Talk:Patrick Swayze/Archive

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Spelling

I can't believe I spelt 'Donnie Darko' wrong, I must be tired! Thanks "Obli" :-) redcountess 23:09, Feb 28, 2004 (UTC)

Apparently there's no entry for the North and South Miniseries.. the link is wrong the moment. --Delpino 23:29, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Questions

"He is also known for his spirituality." ??? This is so vauge it's pointless. I think it should be removed unless someone adds a little more.

Also, I wonder if this article should mention that he sang and wrote the lyrics to "She's Like the Wind" from the Dirty Dancing soundtrack. --Quasipalm 14:04, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

In List of Scientologists Swayze is identified as being a scientologist... can we get some clarification? K-UNIT 09:02, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

In hip hop slang, to be Swayze is to be gone

How do we verify this??? - CobaltBlueTony 16:58, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

It's common knowledge... do a search on it.

He has stated in printed articles that he believes in the healing power of Crystals. He keeps them around his ranch for protection and wore a Crystal around his neck on his television interveiw with Tony Danza last week. Does this count as a Religion?Marcus9 13:23, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes to Quasipalm, Patrick Swayze wrote and sang his own song, "She's like the Wind" in the movie Dirty Dancing. He wrote it years before he made the movie. He sang it at parties he attended. When they needed a song for, "Baby" Patrick suggested his song. They heard it and it was accepted/inserted into the movie. All songs in Dirty Dancing went Gold, including his song.Marcus9 13:32, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Crystals are a belief, not a Religion. Never have I heard or read the Baptist Religion mentioned by him, nor being in Sciencetology. (This does not mean he did not say this, this only means, I did not hear or read it.) I agree that should be removed off the front page unless someone has proof that he mentioned these on an interview. I read in articles he was raised Catholic and an, "Altar Boy." Later, after he married, he looked into Buddhism, EST and a few other beliefs, but only his belief on the power of Crystals were consistantly mentioned.JosieB 14:48, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

As for the hip hop thing, the reason Swayze means "gone" is because he starred in 'Ghost'. It's not a comment on his career.

Flying incident

"Hypoxia in descent" does not exist. Hypoxia can occur only at altitude. Returning to ground level cures it immediately. Sounds like BS. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.148.64.166 (talk) 20:24, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

NTSB Report: http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20001212X21252&key=1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.85.50.11 (talk) 11:19, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Patrick's other movies

The list of Patricks movies is not complete. Here are more movies he was in.

2004 George and the Dragon 2003 One Last Dance 2001 Green Dragon 2000 Forever Lulu(aka Along for the Ride USA video title) 1998 Black Dog 1995 Three Wishes 1995 Tall Tale 1992 City of Joy 1979 Skatetown U.S.A.

Why not add the t.v. movies?

2004 King Solomon's Mines 1986 Steven Spielberg's Amazing Stories (Life on Death Row) 1985&86 North and South 1984 Pigs Vs. Freaks 1981 Return of the Rebels 1980 The Comeback Kid Sue3646 21:43, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

And how could anyone forget "Magnolia?" (unless they've succumbed to fear?) 208.61.124.173 (talk) 15:13, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

You know, you can just add the information, you don't need to ask permission, I doubt anyone's camping on the swayze page. If you're worried about verifiability, then just source it some how. 66.233.248.181 (talk) 19:30, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Swayze wasn't in Magnolia. Correct & improve (talk) 05:43, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Somone forgot to add in Too Wong Foo, Thanks for Everything Julie Newmar —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.54.20.194 (talk) 07:13, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Question

Is it really important to know what his favorite colors are? I don't really mind it being there, but it just seems unnecessary. Any comments on the matter?

I would say "favorites" are a bad territory to enter: Do we want to know every celeb's favorite colors? Why not favorite food? And favorite ice cream, and favorite soft drink... Unless it's really relevant somehow (Jack White's favorite colors influence the band's color scheme, for instance) I say such trivia is not encyclopedic. Rainman420 19:50, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Actor's favorite

To fans an actors favorite of anything is important. Interviews have said Patrick Swayze favorite color is black. Favortie Food - Sushi, Favorite ice cream, Ben and Jerry's and favorite soft drink. It is revelent to a fan that is taking the time to look up their favorite actor, and revelent to anyone doing research to, "know" the actor. (JosieB 16:09, 5 November 2006 (UTC)) (JosieB 16:23, 5 November 2006 (UTC))

Sure. On a fansite, but this is an encyclopedia. Ashmoo 05:42, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree with Josie on this one. If data of whatever type is out there sufficiently to become part of the topic, it belongs in the article as it rounds out the body of knowledge of the topic. Jkolak (talk) 05:22, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Married life

Patrick has been married to Lisa Niemi since June 12, 1975 (I was her maid of honor). They met in a dancing class of Patrick's mother Patsy Swayze. This is common knowledge. They have one of the more famous longterm happy marriages in Hollywood. This is easily verifiable. Thanks.

