Talk:John Wayne

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the John Wayne article.
Article policies
Archives: 1, 2
football
College football Portal

John Wayne is part of WikiProject College football, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to college football on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Assessment Comments
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed biographical guide to actors and filmmakers on Wikipedia.
This article is part of WikiProject Iowa, a WikiProject related to the U.S. state of Iowa.
If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.See comments
This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
Warning 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.
  1. 2006 and earlier
  2. January 2007 · June 2007

Contents

[edit] Friendship with Mitchum

The disagreement about whether Wayne and Robert Mitchum were friends stems, it seems to me, from an attempt to subtly portray Wayne in a diminished light because of a report (which no one has yet cited or otherwise verified) that Mitchum, apparently alone of Wayne's colleagues, refused to write a letter on behalf of Wayne getting the Congressional gold medal. I still have never heard anything to support the notion that Mitchum refused in any fashion to support the dying Wayne being given a medal. But the idea that Mitchum was not friendly with Wayne, in fact the idea that Mitchum and Wayne were not friends, is clearly unsupported by the evidence. And I'm not even talking about Mitchum telling ME about their friendship. I'm talking about citable evidence, most primarily and recently Lee Server's biography of Mitchum, "Baby, I Don't Care" (ISBN: 0-312-26206-X). Here's an example, starting on p. 411: "Though they had known each other forever, it was during this period, after their pleasant months together on El Dorado, that Mitchum and John Wayne became--for a time--pals, roistering around town together.... Mitchum was ever amused at the way Duke played his role in life to the hilt, wearing four-inch lifts to make his six-foot-four-inch frame still more impressive (emphasis mine).... 'They were pretty funny together,' said Paul Helmick. 'I remember one time there was a big party to welcome Barbra Streisand to Hollywood. It was held outdoors at Ray Stark's house.... It was the elite of Hollywood there. And who shows up stumbling around in the garden but Mitchum and Wayne. Just the two of them, no women or nothing, crashing this party." Sounds like drinking buddies to me. Monkeyzpop 02:08, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] vandalism and uncited accusations on page

The fellow who has spent much of his life the past few months vandalizing and otherwise disrupting this page and several others under the names Chunda18 (talk · contribs) and DaveyJones1968 (talk · contribs) has been blocked indefinitely under those names. Each day he comes back with a new identity. Today it's BreckColeman (talk · contribs), which would be funny if it weren't so pathetic. The fellow who hates John Wayne so much has adapted as his phony ID the name of Wayne's first starring role. One doesn't have to be Freud, I suppose, to figure what that's all about. In any event, he will continue to be blocked each time a new identity shows up. Monkeyzpop 20:49, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

The article is now all sourced and it will be very difficult for you to disprove anything I have written. (unsigned)

Thanks for the good work on keeping up with it Monkeyzpop and others. I delt with him for weeks in the past. [[1]] [[2]]

[[3]] with a whole slew of names. This article and others he would regularly hit using the same vandalism often word for word (more often than not). I have been on a wiki break (getting more time lately to be on here) and its nice to see that editors have kept on top of him and his MANY sockpuppet accounts hitting this article. Speaking of which. If you look above at the talk page most of the dissenting and down right unsourced crazy talk was by him and his accounts. Should we even bother leaving it up since I for one don't give a grain of salt credit to a beyond abuse sockpuppet user's statments. --Xiahou 22:55, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

So this harvey carter... is he among the worst vandilists on this site or something? either way, it is getting annoying and down right idiototic. seriously, i don't like john wayne much either, never have, never will. i cannot support some of the things he stood for, and the false american icon thing he attatched and marrinated himself in. but that doesn't mean that i would want to vandalize him. whoever this idiot is, please stop, it is just a waste of time. eventually, we will all just correct your vandals, and nothing will have ultimately been accomplished. there is no reason to do this.

