ashdog137 (talk) 21:06, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Cause of death

In one section, this article states the cause of death was stomach cancer; later, it states he had lung cancer from a heavy smoking habit. Was the lung cancer primary and then metastasize to the stomach? A clarifying edit would be helpful to resolve this apparent contradiction for the reader. JGHowes ^talk - 02:43, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

You're right that a clarifying edit is needed. I've just provided one. Wayne had lung cancer in 1964 but was declared cancer free five years later. Fifteen years later, he developed stomach cancer, from which he died. Although the two cancers are covered in separate sections, there is reference to the earlier lung cancer in the Death section, as relates to the rumors of radioactivity from the Conqueror set causing one or both cancers. I've adjusted the wording so it no longer possibly misleads as to which of the cancers caused Wayne's death. Monkeyzpop (talk) 03:55, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Good, that clears it up nicely. Happy editing! JGHowes ^talk - 04:06, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Image

Why is there an image of someone called wayne newton playing the guitar? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.205.84.30 (talk) 14:58, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Lung cancer

"...and jumps his new horse over a fence. Despite popular belief, Wayne did not jump over the fence himself. In fact, according to biographer Garry Wills in his book on Wayne, Wayne was not healthy enough to do such stunts. It should be remembered that Wayne had an entire lung removed four years prior to making the film and actually had trouble walking more than 30 feet without breathing heavily." Taken from True Grit. Shouldn't that be mentioned along with the info on lung cancer? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.146.76.80 (talk) 23:16, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Another tidbit of "American Icon" trivia

Twenty-odd years ago, as a Light Attack Naval Aviator flying the LTV A-7 Corsair II out of NAS Lemoore, CA, we regularly practiced gunnery with our Vulcan cannon by strafing ground targets on ranges. The idea in strafing (contrary to what you usually see in Hollywood movies) is to adjust the flight path of the airplane while firing at the target so as to keep the stream of projectiles concentrated in a tight group on the target itself. On the range, if one allowed their aim to stray such that the stream of projectiles "walked" or "sprayed" across the target (like you usually DO see, with a string of rounds throwing up dirt trailing in a line across the area of the target), it was critiqued as a "John Wayne"--it looks COOL, but that's not what we're after; it's just the way they do it in the movies!192.100.70.210 (talk) 16:12, 1 February 2008 (UTC)CBsHellcat

WP:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers priority assessment

Per debate and discussion re: assessment of the approximate 100 top priority articles of the project, this article has been included as a top priority article. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:44, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Dirty Harry

The article should not repeat the urban myth that Wayne turned down "Dirty Harry", because in reality he was never offered the film since he was plainly too old by then to play a tough cop. Frank Sinatra and Paul Newman were the only actors offered the film before Eastwood. (92.10.208.65 (talk) 08:30, 6 March 2008 (UTC))

• He was offered the role and he sure as hell was not to old to play a tough cop. See McQ and Brannigan (film) both made after Dirty Harry. He turned it down because he felt it, like High Noon and free speech, was anti-American. Wayne was a great actor, but totally ignorant regarding politics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BillyJack193 (talk • contribs) 14:30, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Wayne was actually quite well informed on political matters and had a fairly sophisticated awareness. His politics were bluntly conservative (most of the time), but not ignorant. But this is not a forum for such things, it is a place to discuss the article, not the subject. Monkeyzpop (talk) 15:38, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Which is what I was doing by correcting the previous user who stated that the fact that John Wayne turned down Dirty Harry was false. BillyJack193 (talk) 17:40, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Which contribution, of course, critically needed that drive-by comment about John Wayne and free speech. Take it to a political blog, please. Mark Shaw (talk) 18:24, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually he was never offered the part. By the way, both McQ and Brannigan were crap. (92.13.223.156 (talk) 12:27, 5 June 2009 (UTC))

Physical stats

John Wayne's physical stats are stated as: 6-foot-4-inch, 225- pound frame (1.88 m, 142 kg). (His height has been disputed.)

I don't know where this data is coming from, but the conversion to the metric data is definitely wrong.

According to the metric data, John Wayne had a size of 6 foot 2 inch and a weight of 313 lbs. This would be pretty fat, and I don't remember him that heavy.

