Talk:James Stewart

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
edit·history·watch·refresh Stock post message.svg To-do list for James Stewart:

To-do list is empty: remove {{To do}} tag or click on edit to add an item.

Priority * -- 22:48, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Stewart was essentially Scottish American[edit]

Stewart was a Presbyterian (ie, origin Church of Scotland) of Scottish descent. His mother was a Jackson which, like Stewart, is a Scottish surname. Unlikely he had any significant English ancestors, and he certainly had NO Irish in his ancestry (otherwise he would be a catholic, wouldn't he?) (And one gets a bit sick of these ethnocentric Irish constantly making spurious claims on the ethnic origins of famous people around the world, based far too often on pure speculation and wishful thinking. Furthermore, they also have the audacity to falsely define protestant Ulster Scots as Irish - and Wikipedia should take measures to impede the continuation of this shameless practice which is far too common and does nothing to promote confidence in the authenticity of their biographical articles.) Stewart was a proud Scot in the US and was happily married to another Scot/American called McLean. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.78.240.137 (talk) 17:54, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Jackson is an English surname, not Scottish. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.175.13.142 (talk) 00:29, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Stewart was of Irish descent, not Scottish descent. (79.67.126.161 (talk) 14:40, 17 December 2015 (UTC))

[Stewart's] Objection to Profanity?[edit]

On two separate occasions, I heard an anecdote about Stewart's later career -- namely, that he had accepted some of the 'corny,' 'poorly-written' Westerns because "They were the only scripts without indecency or dirty words in them." Typically this would be dismissed as 'trivia,' but I think it speaks to his character -- will try to hunt it down (possibly from an earlier edit of this very article). Sskoog (talk) 18:14, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Requested move 2[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: article not moved Armbrust The Homunculus 14:17, 12 January 2014 (UTC)


James StewartJimmy Stewart – I have never heard of this actor being referred to as James Stewart.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:01, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

  • Oppose – Yes, that was my initial reaction too. See Talk:James Stewart/Archive 2 for extensive past discussion of the issue. But then I looked at the article and found no fewer than five or six images with "James" in them, vs. none with "Jimmy". On that basis, I have to oppose. Wbm1058 (talk) 17:12, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Nothing has changed since the last move request. Binksternet (talk) 17:23, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I'm still not getting a significant amount to warrant a change, and thus I prefer the status quo. Looking at any Google search, there will be a mixture of both "James" and "Jimmy". As seen in the various free images currently on commons (such as here and here), he was frequently credited as "James". He is also referred to as "James" on IMDb, New York Times, TCM, on the Hollywood Walk of Fame, the TV special The American Film Institute Salute to James Stewart, Encyclopedia Brittanica and others. The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences posted a video on their official You Tube Channel of "James" receiving an honorary Oscar. Therefore, I prefer to maintain the status quo and consensus that was achieved in the previous move request. Zzyzx11 (talk) 17:39, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose He was credited in every single film as "James Stewart". --Loeba (talk) 19:42, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
Exactly. This would be like moving John F. Kennedy to Jack Kennedy because of what his friends and family and many others called him informally. Not necessary. We have redirects from Jack Kennedy and Jimmy Stewart. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 19:49, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. He is credited as "James Stewart" in the opening credits of every single film he ever appeared in. See here for previous discussion on the issue. Nothing has changed since then. Ejgreen77 (talk) 19:56, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose - per his biographers, sources, everything In ictu oculi (talk) 00:02, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This is a joke right? James Stewart is the name used on his film credits and is far more commonly used everywhere than the affectionate Jimmy. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:25, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Strategic Air Command career[edit]

According to Eric Schlosser, "Command and Control", Stewart became deputy director of operations at SAC around the late 1950s. This sounds like a surprisingly senior appointment for someone who wasn't a full-time military man and maybe the article should mention it? Barnabypage (talk) 07:33, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

On the subject of his military rank, the opening paragraph states that he rose to the rank of Brigadier-General, but he is shown as a Major-General in the side-panel listing his awards. Which is correct?46.7.85.68 (talk) 12:53, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Note on Stewart’s Final Rank: (Changed 4 October 2016) I have corrected this before I was a registered user and am doing so now that I am sense having found the issue resurfacing. Please know James M. Stewart, the actor and Air Force officer, was never a Major General (O-8.) This is a common misbelief/misunderstanding but one which Stewart himself addressed and explained in a documentary (It’s a Wonderful Life: The Jimmy Stewart Story) hosted by Johnny Carson which can be found on Youtube. Around 35 minutes into this 90+ minute feature Stewart explains he was on the campaign trail for then ex-governor (not yet president) Ronald Regan who mistakenly introduced him as a rally luncheon as “Major General James Stewart.” When Regan later found out Stewart was in fact a Brigadier General (O-7) and ask Stewart why he did not correct him Stewart sheepishly said something to the affect of “it sounded so good I hated to change it.” Therefore he was a Brigadier General upon retirement and remained so. It is incorrect then to say he was “promoted to Major General by President Regan” for several reasons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doctordrew (talkcontribs) 21:19, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

The citation for James Stewart's final rank is a link to another Wikipedia post about the L.A. Times. Citations should be sources. This is the link for that article: http://articles.latimes.com/2003/mar/30/entertainment/ca-smith30 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:245:C100:F500:1872:8C13:B1A:3400 (talk) 15:47, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on James Stewart. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