Sincerely, Pamela Wagner 301-699-2119 (I am a researcher by profession and an old friend of Patrick's and Lisa's) (JosieB 16:01, 5 November 2006 (UTC))

Vandalism

This section I removed as it has nothing to do with Patrick Swayze. (JosieB 16:01, 5 November 2006 (UTC))User:JosieB

It's not supposed to be about Patrick Swayze, but the Patrick Swayze article. Prometheus-X303- 06:07, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I always make fun of people who ask this

I always make fun of people who ask questions on wikipages, User:Travb/If I had a nickel

But out of desperation, here I go. I can't find an article that talks about Patrick Swayze being the worst actor and being responsible for the worst movies of all time, including Red Dawn, anyone read this article, if so were did you read it at? Please message me on my talk page if you have, because I am not going to watch this page. I will then track down this article and post it offline for all to read. Sounds good? Travb (talk) 13:33, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Hip hop expression added

I didn't add references, but a simple google search will give lyrics. I think this type of material falls under common knowledge. Does anyone definitively know the earliest use of the expression? I know it must've been early 90s. JesseRafe 01:41, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Guys and Dolls citation

I'm new here (I just registered about 2 minutes ago), so I'm not really sure how to do this, but I found some websites that could be used as citations for the line about Patrick appearing in Guys and Dolls in London. Hopefully someone here will know what to do with them. Here are the links: Playbill article: http://www.playbill.com/news/article/101104.html BBC article: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/5040164.stm Thanks! Swayzefan100 18:42, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Date of birth

I knew the Swayzes when I was a kid. I went to all the same public schools as them, the boys sometimes came to our house, and his mother Patsy taught me to swim. Patrick was known as "Buddy" Swayze then, and his brother Don was "Donnie."

Patrick couldn't have been born in 1952. That would make him my sister's age, but he was actually three years ahead of her at school. His agent probably concocted that year to keep him bankable on the screen. His correct birth year would be about 1949. The exact year should be easy enough to verify from county records.

Patsy's dance studio was adjacent to our old high school. It had a large swimming pool in back, so she gave dance lessons inside and swimming lessons out back. Sis was a student of Patsy's, and danced with Patrick many times in company recitals. He briefly had crush on her when they were teenagers, but she was never interested in him. This was around the mid-1960's.

The article suggests Patrick and Lisa Niemi met when she was 15. Assuming the 1956 birth year listed in her Wikipedia article is correct, that would make her exactly my age (just a month apart) -- meaning Patrick would have been 22 or so at the time. Obviously Lisa's birthdate is agent-concocted as well. She has to be closer to my sister's age (born 1952), since they were students of Patsy's at the same time. Sis knew her vaguely, but not well. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.250.145.24 (talk) 22:39, 5 April 2007 (UTC).

His date of birth stated on this article (Aug 18, 1952) is correct; confirmed by the Texas Birth Index 1926-1995 [1].

Cancer

All of you couldn't wait to get home and print the latest info? Don't any of you have anything better to do than debate a man's illness. I just love to see how quick someone will update a site when new info comes out. Go through the pain and rigors or dealing with cancer, see what it does mentally and physically and then decide if you want to debate the merits of where the info came from. Better yet, get a job as a reporter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.189.35.249 (talk) 01:00, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Surely using an Enquirer article as a citation is merely speculation when it hasn't been confirmed by a reputable source? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.40.133.109 (talk) 17:44, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