It rather seems to me that the metric data have to be corrected to 1.93 m, 102 kg.

Since I can't tell for sure which numbers are wrong, maybe someone else has more information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.250.98.194 (talk) 22:47, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

27 Mar 2008 revert

I deleted James Stewart (misspelled Stuart) from the list of actors who rushed into military service after Pearl Harbor because Stewart was already in the military by then. And I reverted the edit from Roman Catholicism to Roman Catholicism Catholic because that is both a bad way of handling the linkage and bad English. Monkeyzpop (talk) 14:51, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Stewart removed from list of actors who joined military after America entered WWII

As noted in the section above, James Stewart joined the Army Air Corps BEFORE America entered World War II, and thus he does not belong on a list of actors who joined AFTER. Monkeyzpop (talk) 11:04, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Yikes, who wrote this entry, Clint Eastwood fans? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drstrangelove57 (talk • contribs) 07:16, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Read Gary Wills' book for the true account of Wayne's draft dodging.

The phrase "Thus, John Wayne did not "dodge" the draft, but he never took direct positive action toward enlistment" is subjective, is unsourced and should be removed. The writer of the section, while still attempting to push his own persepective, is much improved of late, but still needs to realize that a well written article allows the reader to form his own analysis of the objective facts. Further, there is a logical falicy in the conclusory statement: at no point is the common term "dodge the draft" defined, and as it lacks a proper definition, can not be included by reference.

The phrase "by all accounts" is evidence of a weak and biased writter. You can not claim something is "by all accounts" unless the writer can demonstrate the examination of "all accounts." Given the controvery that surrounds this issue, I am confident at least "some accounts" would disagree. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.83.208.224 (talk) 01:42, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Pictures of John Wayne

Personal pictures of John Wayne on location taken by Barton B. Mac Leod. Website: BartonMacLeod.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.109.79.49 (talk) 12:56, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Edits from Banned User HC and IPs

Wikipedia's banning policy states that "Any edits made in defiance of a ban may be reverted to enforce the ban, regardless of the merits of the edits themselves. As the banned user is not authorized to make those edits, there is no need to discuss them prior to reversion."

1) HarveyCarter (talk · contribs) and all of his sockpuppets are EXPRESSLY banned for life.

2) Be on the look out for any edits from these IP addresses:

AOL NetRange: 92.8.0.0 - 92.225.255.255

AOL NetRange: 172.128.0.0 - 172.209.255.255

AOL NetRange: 195.93.0.0 - 195.93.255.255

The Dirty Dozen and Patton

The Patton addition was added here by 71.212.254.128 (talk · contribs) on 22:47, 17 October 2007

The Dirty Dozen addition was added here by 58.167.241.67 (talk · contribs) on 19:21, 20 February 2007

Who says that Wayne was offered these roles? Prove it or lose it. ~ WikiDon (talk) 03:44, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

John Wayne and Tommy Morrison

It is completely untrue that Tommy Morrison was the great nephew of John Wayne - it was invented by Morrison's promoters in order to drum up interest in the latest "great white hope" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.231.35.100 (talk) 05:06, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Blazing Saddles

The article states: "Wayne was approached by Mel Brooks to play the part of The Waco Kid in the film Blazing Saddles. After reading the script he said, 'I can't be in this picture, it's too dirty...but I'll be the first in line to see it.'" But I've heard he was offered the role of Taggart. Which is it? TuckerResearch (talk) 05:42, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Film career

The section about his film career needs some reworking. Since there appears to have been problems with vandalism on the article in the past, I thought I'd better mention it here, instead of just deleting problematic stuff.

The second paragraph about his training from stuntmen links to a somewhat unsuitable source (Think Quest: Library), since the source is not a primary source. That source should be removed, and a better source for the claims should be found.

The other paragraphs often lacks sources, and I've inserted tags where appropriate.

The finale two paragraphs of the section are not encyclopedic in nature, and should be deleted. --Kristjan Wager (talk) 16:34, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

References and a reword would be appropriate. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:52, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Who screwed with the article?