What happened to the ban on this guy JJuliech? I thought this new HarveyCarter sockpuppet had been banned again.
If you want it done faster you how to seek out an admin with blocking capabilities, otherwise, you have to wait for one to get a round to it. IP4240207xx 01:27, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
I had done that (the legwork AND seeking out an admin -- more than one, actually) and thought action had been taken, but then I saw the same Username back again and was curious why it didn't work this particular time. Monkeyzpop 02:47, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

:::::Whom did you ask? IP4240207xx 05:18, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Sweetheart of Sigma Chi

(from the following talk page: Talk:John Wayne filmography (1926-1940))

Was Wayne really in this film? I know the text in the table states he only had a bit part, and the scenes were deleted, but I can't find any source to say he was in this film. He's not listed on IMDB as being in this film, which I find odd as other earlier films do include Wayne in the credits, even if he was uncredited at the time. I'm happy to make an article for the film and cite Wayne as being in it, once a reliable source for this has been found. Lugnuts 12:02, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Does Wayne die at the end of The Horse Soldiers?

Response to HaroldFranklin: Never spoke to John Ford, but I spoke to Wayne and any number of members of the Ford Stock Company. I have a copy of the the Horse Soldiers shooting script in front of me (signed by Ford, by the way), and the ending scene reads "With a wave back at Hannah, Marlowe spurs his horse across the bridge just ahead of the explosions that destroy it. Hannah gazes after him as he rejoins his retreating troopers and gallops off...." Not a word about "maybe he gets killed." In fact, exactly the opposite. The sequence on screen does not depart from this. I don't want to get into an edit war over something so trivial, so I won't. But it seems to me that you're pushing an idea into the reader's mind with this item that just isn't supported by the material. Even without reading the script, I'd seen HORSE SOLDIERS twenty times or so and never once had it occurred to me that Marlowe might even possibly have died. The implication is much stronger that Marlowe and Hannah will meet up again after the war. (cc'ed to HaroldFranklin talk page) Monkeyzpop 19:09, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like you have some personal issues to deal with and you should not deal with them here. What's wrong with 51? Many of the officers in The War Between the States were in their 20's, 30's, 40's, 50's, and 60's. The homosexual remarks are totally uncalled for. Why would you want to slander DEAD Americans? If you do not like Wayne (which, clearly, you don't, along with Ford and Boone) then maybe you should refrain from commenting on this page. I see from several of your wiki pages that you are a notorious hacker and have been permanently blocked. Good riddance. The Shadow —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.199.250.34 (talk) 19:03, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Icon?

The one statement "an enduring American icon" is quite sufficient to cover this fact. It does not need to be stated twice in the opening paragraph. Also, even if some consider him to be only a right-wing icon, he's still an icon. And plenty of liberals enjoyed his best movies, even as they scorned his political views. But it only needs to be said once in the intro. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 16:13, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

As well as being redundant. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 19:31, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] John Wayne : White Supremacist?

"I believe in white supremacy until the black|s| are educated to a point of responsibility. I don't believe in giving authority and positions of leadership and judgment to irresponsible people."

Translates to "Blacks are irresponsible; unlike white |men|."

Now, I know we ALL like John Wayne *cough* but this statement seems key to understanding his positions on race. Too often quotes like these go un attended in cases of notable people (i.e. Woodrow Wilson, Calvin Coolidge, Jenna Jameson). It's not the unknown radical that preaches of street corners that we need keep tabs on, but the celebrities, the men in power, who do the most in terms of damage to society's outlook on such issues. Thus, since I have failed to see a statement in which he apologized for these comments, I have to assume he went to his grave with these bitter words still on his lips. What I propose may sound radical, but it has serious merit. I would like have article be more explicit in the attitudes he shares. I believe he deserves entry into Wikipedia as a white supremacist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.250.130.215 (talk) 00:36, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