It was reported by many reputable sources. I don't know why they chose the Enquirer article instead of actually looking it up. I fixed it so it isn't made to look like just rumor, because its not. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:57, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
yes, but the news organizations all cite the Enquirer as the source of the news so I'm still not sure it should be given credible status. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.79.35.227 (talk) 20:18, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. The only source of this is actually the National Enquirer. All other news sources are relying solely on the Enquirer. Repeating a unreliable source multiple times does not make it more reliable. Given that this is a BLP, I'm removing the segment until it is INDEPENDENTLY reported by multiple reliable sources, per policy. -- ShinmaWa(talk) 20:45, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't know how this whole discussion system works but a couple minutes ago Swayze's publicist confirmed the news. Also, the whole "has only 5 weeks to live" part should be removed, unless 1) it is a fact, and 2)you want to update the info weekly(talk)16:47 5 March 2008 (EST)
If you have a reputable source confirming that, please add it. in the meantime, I'm going with WP:BLP: Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space. TJRC (talk) 21:56, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
I have reinserted the paragraph in question with a new source as reference. A rep of the actor has now confirmed his illness. Nicholas Perkins (TC) 22:03, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Someone seems certain that the post choronical link is required so I've left that and added a couple of more reliable sources so that this isn't reverted again. Nicholas Perkins (TC) 22:10, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Nice work. That's what was needed. TJRC (talk) 22:43, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Seems like the info is still majorly in flux, with the 5 weeks thing in particular now being disavowed.[2] Dstumme (talk) 22:57, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, here is a reference where his named doctor is quoted as dismissing those claims - that trumps un-named "spokesperson" in my book. I tried to stick it in but the reference system defeated me. --Fredrick day (talk) 23:00, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

My apologies for my out of order edit summary in the article- it's just a family member recently passed from the same complaint and reading about it made me tense and upset - sorry. --Fredrick day (talk) 23:40, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

[3] "“Actor Patrick Swayze has been diagnosed with Pancreatic Cancer and is currently undergoing treatment,” a rep for the actor said in a statement released on Wednesday. “Patrick is continuing his normal schedule during this time, which includes working on upcoming projects. The outpouring of support and concern he has already received from the public is deeply appreciated by Patrick and his family.”" "According to the statement, Swayze’s physician Dr. George Fisher said, “Patrick has a very limited amount of disease and he appears to be responding well to treatment thus far. All of the reports stating the timeframe of his prognosis and his physical side effects are absolutely untrue. We are considerably more optimistic.”" Ottava Rima (talk) 01:21, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't know who added the part about him dying, but it's pretty pathetic. I was going to remove it, but somebody beat me to it. Cmw72 (talk) 21:34, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:

PATRICK SWAYZE WAS NOT DIAGNOSED IN JANUARY. PLEASE REVIEW YOUR SOURCES FOR ACCURACY. http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20182481,00.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.93.220.33 (talk) 21:49, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, the reference quoted in the article says January. And the one currently used for citation seems more reliable and thorough than the People one you posted. -Lilac Soul (talk contribs count) I'm watching this page so just reply to me right here! 21:55, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

The links at the end of the first sentence of the cancer subsection of the article no longer exist. I have seen media reports stating January and March as the month when he was diagnosed. Can anyone confirm which month he was diagnosed? It is very relevant considering the fact that most people with pancreatic cancer are dead within a year of being diagnosed. Werdnawerdna (talk) 01:25, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

FYI, y'all, this death news was reported by the National Enquirer, and more news venues would have reported on it by now. Of course, there is ALWAYS the chance it could be true, but highly doubt it. For those that don't know, the National Enquirer is known for printing falsities. Therefore, one of the latest page edits might be delete-worthy.75.179.161.245 (talk) 16:43, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree that the National Enquirer is the sole/primary source here; all the other stories, including the one from The Mercury (the footnote in question) merely cite the NE's story. It's being refuted on the fan club page based on an e-mail from Patrick's wife Lisa: http://www.patrickswayze.net/patrick.htm Better to cite the National Enquirer by name (so readers can properly evaluate the statement) in the item than bury it in a secondary source footnote; otherwise, deletion seems a better answer. Mcsheridan (talk) 18:39, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Dead issue now, but can someone explain why it is a problem to cite the national enquirer as having printed such and such in this context per reliability standards? It seems to me that people make categorical statements such as "the national enquirer is not a reliable source" and misrepresent wikipedia policy. Pleae correct me if I'm wrong here, I'm not the most knowledgable, but it seems that the national enquirer is a reliable source as to what it says. It seems a notable publication, and reliable as to what it says. Now that statement may not meet BLP guidelines or may not be notable or may otherwise be against policy, but to say teh enquirer cannot be a source as to what it says seems silly.
Your not passing judgment on the accuracy of the source, merely parroting it- as we do with all appropriate sources generally to a large degree. It seems people have a visceral reaction and then decide that the enquirer can't be a source per se, which is dumb. Like I said, if the BLP criteria or particular claim isn't appropriate for policy then fine, but to claim a notable publication cannot be a reliable source per se seems stupid. There are other compelling reasons that its claims may not be printed here, like not parroting rumors per BLP policy et cet, but the reliability of the source isn't one of them when the article isn't addopting the source's claim but would meerly report what it said. The reliable source criteria doesn't say to my understanding that you can't printn rumor per se- though certainly other policy considerations may prevent such. That make sense to anyone? It seems people just search for ways to ignore sources and grab hold of faulty arguments that are incorrect and set bad precedent. Then these erroneous summatiosn become entrenched and used to support mischief.--Δζ (talk) 03:46, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Apparently the cancer started in Mr. Swayze's lung before moving to his pancreas and then liver. Another report said that nicotine is a drug of which he now partakes, so it seems fair to assume that he has been a cigarette smoker. So, bearing in mind the potentially avoidable - or reduced-riskable - nature of this hero's disease it seems to be worth mentioning for the sake of others, so that they/we may make an informed choice, and perhaps live as long as we would like Mr. Swayze to live.--Timtak (talk) 16:46, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