There is some blatantly-wrong and tampered information that appears with his early childhood. Will some John Wayne fan please go in and correct it? Thank you.Boredwibilly (talk) 18:26, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Was -vs- Is

His father WAS a pharmacist, but isn't now because he's deceased. John Wayne WAS a(n)... American film actor, but isn't now because he's deceased. John Wayne (even though deceased) still IS an Academy Award winner. John Wayne (even though deceased) still IS an Golden Globe Award winner. His father (even though deceased) still IS of Scottish/Irish/English decent. His mother (even though deceased) still IS the former Mary Alberta Brown.

Some things become past-tense when the subject dies (e.g. the job they did, where they lived, etc).

Other things stay true, and present-tense, regardless of death. For some examples: John Wayne still IS the father of Patrick Wayne; John Wayne still IS the star of Sands of Iwo Jima.

Another sentence showing the difference, using both WAS and IS: John Wayne WAS the husband of Josephine Alicia Saenz; John Wayne still IS the first husband of Josephine Alicia Saenz.

The first sentence is difficult because it mixes what was (an actor) with what still is (Golden Globe winner, Academy Award winner) all under the past-tense 'WAS'. I've only fixed the one about his mother until I see if someone's autobot comes around to mindlessly revert it. Joe Hepperle —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.213.225.99 (talk) 12:55, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

It is not correct to say about a dead person that he is the husband, father, son etc, as he no longer exists. The only way to use is in regard to him wouold be to state something like 'he is regarded as one of the best film actors', as in that case it is the current opinion that exists, though Wayne no longer exists. Biographies 2 (talk) 03:07, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Billy Idol reference

See this diff: [1]. Does the Billy Idol reference belong at all? Seems pretty trivial to me, and I say let's take it out. Mark Shaw (talk) 00:41, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Racist and controversial statements to Playboy magazine

See this version: [2]. I propose the following changes/improvements:

Including the word "racist" in the section header is arguably accurate, but leaving it as "controversial statements to Playboy magazine" would be more neutral and hence more appropriate for an encyclopedia.

In the body of the section:

In an interview with Playboy magazine in May 1971, Wayne made very incendiary remarks.

"Incendiary" is a value-judgment conclusion; not encyclopedic, unless a cite to contemporary outrage is included. Reword to eliminate this.

He then continued to discuss race relations including the militant blacks and the civil rights movements, empathizing his beliefs in white supremacy and his opinions regarding the "genetic inferiority" of African Americans, "I believe in white supremacy until blacks are educated to a point of responsibility. I don't believe in giving authority and positions of leadership and judgment to irresponsible people...The academic community has developed certain tests that determine whether the blacks are sufficiently equipped scholastically. ....I don't feel guilty about the fact that five or ten generations ago these people were slaves. .... I wish they'd tell me where in the world they have it better than right here in America."

I don't see anything in there about genetics, black militancy, or the civil-rights movement. Perhaps "He then continued to discuss race relations:" or "He then continued to discuss race relations, emphasizing his belief in white supremacy:" (since, according to the cited source, he did use that term.)

Also, the ellipses are in correct. An ellipsis is three dots (unless a period is included to make it four dots), with a space after but none before. And as noted by my boldface just above, "empathizing" should be "emphasizing." These are copyediting criticisms, though; there are others, including the use of commas, but those are beside the point at the moment.

He also alluded to his disgust with the North Vietnamese Communist forces during the Vietnam War, (etc.)

This has no place in a "controversial statements" section as it assumes the reader opposes/opposed the Vietnam war and hence would find Wayne's comments on the enemy controversial. It would be better placed in the "politics" section.

All that said: I've found a lot of references to this interview, but no scans, PDFs, or other such of the particular issue of the magazine cited. I'm not saying anything about the veracity of these reports, just noting that here for the moment. Personally (and I mean that literally, it has nothing to do with my assessment of the article itself or the encyclopedic value of the citation), I'd have to see the interview on paper or in a scan before believing it actually went as reported. Mark Shaw (talk) 14:40, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I've reverted the section to what stood for a great long time, a far less "incendiary" (in itself) version, which I believe is an objective view of what Wayne said and the context in which he said it. Looking at the edit history of this section over the past day or so, it seems pretty clear that there is an agenda on the part of someone to lower the reader's estimation of the subject by overemphasizing or selectively quoting portions of the interview. As edited recently, the section is not very subtle in its outrage, which in an individual's subjectivity may be justified, but not in the objectivity demanded of WP. I think the new edit stands astride the issue fairly, without overemphasis in either direction. (Also, I have the interview and will attempt to post a scan somewhere that it might be judged by editors--despite that being a bit more in the way of citing than WP normally calls for! Monkeyzpop (talk) 16:40, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure a complete reversion is appropriate, but it's probably the best course of action while the section can be discussed. I certainly agree about the tone and texture of the new addition. (I did change one word from your edit that I thought carried a bit too much weight for an encyclopedia.)