This quote is carried in the section regarding politics. What else do you want to say? Anything added needs to be verifiable and supported by references. This article does not gloss over this statement in any way, shape or form. To what other attitudes are you referring? The fact that he said this doesn't mean that he was an activist for the suppression of other races. In fact, from the quote given, he was actually supportive of increased educational opportunities. The viewpoint may have been old-fashioned and outdated, but it doesn't make him a white supremacist. Wildhartlivie 01:06, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
1) Maybe part of the problem is formatting. 1) Can we get the ENTIRE question (s) and the ENTIRE response (s) in one sub-section, without any edited words, from the actual interview. Then just leave it at that? 2) Another part of the problem is context: a) how many white farm boys from Iowa born in 1907 wouldn't have said something similar? b) If he would have just said: "We can’t all of a sudden get down on our knees and turn everything over to the leadership of any race. I believe in the current leadership until all prospective leaders are educated to the point of responsibility. I don’t believe giving authority and positions of leadership to irresponsible people." ...he would have been much better off. c) But, if he did say "blacks" and "white supremacy" it is sad and regrettable. (I don't have a copy of the interview.) 3) What else was going on the 1971? Nixon (there's an educated leader for you) was paranoid about the Black Panther Party and what was happening in Oakland. Unfortunately, they were getting a lot of media coverage at the time. The U.S. was fresh out of the 60s and Watts, the Baltimore riot of 1968, the Louisville riots of 1968, 1968 Washington, D.C. riots, 1968 Democratic National Convention, MLK, Bobby Kennedy, etc., the 1971 May Day Protests. There was a lot of concern and down right paranoia amongst the leaders in this country, and even more so amongst the right-wing bankers, corporate executives, and the like. Look no farther than the treatment of the guy in the first Dirty Harry movie, and the most of the plot of the second sequel The Enforcer (was it an accident that this movie was based in the Bay Area?). It was sad, but the solid majority of the press coverage that Blacks were getting in 1971 was negative. 4) So, if we put in the full quotes, questions and answers, then frame them around what was happening at the time, maybe it would raise the quality of the section? 5) And, only put in credible responses at that time We can't Monday morning quarterback in 2007. May of 1971 is not 2007. 6) This may have to be a separate article? 7) I have to take in to context this mans entire life, where and when he was born, to whom, where he came from, how he got there, things that happened along the way (the Great Depression, WWII, the Korean War, the nuclear age), his wives, family, friends, people he worked with, people he associated with, etc. So, unless I can walk in his shoes, I can't, then I can't be too judgmental. I may not like everything this man said or did. I may disagree with him on some of those things. But, I also see why he said what he did. 8) And, finally people, this man was not God, he was an entertainer. He made movies to entertain us. If you put more emphasis on an entertainer, that is your fault. People who follow around celebrities have no sympathy with me. If you let John Wayne, Marylin Monroe, Elvis Presley, Frank Sinatra, Barbara Streisand, Jane Fonda, Michael Jackson, Paris Hilton, etc., etc., et al, ad nauseam, be your guide, well, I pity you and worry about your leadership skills and you ability to pick a leader. WikiDon 02:09, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
PS: From Iowa to California, from May 26, 1907 – June 11, 1979, this interview was one drop of sand on the beach of a man's life. WikiDon 02:14, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Here's the thing: the quotations are pretty much presented in the context of the original interview, AND the original interview is fully cited. If we have to include the entirety of everything quoted and cited simply in order to obtain some fanciful "total context," Wikipedia will quickly become the container of all written words in the universe and thus slightly unmanageable. There's nothing distorted about the quote as it currently sits in the article. I believe so because I edited it from a highly distorted version placed by someone more interested in POV than in accuracy. I agree to an extent with your notion that the time of the statement needs to be considered, and furthermore, although I cannot say for certain, I'm not sure that the term "white supremacy," as loaded as it is, had quite the labelistic quality then that it has now. I don't really believe Wayne was saying the same thing that today's Aryan Nation types are saying. It reads much more benighted and paternalistic than KKK. I think Wayne would have wanted to run the KKK and the Aryan Nation out of Dodge. But then I met him and I've read about everything ever written about him, so I've got an awful lot of experience and material to weigh. I despise his general political stance, admire him as an actor and as a gentleman, and sometimes shake my head at things he said and did with a few drinks in him. Or even without. Monkeyzpop 02:26, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
I tend to agree that the statement is what it is, in the context of 1971. I also find Monkeyzpop's comment about Wayne being paternalistic valid, given the content about his guilt over the treatment of the Native American. He certainly didn't marry WASP women, which tells me he wasn't a white supremacist as we define it today. Without the Playboy in which this statement was printed to consult, it's not that easy to know the context in which it was even said (though I imagine my ex-husband still has that particular issue, considering the collection in his basement). He may well have been asked about the Black Panther party and other movements of the time. It occurred in the era of Kent State and anti-Vietnam sentiment and I suspect must be taken in light of that time. Personally, I think it's fine just as it is, and Wayne would have needed to be a lot more anti-something to classify him as a white supremacist by today's definition. Wildhartlivie 03:34, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