All the sources I've seen state that his cancer began in his pancreas. If you have evidence it began in his lung, then submit it here. A substantial proportion of cases of pancreatic cancer are caused by smoking, and Swayze's cancer was most likely caused by his smoking. Whilst we cannot state on the article that he definitely caused his own cancer (as there are other causes), the article should mention his smoking habit; it is a significant part of his life. Nietzsche 2 (talk) 03:07, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Is he terminal? Are there any known cases of people having had pancreatic cancer metastasized to their liver whom have recovered? Nietzsche 2 (talk) 04:12, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Best known role

"His best-known movie role is as the surfer, philosopher, and bank robber Bodhi from the film 'Point Break.'" Hardly. Not only is this statement completely subjective, but I would think his notoriety also solidly stems from Road House, Ghost, Dirty Dancing and Red Dawn.

While I'm not a fan of some of these, I would consider all of them quite popular with Swayze in the lead role.

Ghost's pottery scene with Demi Moore? "Nobody puts baby in a corner?" Convincing his friend to urinate in his truck's radiator and carrying a dead Charlie Sheen through town? These are staple images from his acting career. —Preceding unsigned comment added by G8rtrance (talkcontribs) 14:21, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I would imagine that when most people think of Patrick Swayze, they think of Dirty Dancing, then probably Ghost and after that Point Break. Sky83 (talk) 14:50, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

It's Ghost, no question.

Disney On Ice

I'm removing the unsourced claim that Swayze skated with Disney On Ice in the early 1970's. That show didn't come into existence until 1981. Dr.frog (talk) 17:34, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Early career

Something is wrong here. It is highly doubtful that he spent seven years at Joffrey. Much more likely is that he was dancing in some kind of dance troupe, or appearing as a model or something during this time from 1972 until 1979. Anyone want to check out newspaper listings, see what pops? I'm a bit suspicious of any large gaps in the career of well-known people, even early years — especially early years.Wjhonson (talk) 00:07, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism

weenis mcgee? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.101.192.183 (talk) 02:24, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Pronunciation

Is Swayze pronounced /'suei:zi/ or /'suei:z/? --93.86.154.86 (talk) 14:41, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Anyone...? --93.86.154.86 (talk) 14:36, 8 February 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.86.38.247 (talk)
It rhymes with crazy, to put it as simply as I can lol. Sky83 (talk) 14:47, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Alleged weight loss

I reverted an IP's edit where s/he added something about Swayze weighing 105 lbs. The source that makes the ostentatious claim is The National Enquirer, and we all know that it isn't a reliable source. It is also worth noting that the picture showing his gaunt physique appears on The National Enquirer, and as a tabloid notable for making up ridiculous claims (save for one rumor they actually got right), they can alter the picture in any was they like, and it is quite possible to note that we don't know the circumstances of the picture. Maybe this is him in makeup preparing for a role, we don't know. --Whip it! Now whip it good! 06:52, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

  • I agree that the precision of the "105 pounds" detail seems a bit dubious, and I understand that The Inquirer is not a reputable source. However, I would simply say that I have not heard of any dispute over the legitimacy of the photos. They have been used by numerous websites, and TMZ and others posted photos of Patrick a month before in which he hardly looked any more robust. No disrespect, but any speculation that his frail appearance in the photos might be him in makeup preparing for a role seems ridiculous to me. The idea that a man who is known to be terminally ill, thin, and frail would go into makeup and somehow try to appear even more thin for any kind of role - and then someone would just happen to get a photograph of it - seems just kind of silly. As far as has been reported, he is not doing nor has been doing anything role-related beyond The Beast; that at least seems believable to me considering the undisputed details of his physical condition at this point.Harry Yelreh (talk) 23:58, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Death?