The deletion of "infamous" is agreeable to me. I reverted in a chunk. That word didn't bother me, in that I take it to mean "famous in a way seen by many as negative" rather than "famous BECAUSE it is negative," but your edit eliminates the issue entirely. Monkeyzpop (talk) 17:03, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd love to see the interview in its entirety, and perhaps others would as well. If you need a place to host it, I can do that if it isn't too large. Email me and we can arrange for that. Mark Shaw (talk) 16:51, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Nag me if you want. It won't be today or tomorrow, gotta dig for it when I have time.Monkeyzpop (talk) 17:03, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I own the magazine and I highly advise actually owning references and not searching the net for them. You can split hairs about bad punctuation all you want but those are HIS OWN words and that interview is VERY well known. I'm not sure way anyone who is his fan would want to hide who he was but fans and scholars have different agendas. The previous edit was essentially a whitewash created to make it look like the Duke was only a small part of the "bad old days of white supremacy (John E Rankin, Dies, Biblo, Hoover etc) and the cold war" but he was and it needs to be focused on. He was a huge racist and anti-communist just like Ronald Reagan. Why you feel shame about this as fans is your own concern, it's who he was.Catherine Huebscher (talk) 9:17, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Catherine, I agree that a warts-and-all treatment is appropriate, so long as things are balanced. And John Wayne was certainly controversial in his views; the question is how much of that sort of thing to include here. I would caution you not to assume too much about my own opinion about Wayne and my own agenda here, though. In particular, I don't have much of a problem with the idea of emphasizing these "warts" more than they have been in the past. Let's just hash that out here first, though, okay? Mark Shaw (talk) 17:29, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

It's all his words, I'm just describing what was said.I actually showed restraint. What do you propose? Keeping in mind that John Wayne himself would have wanted all of those quotes left in and celebrated , if he is indeed the man he said he was.Catherine Huebscher (talk) 9:32, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not really sure what to propose, but I think it bears discussion. There is at least one other editor involved in this as well, too, remember. I see that you've already restored the section, which is (in my opinion) unfortunate; however, I see also that you've implemented the changes I originally suggested, so I won't kick too much. But just so you know: I intend to edit it, purely for punctuation and the like (I won't change any of your wording in any material way), if it's still there when I get back from lunch. Other than that, I'm waiting to see what others will have to say. Mark Shaw (talk) 17:50, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