YesY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 12:03, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Cary Grant's opinion[edit]

The lede should be a brief summary of Stewart's life and career. Cary Grant's opinion is not notable, as it is only one person's personal view. (79.67.126.161 (talk) 14:41, 17 December 2015 (UTC))

In my opinion, Cary Grant was a moderately notable figure in the film industry, and thus his statement has sufficient weight as that of an expert in the field, and not just the opinion of "one person." Collect (talk) 17:42, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Final Resting Place conflicts with "interred" in Death section[edit]

"resting place" on side panel says "Forest Lawn, Glendale, California" which I'm assuming was not his vacation home, but rather the "final" resting place where he was buried/interred. In the Death section, it states "Stewart is interred at Palapala Ho'omau Church Cemetery near the town of Hana, Hawaii"

No citation exists for either statement (in this wiki entry).

Pagelm (talk) 22:58, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

@Pagelm: -- Fixed. Forest Lawn in Glendale is correct. I added references, too.
Billmckern (talk) 02:06, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

James Stewart vs. Jimmy Stewart[edit]

He never went publicly by Jimmy Stewart. I think he should be called James Stewart minus the following sentence that says he was called Jimmy Stewart. Just because the press called him Jimmy Stewart doesn't mean he should be called that on his WP page. It's an encyclopedia. Richard Nixon was called "Tricky Dick" by the press, and other famous people have been called various things. I think it should list his full legal name, and that's it because he didn't use that name professionally. He might have used that nickname privately among friends, but that's not what should be used in an encyclopedia.NapoleonX (talk) 19:15, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Regarding the idea that "he never went publicly by Jimmy Stewart", I don't think that applies very well to when he starred in The Jimmy Stewart Show and when he wrote the book entitled Jimmy Stewart and His Poems. —BarrelProof (talk) 17:55, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Noting RfC on military careers[edit]

James Stewart
Service/branch United States Army Air Forces
United States Air Force Reserve
Years of service 1941–1968
Rank Brigadier General
Commands held 703d Bombardment Squadron
Dobbins Air Force Base
Battles/wars World War II
Korean War
Vietnam War
Awards Air Force Distinguished Service Medal
Distinguished Flying Cross

There is currently a discussion and an RfC on Mel Brooks's article about his so-called "military career," noted by an infobox module. Since his military service, similar to that of Don Rickles, was for a few years and before their actual careers began, inserting a massive module in the standard infobox, as in this article, seems both misleading and erroneous. For Stewart, his "military career" module takes up about 2/3 of the infobox, while the essence of his notability is for being an actor. --Light show (talk) 01:48, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm not so sure about that change. Stewart's military career was much more substantial and notable than Mel Brooks's. Stewart rose to colonel in active service, received two Distinguished Flying Crosses, was deputy commander of the 2nd Combat Bombardment Wing in Big Week, etc., and later became a brigadier general in the reserves. That's no joke. Yes, that's not what he's primarily known for, but it's OK for Wikipedia readers to learn things they don't already know when they see an infobox in an article. —BarrelProof (talk) 01:38, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
I agree. I looked for a field that would allow a mention of his military service in the infobox but couldn't find one. But unlike the other actors who had "Military career" modules, Stewart's lead includes text that states his notable military career. The article also has a section about his service. However, his occupation in the infobox is for being an "actor," yet the military module was using up 2/3 of the infobox. --Light show (talk) 02:36, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
Removing the information wholesale is inappropriate as well. If Stewart had been a B-movie actor, his military service would have made him notable in and of itself. I will agree that the infobox can be trimmed. I have inserted what I believe is an appropriate trimming. Remove the images and reducing the awards to his top two military awards were the easiest changes to make. To reinsert just make the appropriate syntax changes and copy/paste.EricSerge (talk) 12:18, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
Personally, I don't think it was undue emphasis to include the previous (more detailed) version in the infobox. Stewart had a highly notable and distinguished military career – even if he hadn't been an actor at all, we would probably have an article about him on that basis alone. There is no reasonable comparison to Mel Brooks, who we would not know about at all if his notability depended on his military credentials. —BarrelProof (talk) 18:18, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
In balance with the full bio, giving more than 10-15% of the infobox to his military service would distort the the infobox in a number of ways. Naturally, there's no comparison to Mel Brooks, although they were both initially drafted. But over 90% of the article concerns his acting and non-military life. He made 92 films during his 60-year acting career. He spent about 6 in the active military, with about 20 in the reserve. He in fact didn't even like discussing his military service, as he thought of himself as an actor.
Devoting 2/3rd of his infobox to his military service would be misleading. His infobox size and detail for military service should not be the same size as Chuck Yeager's, for example, which it would be, even without all the illustrations. Even devoting over 1,700 words to his "Military service" section in the text seems over-weight compared to his acting sections. IMO, on first impression of the enlarged infobox, many readers would assume he was a career soldier who did some acting on the side, which is the opposite of his real career. --Light show (talk) 19:55, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
If we were talking about 2/3 of the article, I'd agree with you, but I don't think we need such close inspection of what percentage of the infobox is devoted to what. And the film-related content of the infobox could use some expansion as well. For example, we could add "awards = " and list some film awards. In fact, I just did that. —BarrelProof (talk) 01:15, 8 September 2016 (UTC)