We have been getting a flurry of edits that state that Patrick Swayze has just passed. Can someone please cite a valid source to support this? I haven't found anything thusfar. Please find a source or the edit will be continued to be reverted as a possible hoax.¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 16:18, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

A representative for Patrick Swayze tells People Magazine that the actor is still alive. According to http://twitter.com/BreakingNews/status/1848656272 Chingon (talk) 16:21, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Thank you very much for that link, we're getting a conflicting story that it was mentioned live on CNN. I'll tune in and see whats going on.¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 16:26, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
I added a caution to the Edit page, maybe the Twitterati will see it before they edit w/o a good source. Portia327 (talk) 16:53, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Thank you Portia, I was just about to add a comment!¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 16:54, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Drudge reporting that he's dead caesarscott (talk) 00:06, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

AP reporting that his publicist announced his death roughly 30 minutes ago —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.205.6.179 (talk) 00:30, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

CNN also. http://www.cnn.com/2009/SHOWBIZ/Movies/09/14/patrick.swayze/index.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.42.120.130 (talk) 01:59, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Religion

The personal life section mentions a few religions, but does not state what he currently follows; anyone know? Best name (talk) 12:20, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Surname-OR genealogy edits in wrong article-OR Ill-informed people changing edits

Someone here keeps posting that Patrick Swayze is "Norman French". In fact, the Swayze (originally Swasey) family originated in England, as shown on a number of genealogical websites. To help this person understand, let's take the common Irish name Burke. This name was brought to Ireland in 1185 by a family with Norman roots. However, since 1185 it has been considered completely Irish. (Try walking up to a person named Burke and telling him he's not Irish, but French!) Although I don't see anything saying that the name Swayze has Norman origins, sure, it's possible. But, the fact remains that Patrick Swayze's male-line ancestors came to America from England, not 11th century France (that's when the Normans were around). Like many Americans, I'm sure that Patrick Swayze isn't aware of the ancestry of all his ancestors. Some were probably English, some were probably German, some were probably Irish, and maybe even some were American Indian...though many people who have a family legend about having Indian ancestors really don't. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alphazip (talkcontribs) 00:47, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Your content may have some merit, if it even belongs in the article at all, if you could show a link between Patrick Swayze and his ancestors. You haven't, as far as I can see, beyond a most general link. That isn't good enough for an encyclopedia, and you've been here long enough to know better than to rely on original research and synthesis of disparate sources. You may be correct, but here, you need to demonstrate that in this particular case. It's a case of "Some X is Y, therefore not all X is Y", and that is where your argument fails in this particular case. Sources, sources, and sources, but please, not original research. Rodhullandemu 01:01, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

To say that Patrick Swayze is Norman French would mean that his ancestors came to America during the period when Norman French existed as a language and a culture...i.e. around the 11th century. (Remember learning in school about the Norman Conquest of England in 1066?) If that's the case, the Swayzes made it to America way before Columbus, and just a bit later than the Vikings. What's really strange is that all the online sources say the Swayzes came to America from ENGLAND in the 1600s...nothing about France. User:Alphazip —Preceding undated comment added 01:02, 31 July 2009 (UTC).

Please see WP:V and WP:BLP, and please stop trying to step outside out parameters here. If you can't source it, it shouldn't be here. Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. Rodhullandemu 01:07, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Rodhullandemu, please give me your source saying that Patrick Swayze is Norman French. If he's Norman French, he's the first Norman French person to exist for what, 800 years? User:Alphazip —Preceding undated comment added 01:05, 31 July 2009 (UTC).

Irrelevant. I'm not arguing that he is, merely that if you want to show otherwise, that's up to you, and it can't be done by example. Rodhullandemu 01:09, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

As to whether the ancestry of a person belongs in Wikipedia, I think you'll notice that the vast majority of bios here DO give the person's ancestry, or at least the national origin of person's surname. In fact, that's why I looked up Patrick Swayze in the first place, to see where his name came from. http://www.ancestry.com/facts/Swayze-name-meaning.ashx User:Alphazip —Preceding undated comment added 01:11, 31 July 2009 (UTC).