My concern is that this article is the only place on the net that I'm seeing the interview mentioned in any real length, wikipedia is THEE main source for so many things so articles on film superstars need to be detailed. I also think that as the lead mentions his conservative views that they be fleshed out and cited. I'm amazed that so many of the racist, cold warriors have their history altered or chunks of it deleted, to reflect today's values. Who they said they were and their well documented actions is all very clear to me! Paul Robeson , the OPPOSITE of who JOHN Wayne was, is uniformly always linked to the USSR and I had no issue including that aspect when I revised his article, knowing that it will almost ALWAYS be misconstrued and too complex to decipher for most. But I am proud of that fact that HIS legacy stands up to the truths and opinions and has not been altered despite my dislike of the material. Catherine Huebscher (talk) 10:14, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I've cleaned up some of the punctuation and such in the section, as I said (above) that I would. By way of continuing the discussion about how this section should eventually look, I repeat my previous comment that the third quote (about the Communist North Vietnamese) really belongs in the "politics" section. Mark Shaw (talk) 19:23, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Ms. Huebscher's allegation that my edits stem from a desire as a " fan" to whitewash Wayne are without merit. I'm not a fan, I'm a professional film historian and biographer. I am the source of most of the detailed, sourced edits in this article revealing Wayne's attempt to avoid military service during World War II. I'm trying very hard to help create and sustain a balanced view of the man. Now, "balanced" doesn't mean for every good thing there has to be a bad thing or vice versa. I'm sure someone could come up with a paragraph of similar size of innocuous statements by some pretty awful people, but an entire section devoted to a single interview in which Hitler commented on his love of humanity would be seen pretty much for what it was, an attempt to make one interview an unbalanced focus of the article. Wayne was unenlightened in his views, particularly from today's viewpoint (not that his remarks in this one interview weren't seen that way at the time), but this interview (in which, by the way, the interviewer makes note that Wayne has been drinking steadily throughout) should not, from a Wikipedia standard, be the only interview or interpretation so thoroughly examined in this article. To force the amount of focus and (from Ms. Huebscher's remarks in this discussion) antagonism on these remarks in this article does disservice not to Wayne but to the encyclopedic nature of Wikipedia. People who want to read the paragraph as I and (subsequently) Mark Shaw amended it will have ample idea of what may be contained in the interview and follow the citations and read it themselves, as is WP standard. To set the entire interview figuratively in boldface and print only the material which will seem inflammatory outside the whole and outside the context is to force, consciously or accidentally, an opinion on the reader. I, too, own the magazine and reprinted copies of the interview, as well as hundreds of other interviews with Wayne. This one is not emblematic beyond all others. It is wrong to treat it that way, simply because it was the most (only?) notorious one he gave. (See Marlon Brando's article for a WP article that handles similar matters well, at least at my last reading of it.) Wayne, like most of us, was a very complex individual. WP's job is to illuminate that, not to single out the parts of him we don't like. Monkeyzpop (talk) 21:40, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

For starters Wayne is not a major political/War figure of the past 500 years, Hitler, for brevity's sake does not require each and every antidote but honestly, if an interview existed it should or could be connected to his page in some fashion if someone wanted to take the time.WP is about the dissemination of well cited information afterall. Please. That is who he was and who he said he was -bottle or no bottle-1949 or 2009-and he would be the first to admit it from what I've gleaned. If you want to mention him drinking then you should but please cite your source.The John Wayne and Jimmy Carter interviews are easily the two most famous in the magazines history.in fact i have a friend who works at the magazine who i will ask for a second opinion.

I can't control a readers' reaction. Many will be offended by him and many will be assuredly happy and many will not care-one could easily say he was a racist, an American fascist, refused to act with blacks and have no problem citing more than one source. Once again, I showed restraint because its not an article about that interview alone but a survey of JW's life ,there was other parts where he sounds literally like David (ahem) Duke because that is WHO HE WAS, he shared white racist anti-communist values ala Hoover and Rankin regardless of his sliver screen charm. If a wikipedia article is positioning a film legend as the "enduring American Icon" that he was then it follows his icon status should be illuminated by showing his values.

"This one is not emblematic beyond all others. It is wrong to treat it that way, simply because it was the most (only?) notorious one he gave."

It IS though-it's one of the all time most famous interviews of any celebs-especially for Playboy- and that's why his fans hate it mentioned and why many of his bios either leave it out, apologize for it or whitewash it. I've even read accounts that say "he was just a man of his time...after all he married Hispanic women exclusively so he could not have been "that" racist...Wayne, like most of us, was a very complex individual..."

What I wrote is 100% in keeping with what wikipedia stands for: the neutral dissemination of cited information. There is especially nothing bias about a man's own words verbatim.Catherine Huebscher (talk) 21:40, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. It is clear to me from it that you do indeed have a task you are set forth upon, to make clear to the world that Wayne deserves condemnation more than any other response. Your reluctance or inability to relate your responses in an objective manner to the points raised by myself and the other editor suggest to me that you are unwilling to accept anything which does not conform to the agenda you have chosen. I am at a loss as to how to have meaningful colloquy with you, therefore.