In reference to the Dirty Harry movies listed above, they were set in San Fransico because Clint Eastwood wanted them set there. Remember, he lives in Carmel and was born in San Fransico. The story was orginally set in Seattle. The change in venue was one of his stipulations in accepting the role. The Shadow.

Wikipedia is not here to argue about "societal norms". John Wayne advocated that white should remain in charge of the U.S. and that blacks, as a race, were too "irresponsible" to do so. Thomas F. Dixon, Jr. was born in 1864, but rarely is he given an excuse for his overt racism simply because he lived during "the times". In addition, he felt no guilt or sense of responsibility to the Native Americans. Now, for somebody who does not think in terms of race, then this is perfectly acceptable, but as his previous statement indicates, he did very much look at the world in these terms, and thus this is applicable to his personality. The fact that he allowed the then-current coverage of black riots to influence his opinion over African-Americans as a whole does not make he bigotry as less tolerable. Note that a white supremacist and a separatist are two different things, and that white can mean not only Anglo Saxons, but Scandinavians, Norse, or Mediterranean peoples. Also remember, not all whites supremacists are a member of a protestant denomination, or even christian for that matter. The words WASP & Aryan are not interchangeable, and neither are the words "old-fashioned" and racist.
PS: From Iowa to California, from May 26, 1907 – June 11, 1979, this interview was the lit cigarett in the tinder wood forest that was his life.
69.250.130.215 22:17, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
In the interest of accuracy, Wayne said he had no sense of PERSONAL guilt over the treatment of the Indians in earlier times. He went on to say that the resentment felt by minority races in the U.S. was "probably rightful." Just for the record. Monkeyzpop 00:59, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

RE: My alteration of changes made to the article's lead-in paragraph: Wayne NEVER made a public or known private statement advocating separation of the races. His paternalistic and antiquated racial views have been discussed here at length, but no one has offered evidence that he advocate separation. And I have clarified Wayne's arch-conservatism and anti-communism as distinct from "advocacy of McCarthyism" partly because it is somewhat misleading, in that "McCarthyism" is too loosely used, since McCarthy himself had nothing to do with the "commies in Hollywood" phenomenon and Wayne never publicly spoke about McCarthy's own activities, but more importantly because the way the remark was originally phrased gave far too much weight to the material for an opening paragraph in a WP article. Wayne's own positions on conservative issues (cf., the Panama Canal Treaty, etc.) as well as individual blacklist events (cf., his rebuke by Louella Parsons for being too forgiving of blacklistees) was far too inconsistent to justify a broad-brush tarring of the sort the original remark had. I think what I've replaced it with is fair not only to Wayne but to those who feel his political positions should be acknowledged in the article's introductory paragraph, while it eliminates aspects that are not only unproven but, as far as the separatist label, heretofore unheard of. Monkeyzpop 23:21, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wayne's Injury

This article says that Wayne dropped out of USC's athletic program and took up acting because he was injured while body surfing, but the reference says that he broke his ankle instead and does not say how. Which is it? Vgy7ujm 00:33, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] One person, 50 edits to this article in 90 minutes