You know what? It doesn't matter. Only you care enough to make this an issue, although to me, it's a non-issue. I couldn't give a flying toss, because when I should be creating good articles, I see people like you pressing a minor detail way beyond its importance. We should be respecting our readers here, and to my mind, very few of them would be interested in your irrelevant and anal detail. Correctness is to be commended here, but not at the expense of poorly-sourced extraneous analysis. Meanwhile, I need sleep. It would be nice if that were permanent, but I am resigned to waking up sometime tomorrow and having to go through this nonsense yet again. I don't know what you do apart from here, but it's obviously not that important. Farewell. Rodhullandemu 01:24, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Alphazip-get the point already. This article is not about surname origins or whether you think Normans invaded America. This article is about Patrick Swayze (hence the title-what a surprise), not his family name or the origins thereof. I know it's your obsession but it's not valid in this article. Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 02:30, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Third opinion

Searchtool-80%.png Response to third opinion request (Disagreement regarding the inclusion of genealogical minutiae.):
I am replying to a request for a third opinion. I have made no previous edits on Patrick Swayze and have no known association with the editors involved in this discussion. The third opinion process is informal and I have no special powers or authority apart from being a fresh pair of eyes. I apologize for the slightly long wording below, you can skip to the conclusion if you are uninterested in the logic behind it.

Please note that the dispute appears to be between two primary editors with one person chipping in with a comment. I am judging that this dispute is therefore still appropriate for the WP:3O process.

I have looked at the article and the recent history of changes (only in relation to the matter under dispute). I have also checked out the fan club site, which does appear to be officially recognized and so is appropriate as a reliable source under the guidance of WP:BLP and WP:SPS as there is evidence that Swayze or his agent have reviewed the material on the site. In theory, any material from the fan site could be considered for this article so long as it does not turn into a list of trivia or non-encyclopedic fan-style gossip (such as that his favourite fragrance is Boucheron).

The information about his ancestry is sourced from the fansite FAQ, the source states "Question to Patrick: Can you please tell us the origin of the family name "Swayze"? Is it Irish, or Italian, or Scandinavian? Answer: The origin of the Swayze name is Welsh. Patrick's line is Irish and the rumor is with a touch of Apache!!!!". If this is the sole source for the information then this is all than can be stated. Consequently it is original research and not directly relevant to state that his name is of Norman French origin (when the source states the origin as Welsh) without an authoritative source stating this explicitly as the origin for Patrick Swayze's name rather than generically for the name Swayze, and it is also original research to state that he is "mainly Irish and Apache descent" when the source only states that his line is Irish (so he may be 100% Irish) and it is factually incorrect to state he has "Apache descent" when the source calls this "rumour".

It should be noted that general information about the genealogy of names would fail to meet the guidance that material included should be directly related to the subject, refer to BLP.

Conclusion, that the Swayze name is Norman French origin should be removed as it is not directly relevant to the subject, unless further sources state that this applies to the subject and not just generically to the name. Further, that he is "mainly Irish and Apache descent" should be removed or changed to wording supported explicitly by the source. The text currently fails the requirements of wp:BLP as the wording goes beyond the facts stated in the sources quoted.—Ash (talk) 05:16, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. Settles it for me. Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 15:19, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Ash, your opinion is quite rational, though I still think it is unfortunate that misinformation is being conveyed in Wikipedia articles. For example, the actress Meryl Streep has given interviews where she has said she descends from Dutch Jews. Yet, when the folks at ancestry.com (http://back-track.blogspot.com/2006_07_01_archive.html) researched her family tree, they found her to descend from German Christians by the name of Streeb! So, what people "think" they know about their forbears often isn't accurate. How many people think they have royal ancestors? Does that mean that Wikipedia has to slavishly repeat a bunch of nonsense? I guess so...actress Leelee Sobieski says her great, great, granduncle was the king of Poland in the 1600s, and, yep, that's acccepted by Wikipedia (see her article). Patrick Swayze's family tree is here: http://www.genealogy.com/famousfolks/patricks/index.html It reveals him to be of overwhelmingly English descent (especially in the male line), with a touch of Irish (Karnes) through his mother. There are no Welshmen or Apaches in evidence, and certainly no Normans! User:Alphazip —Preceding undated comment added 16:46, 1 August 2009 (UTC).