Editing, even editing of a man's verbatim statements, is inherently biased. Every edit, every selection, every ellipsis, colors the reader's response in the manner consciously or unconsciously intended by the editor. I do not believe you can claim that you selected THIS interview and THESE portions of the interview and deleted THESE portions of the interview out of a desire to present a verbatim record of the man from a purely objective standpoint. You are pushing an agenda, an anti-Wayne agenda. I am pushing an agenda, too -- as objective and fair an illumination of the whole man as I can manage. I see that we disagree which is more important.

I did, by the way, cite my statement about Wayne's drinking during the interview. It's IN the interview, in the interviewer's introduction. Monkeyzpop (talk) 07:13, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I've held back here for a bit, to let this percolate in my mind. Here are my thoughts this morning:

• I think it's clear that Catherine is pushing a POV. (Not that that's necessarily a bad thing; see below.)
• Whitewashing the negativity of the Playboy interview, or leaving it out of the article entirely, would also be POV-pushing; by omission, if you will.

A Wikipedia article must be as fair, balanced, and informative as possible. The consensus nature of Wikipedia lends itself quite well to this; to wit: it's perfectly okay for an editor to exercise an agenda (by, among other things, pushing a POV on an article) if that's done in an atmosphere where others will push back and they all have an equal say in what eventually results. The quality of the resultant article can only be improved, provided all voices get sufficient hearing. This is analogous to the adversarial system that works (reasonably, if not perfectly) well in common-law courtrooms and bipartite political systems.

I think that's what we have here: a fairly well-balanced, if perhaps polarized, body of opinion on what should and should not appear in the article where the Playboy interview is concerned. And we seem to be making progress - in particular, I'm personally very pleased with the progress thus far. I'd encourage both other editors (and any others who might join in) to keep it up.

Here, specifically, are my thoughts on the current status of the section (represented by this diff: [3]):

• The section seems a bit long. That's an impression, though; others may see the length as appropriate.
• I still think the last bit, about the Communist North Vietnamese, should be moved to the "Politics" section. (This would also have the effect of shortening the section a bit.) I may move it later today, but I don't like to make quick edits during a discussion session as that tends to deny others the opportunity to object or offer alternatives (e.g. I'd also be fine with the idea of just leaving that part out; I think it's obvious from the "Politics" section what Wayne thought of the Vietnam War).
• Based on previous comments by Monkeyzpop, it may need some work to tighten up the context. (For example: should the factor of Wayne's apparently having been drunk at the time be mentioned?) I emphasize that I can't say that for sure, though, because I have not read the interview itself. Just a thought, and noted for completeness.

Anyway, that's where I am with this at the moment. Mark Shaw (talk) 17:15, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Sigh, I actually just want the interview mentioned in depth as it is one of Playboy's most well known interviews and definitely one of John Wayne's. It also needs to be in it's own section beacuse many people look for it, especially people who have heard about his open racism. The man was what he was and I'm not pushing any agenda, I'm just pushing a part of his history as an 'American Icon.' Many of you are just uncomfortable with how it looks just as many Robeson fans don't want the hugely negative Stalin Peace prize or Itzak Feffer incident included in his article but it is and by my own edit and I'm a huge Robeson fan, so how biased am I really if I'll turn around and show the perceived warts of my most cherished subject? When does a man's own words actually stop standing for who he was? When it does not fit the agenda of fans? Then does it become magically "misquoted" and "bias" due to ellipses? When it sounds really racist and makes him look like less of an icon? Oh well, that's fame. The Playboy interview according to a few of his biographers was hugely controversial at the time. Mentioning he was drinking is apt but it won't sanitize it, nothing could, but include it. The article is big enough for more detail.Catherine Huebscher (talk) 10:58, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Catherine, just a few discussion points:

• At this time I don't have any objections to this material appearing in its own section.
• Do you have any objections to shortening/condensing it a bit? Specifically:
  • Remove (or refer parenthetically to) the second quote of Wayne's views on the contemporary state of African-American affairs (the first is damaging enough, I think).
  • Move the last quote (on the Communist North Vietnamese) to the "Politics" section, or perhaps drop it entirely.
• It may be that the interview itself might be appropriate for a separate article, which would deal with it in its entirety rather than just the controversial bits. We could still have an excerpt of those here, somewhat like what we have at the moment. (That's just a bit of brainstorming, though; I'm not sure I really want to propose that at the moment.)
• Monkeyzpop, what do you think?