First, let me ask that you read this as constructive criticism. Anyone who makes fifty edits to a single article page in ninety minutes should have a firmer grasp of both the material under discussion and the guidelines and practices favored at Wikipedia. There are simply too many errors of fact, redundancies, misplaced items, misspellings, grammatical errors, unsourced rumors, and awkward constructions to let your submissions stand. I will not enumerate all of them, but please, before you edit a page on Wikipedia, check and double-check your sources, and familiarize yourself with the page you are editing. You created a trivia section (a WP no-no) and then put in it information that was already present elsewhere (properly) in the article. You created a new section (with a probably unintentionally inflammatory and slightly derogatory heading - "Out of his element"), a section that contains material structured under a highly debatable premise (that Wayne rarely played outside two types of roles and that he was out of his element [which means out of his range of ability] in doing so), and a section that rightfully is covered (already) in the independent articles in WP on Wayne's filmography. You made a wide variety of errors of fact in these sections. And you entered items of pure rumor without citing sources to back them up. Please understand that we welcome your enthusiasm and effort. But the entire basis of Wikipedia is to use identifiable sources and the insight and knowledge of experts to maintain the quality of the articles. On that basis, I have deleted your material. If you wish to revisit the topic, please first MAKE SURE OF THE TRUTH, BACK IT UP WITH SOURCES, PLACE IT IN THE RIGHT PLACE, DO NOT REPEAT MATERIAL ALREADY PRESENT, AND SPELL AND PUNCTUATE IT ALL CORRECTLY. Thank you. Monkeyzpop 06:14, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Not vandalism

Respectfully, my edit is not vandalism.

Vandalism is defined as "any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia." In contrast, my edit improves the integrity of Wikipedia by adding a cogent, sourced, neutral lead to an otherwise poorly written and poorly sourced section.

The added line: "Wayne, though a leading tough guy on screen and qualified to perform military service during World War II, managed, with the help of his studio, to avoid the draft.[16]" Is true, based both on external and internal references. It is sourced. It is neutral. Most importantly, it summarizes the controversy in one sentence so as to guide the reader into the subject matter. In short, it does everything a good lead should do.

Let's take a moment to dissect it and lay it next to the material that follows it in the article.

"A leading tough guy in screen" = "He epitomized ruggedly individualistic masculinity, and has become an enduring American icon. He is famous for his distinctive voice, walk and enormous physical presence. "

"qualified to perform military service during World War II" = "Wayne was ... classified as 3-A (family deferment) ... In May, 1944, Wayne was reclassified as 1-A (draft eligible)."

"managed, with the help of his studio, to avoid the draft" = "but the studio obtained another 2-A deferment."

So, the lead is consistent with the body factually. Now let's examine it for bias or POV by examining it in its entirety.

"Wayne, though a leading tough guy on screen and qualified to perform military service during World War II, managed, with the help of his studio, to avoid the draft."

The sentence is objectivity neutral. It does not take a side. It does not say Wayne was wrong or hypocritical, nor does it say he right or righteous. It simply says "Hey - here is what you are going to read about in this section." In other words, it cogently expresses the controversy in a way the current lead does not.

If you do not accept the neutrality of the sentence, then, yet again respectfully, you are probably not a neutral reader and in removing the sentence you are deliberately attempting to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia by having the Wiki take sides in a very public controvery.65.119.192.122 00:23, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

It's very plainly not neutral. "though a leading tough guy on screen and qualified to perform military service" either implies that he should have joined the army (an opinion) or is entirely irrelevant. Either way, it doesn't belong. Someguy1221 00:26, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Worse than the source's having essentially nothing to do with John Wayne, the sentence itself is given in the source as a quote, so it clearly has no place masquerading as a verified fact. Someguy1221 00:36, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
It is disingenuous to argue the lead is not verified fact when each element of the lead is supported within the body of the section. If the lead is not reliable, then the section is not reliable. Respectfully, you are seeking an excuse to block a legitimate edit.67.83.176.54 13:44, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Someguy1221's points here. Aside from the reliability of the material, it isn't neutral to juxtapose his film image with his personal life. Words like "however", "ironically", and "despite" should be avoided in most cases because they are usually used to prove some point. See WP:SYNTH and WP:AVOID#However, although, whereas, despite. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:45, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
The lead does not use "Words like 'however', 'ironically', and 'despite'" so what is generally very good advice does not apply here. The juxtaposition of film and personal life goes the very core of the controversy. A more nuetral entry would explore those concepts. Indeed, the whole section could be reduced to half its size and still protect the apologist argument while also including that of the critics. (apologist, BTW, is not a negative word.) 65.119.192.122 00:58, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