This is a useful clarification, thanks for raising it. The relevant guidance is at WP:SELFPUB, points 4 & 5. If there is doubt about the claims the subject of an article is making about themselves due to statements in other reliable sources, then these claims may be included (or removed) but should be qualified with reference to the other sources. In this case, if reliable sources differ to Swayze's interview, then these should qualify the claims made. As it happens, Genealogy.com cannot be considered a reliable source as the material is self-published without any warranty for the reliability or accuracy of the information by the site owners, consequently there is no currently significant reason to doubt Swayze's interview.
Generally, if the subject publishes doubtful claims about themselves then it is reasonable to include some of these as quotes (rather than re-stating as facts) so long as the material is not unduly self-serving, see WP:SELFPUB point 1.—Ash (talk) 12:46, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
There seems to be a great tendency on Wikipedia to protect the status quo, no matter whether the information is correct or not. For example, User:Kintetsubuffalo decided, unsupported by any sources, to say that Swayze was Norman French. Not only did he refuse to allow that to be changed, but User:Rodhullandemu jumped in to defend him. Rodhullandemu also had no sources for Norman French, but called me names for citing mine showing that the name Swayze is English. Then, User:Chris piled on to protect Rodhullandemu. Why all the support for the person who couldn't show a single source saying Norman French? Some say that Patrick Swayze's ancestry is irrelevant and shouldn't be in the article at all. Well, then, I hate to tell you, but nearly every bio in Wikipedia mentions the subject's ancestry. You're going to have a lot of work on your hands cleaning all that up! Since the Patrick Swayze entry in Wikipedia is apparently doomed to be incorrect (saying Swayze is Welsh), let's turn to the entry of his cousin, newscaster (and Timex watch spokesperson) John Cameron Swayze. This entry connects J.C. Swayze to the exact same line (originating in England) from which I showed Patrick Swayze to be descended. I guess the person who did the J.C. Swayze page (and it wasn't me) must be guilty of making the same "mistake" I made. Looking at the Patrick Swayze family tree at http://www.genealogy.com/famousfolks/patricks/index.html, here's how the names break down. ENGLISH: Swayze/Swasey, Johnson, Littleton, Stark(e), Putnum, Horton, Betts, Hines, King, Hayne, Snell, Lovejoy, Hornsby, Sanford. IRISH: Karnes. SCOTTISH: McDonald. This hardly fits with the description of Swayze being Welsh, but mainly Irish! Doing a bit of research (a big no-no on Wikipedia), I see that the surname Swayze is discussed in Reaney's "Origin of English Surnames", where it is derived from the village of Swavesey (pronounced Swasey) [1] in Cambridgeshire, ENGLAND. And, for everyone's information, Welsh surnames are of a regular pattern, nearly all of which are derived from first (or Christian) names: Evans (son of Ifan), Jones (son of John), Williams (son of William), Davies (son of David), etc. Anyone care to read the entry for Welsh surnames here in Wikipedia and explain how Swayze fits into this pattern? User:Alphazip —Preceding undated comment added 02:39, 4 August 2009 (UTC).
This debate came to a natural end days ago. Please have a read at Wikipedia:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass and do something more productive with your time. Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 03:05, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Oh, now I get it...User:Kintetsubuffalo and User:Chris are one and the same! You're the one who insisted on Norman French, but now Welsh suits you just fine. Oh, yes, Wikipedia...scholarship at its finest. User:Alphazip
An accusation of sockpuppetry is a serious allegation, and I invite you to commence a report here. Meanwhile, since you are still apparently unhappy with the third opinion, your next step should be to raise a Request for Comment. Rodhullandemu 13:30, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
User Alphazip may be confused about customized signatures, please see WP:CUSTOMSIG. User Chris (talk · contribs) has not contributed to this article or talk page whilst Kintetsubuffalo is legitimately using a customized signature.—Ash (talk) 13:47, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Class

Is this still only start class? Correct & improve (talk) 18:43, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Death

If you have a reliable source saying he's dead, tell us what it is; if not, don't put his death in the article.Manormadman (talk) 15:57, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

source: http://www.eontarionow.com/entertainment/2009/09/12/patrick-swayze-near-death-report/ Dmanskater11

He died.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.222.212.93 (talk) 00:06, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, his death is now official. Ccchhhrrriiisss (talk) 00:08, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

So far only TMZ has reported. We are waiting for something more official (although to be fair, TMZ has a good track record). We now have AP which is good enough. Manning (talk) 00:16, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

His publicist just announced that Swayze has passed away (see here). --Alexander (talk) 00:21, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

MSNBC is carrying it now. [4] I think the bases are covered. Alan (talk) 00:36, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

99.99% chance of being correct but it is his publicist who is reporting this. Good enough for me but a coroner would make it official. Very sad. :( NoRightTurn (talk) 00:41, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

RTE reported that he is dead. 86.45.141.152 (talk) 20:43, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Patrick Swayze ~ past tense

Hello,

Under the section entitled "Cancer," the last segment of the last sentence reads, "...he still smokes." It should read, "...he still smoked."