(By the way: Catherine, I've indented your previous comment (just above) to reflect the threading of this discussion. If you object to that for any reason, please feel free to restore it to its former unindented form.) Mark Shaw (talk) 19:35, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

That's a fine compromise. Do note that from my experience, when you omit the harsher facts of who a subject was, their perceived moral transgressions, their fallibility etc they end up being seen as far worse when people dig deeper. I think you should include the Vietnamese statement. At some point I think the interview deserves a separate article ideally one that includes Carter, Kissinger, Malcolm X and John and Yoko and all the big interviews. There needs to be a link to the entries interview(s) as an external if possible. Catherine Huebscher (talk) 6:41, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Film reviews in the article

Regarding this diff - it reads like a review. It's well-written and probably accurate, but I'm not sure it's appropriate for an encyclopedia. I was about to revert it with that explanation, but thought I ought to see what others think first.... Mark Shaw (talk) 12:57, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I tend to concur with you, Mark. It's well-written, but edging on POV and being verification-deficient ("most honored endings?" How is an ending honored, per se?) Also, the "signature contraposto" description of Wayne's gesture seems a bit confusing (not to mention misspelled). Contrapposto refers to the artistic positioning of a figure with the weight on one leg with the other leg relaxed, counterpoising the axis of the body. Wayne's weight is on one leg in that final scene, but he's rather solidly direct in his axis. This is nitpicking on my part, of course, but the real point is that there's nothing particularly "signature" about Wayne's standing that way, and, more importantly, it muddies the waters, since in that shot Wayne copies a signature stance by his idol, Harry Carey, and that stance has nothing to do with the placement of his weight, but rather his grasp of his arm with the opposing hand. That signature gesture is quite well known among film buffs and historians, and the use of the contrapposto term merely confuses (and seems a bit precious, in my personal opinion). And finally, I don't think Wayne puts his hands on his hips when he walks away, even momentarily. (From memory, that.) So while this may be overkill in responding to your query, I think that clarity and encyclopedic style would best be served either by eliminating this section (it's covered well in the Searchers article) or by rewriting it. My two cents. Monkeyzpop (talk) 05:23, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

There's been no further discussion for > 36 hours, so I went ahead and restored the version previous to it. Mark Shaw (talk) 21:09, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

"Scots-Irish"

Since when?

"Gotten"

I replaced the word "gotten" with "found" in the sentence: Tom Mix had gotten him a summer job....

because, gotten isn't a word.

Jim

03/06/09 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.59.163.198 (talk) 15:01, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes it is. It's a past participle of "got." From the Random House Dictionary: "In American English gotten is an alternative standard past participle in most senses, especially in the senses “to receive” or “to acquire”: I have gotten (or got) all that I ever hoped for." Monkeyzpop (talk) 17:52, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

"Enraged conservatives"

Several editors have, for some reason, repeatedly undid efforts to change the language in the Politics section; specifically, " . . . enraged conservatives . . . " As Korossyl points out in the history, "enrages" just isn't supported by the two cited articles. The Time article discusses fierce conservative opposition to the Panama Canal Treaty, and mentions Wayne as a supporter of the treaty, but there's no indication that he himself (as opposed to other conservative treaty supporters like William F. Buckley) received specific anger. The Slate article merely mentions Wayne as a defender of the notion that Patty Hearst was brainwashed, and doesn't describe the notion in any way as a conservative-versus-liberal issue. (I pointed out the latter when making an edit but it was reverted by another editor; I should redo it.) YLee (talk) 17:57, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I removed the Patty Hearst mention completely. As noted the source article makes no mention of her guilt as a conservative-liberal issue. After removing the political angle, there's no good way I could come up with to mention Wayne's support for Hearst (even aside from the section being the wrong place to do so); it's just too random. YLee (talk) 05:13, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Pedo?

Under the "Early Life" section.

At the end of the first paragraph (birth/parents). the last sentance is; "This was all before he was raped by a dirty old pedo."

Where did that come from?

It doesn't make sense because it is not in the timeline,

Where did that come from?

The One and Only Worldwise Dave Shaver 06:45, 14 November 2009 (UTC)