ALL Just ignore him, he gets off on stirring the poop, he just says things that are controversial to get everybody's goat, he doesn't care one way or the other about truth. Recommendation: Revert all entries, ignore, and block & ban IP4240207xx 01:02, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

All, please take some time to examine my logic behind my edit and then provide a meaningful response based on its content. If the proffered lead does not belong, then the section does not belong.65.119.192.122 01:08, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
I also agree with all the others. In this case the words "...and qualified to perform military service..." sound as if this was your own opinion. Indeed the words 'however', 'ironically', and 'despite' were not used, but in earlier edits the word 'though' was used which even stresses the opinion. Maybe he was qualified, but the argument that this statement and the sentence as such contributes to the neutrality of the article does not apply. You also argue that without your lead "the whole section does not belong". That's bullshit! I think the original introduction is neutral enough because it provides a general survey about America's entry into World War II and names several Hollywood actors who participated. Therefore I deleted this sentence. 83.181.72.17 15:56, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

"and qualified to perform military service" is an objective fact documented in the article. Ignoring your off-point discussion of a previous version. You misunderstood my comment. It is not that only my lead is qualified; rather, it is that if the section of the article is appropriate, then it merits a cogent, neutral lead. My lead is neutral, factually correct and direct. The current one is not. The point of having topical sub-headers is to assist the user in quickly finding desired content. A short section deserves a short lead or introductory paragraph with an intelligent thesis. Meandering leads are never appropriate. Three graph leads are only appropriate for longer articles, and then only sparingly. Here is what makes a good lead: if someone comes up to you and inquires "quick, what's all this about" and your one sentence response is probably the correct lead. Here, the current lead never, ever, addresses the controversy. In contrast, the proffered lead captures exactly what is the controversy: John Wayne, who played tough guys on film and was qualified for service in WW2, avoided the draft with the help of his studio. I'm going to rewrite this entire section to present both sides of the controversy equally, in about half the space. Also, your edit history shows you are a Wayne enthusiast. If we believe the current version, that Wayne regretted not serving and became a super-partriot as a consequence, don't you think he would want this part of his life properly discussed? Put aside your fan-role and resume your editor-role and I confident you should agree.67.83.176.54 01:19, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