Thank you, Lunasister32 (talk) 00:37, 15 September 2009 (UTC) Tracy Stearns 09/14/09

Smoking and pancreatic cancer

If the article is going to mention Swayze's smoking as a reason that he got cancer, it makes sense to add a sentence showing whether or not research actually connects smoking to pancreatic cancer. I did this and it was promptly reverted. Please don't do this without discussing it here. Thank you. --Crunch (talk) 00:49, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Hidden text

Regarding the issue of smoking, I have hidden that section in question for the time being for the following reasons:

  1. The above comments have been hidden for now because firstly Patrick Swayze was not a medical expert, and plenty of people get pancreatic cancer who do not smoke (like my dad). The above really appears judgmental.
  2. In any event comments about risk factors for pancreatic cancer belong on that page, not Patrick Swayze's, just because he was a high-profile victim.

That said, RIP†. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 01:20, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I've reinstated the text but modified the first sentence to indicate that it was his own opinion. It is verified by a WP:RS that this was his opinion, readers can make their own determination as to whether he was right or not. The sentence that follows is also supported by a WP:RS, and simply adds substantive evidence to his opinion. There's no reason to turn this into a Smoking vs NonSmoking battlefield. He smoked, he opined it contributed to his problems and medical research shows a possible connection.<>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 01:24, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

None of the text ever made a judgment about Swayze's smoking right or wrong. The sentence about the cause and effect between smoking and pancreatic was meant to put his statement in some factual context. There is no need to hide the text showing that. --Crunch (talk) 12:06, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. This a classic synthesis of two sources intended to reach a particular conclusion, and therefore forbidden by policy. Swayze's opinion is neither here nor there, since he was not a medical expert, and as pointed out above, smoking and pancreatic cancer are not necessarily linked. It would be a good idea to wait for an autopsy report before walking down the road of unnecessary speculation. Rodhullandemu 13:28, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
For any heavy smoker, their habit is a major part of their life. Swayze stated in a television interview that he believed smoking had something to do with his pancreatic cancer; therefore it is a recorded, broadcast part of his life. In addition, many mainstream media articles focussed on the fact he never gave up smoking despite his diagnosis and critical condition. It is proven that about a third of cases are caused by smoking. He was a heavy smoker for many years, so it is by far the most likely (primary) cause of his final illness. It is highly unlikely that there will be an autopsy, as he died of a disease he was known to have and which in the vast majority of cases is fatal. In fact he lived longer than expected. Even when an autopsy is performed on a person who died of cancer, the doctors / authorities do not usually assign smoking as the trigger, as it is difficult to prove. What scientists and doctors do study is causes and risk factors for diseases, and smoking causes more cases of pancreatic cancer than any other single thing. The incidence of the disease in smokers in far higher than in non-smokers. As long as we don't phrase things in a preachy or didactic way, the info is neutral and within WP policy. Qzm (talk) 15:18, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Available not unavailable

After his plane crash landed he made himself available to local authorities. However the text states that he made himself unavailable...which doesn't make much sense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.89.13.120 (talk) 02:38, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Intro

It may be too early for this but, the intro currently exists of two paragraphs. The first briefly mentions his movie career, while the second is all about his decline in healh and death. His health and death take up a disporportionate amount of space in the intro. --Tocino 03:57, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

10/9c?

What does 10/9c mean? It appears in a sentence about a proposed memorial programme. Ozdaren (talk) 04:08, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I think that's time zones. 10:00 or 9:00 if you live in the central time zone. Because American channels are broadcast over the whole country and there are different time zones effecting each part. I might be wrong. 58.110.88.153 (talk) 04:29, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Surly this constitutes advertising and should be removed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.185.10.126 (talk) 04:36, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Removed.  :( Arzel (talk) 04:47, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

In the news

Help is needed in expanding the death information (including source) to meet guideline for consideration. any help is appreciated. Thanks B.s.n. R.N.contribs 07:17, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

{{editsemiprotected}}

thats not what this template is for. If you want a specific edit perfoming, give it exactly and use this template, its not for requests for help--Jac16888Talk 11:37, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Length of final illness

The first sentence of the second paragraph states that he was diagnosed with cancer in January 2009. Further down under "illness and death" it states it was January 2008. Conferring with the sources it is clear that it was January 2008. Can someone please edit the incorrect date? Thanks.

It's been corrected. Thank you B.s.n. R.N.contribs 08:53, 15 September 2009 (UTC)