How do you know that I'm a "Wayne enthusiast"? Just because I agree with all the others that your lead is NOT neutral? That doesn't prove that I'm an enthusiast at all. That doesn't prove anything! Like all the others I just think that your lead sentence isn't appropriate. To tell the truth, I think YOUR edit history shows that you HATE John Wayne. Is it true? I don't know! I think it's not important whether one hates or likes him. Every piece of information should be as neutral and objective as possible. You argue that the current lead is not "neutral, factually correct and direct". As I already said, the current lead briefly explains America's (and Hollywoods) role during WWII. What would be more neutral and factually correct? It simply presents historic facts. I think YOU are the one who misunderstood. A lead sentence or some kind of introduction is OK as long as it does not show the editors opinion. For example, if you had just written "John Wayne managed, with the help of his studio, to avoid the draft during WWII" it would have been very neutral and objective (WITHOUT the "...though a leading tough guy on screen..."-part). I suggest you think it over! 213.101.225.193 12:39, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
I just followed your edits - you are a Wayne apologist. I am, by professional training, a journalist. I know a little something about writing leads. Your comments indicate you want to hide the controversy. A neutral juxtaposition of facts that encapsulates the issue is required. Even the most mendacious of editors should recognize the weak writing, un-sourced facts and misdirection contained in the current "lead." 67.83.176.54 14:43, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
If you really are a journalist then your research on my edit history is quite poor! The only edit I've done was deleting your sentence. That doesn't mean that I'm a Wayne apologist. I just want the section to be neutral. You should hear yourself talking: "Your comments indicate you want to hide the controversy." Sounds as if this was a conspiracy theory or something like that. In fact it seems you want to run him down. Don't get me wrong, it's OK if you don't like him, but this should not be reflected in your edit. Furthermore, I have my reasons why I believe that I know a lot more about journalism than you do. First of all a journalist should know that a lead is a neutral sentence which serves as an introduction to the main text. Sometimes it even summerizes the content. It does not reflect the author's opinion. In some way your "lead" is an introduction ("he managed to avoid the draft." - that's a fact and that's what the section is about) but mainly it's an opinion and therefore inappropriate! (See my suggestion for a formulation above.) Moreover, a real journalist never loses sight of the main issue: this discussion is not about you or me, it's about the article. And the article is not a newspaper report or a news broadcast about an event which happend two days ago. It's an article in an online encyclopedia. The "neutral juxtaposition" is already pointed out in the main text itself.213.101.225.193 19:37, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
The proffered lead is neutral. I do not hate John Wayne (I, in fact, am a huge fan) and avoiding the draft while talking tough is the heart of the controversy. Your John Wayne edits are not just on this page and multiple IPs do not hide your work. It's okay to be an apologist, just don't let it affect your role as an editor. Now, if you are done writing about me, let's return to the issue: this section of the article is horribly written. It is largely unsourced. Where it is sourced it is primarily to a single book written by Wayne apologists, and it actually takes a side in the controversy. A simple read of this section leaves a clear presentation of the apologist side, often presented as fact rather than opinion, but not the side of the critics. It is purely not NPOV. It is not written in encyclopedic style. It is a failed section that is only being defended because it supports the apologist opinion. What no one has yet to articulate is how the proffered lead is not neutral. Every aspect of the proffered lead is a verified fact. It expresses no opinion. It does not take a side in the controversy. Please present a cogent argument against the lead. If you fail, the lead will be returned to the article.67.83.176.54 13:54, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
How do you come to the conclusion that the Olson-Roberts book is a book written by apologists? After all, this is the first major work EVER to put the lie to the notion that Wayne wanted badly to join the military but couldn't. It's the first book to document in great detail the efforts he and Republic made to keep him OUT of the military. I've read just about everything ever written about Wayne, and the Olson-Roberts book strikes me as the closest thing we will ever have to an intelligently objective view of the man in book form. As to your opinion of the quality of the writing of the material in this section as presently represented, and of the material as biased in Wayne's favor, let me say this: I am responsible for much of the tone of that section now, as well as a great deal of its style. While I did not write it from scratch, I did re-create it after numerous attempts to skew it inordinately into a subjective assassination of Wayne's character. The edit wars were, for a while, quite tedious and long lasting. What I attempted to do with the material was to lay out the facts as best I could (including but not limited to the exquisitely detailed analysis of Wayne's draft records from Olson & Roberts, which has never been questioned, to my knowledge), and while shooting down in its entirety the myth that Wayne could not join the military even though he wanted to, at the same time to allow for some benefit of the doubt as to his motives by quoting those (such as his widow) closest to him as to what his mindset might have been. That seemed far better than promoting him either as a shackled would-be hero or as a coward, neither of which fits the verifiable information we have. Although a great admirer of Wayne the actor and, to some extent, of Wayne the human being (I despise his politics, for the most part), I made enormous efforts to be objective and at the same time fair in this section, which has too often been the target of Wayne-bashers. Bash him all you want, but use facts to do so, is my plea to those people. As to the "terrible" writing, all I can say is (a.) my work on this section is in the form of re-emphasis and re-phrasing rather than a page-one rewrite, as I didn't think the original problems with the section justified my scrapping every word that had been written previously, and (b.) with a forty year career in journalism, published book and article writing, and the teaching of journalism and English composition, I regret to think that all I've come up with here is a "horribly written" section. I've been extremely fortunate never once to have had a bad review of my writing until now. And I've had lots of reviews. I've reread the material looking for the faults you suggest, and while there are aspects of inelegance caused primarily by my attempt to use as much of the previously written section as possible, I do not find the horrible examples you mention. While it is not the paragraph I would have written as a fresh piece of original writing, and while I don't agree with everything in it, I just don't see it as the horror you obviously do. And finally, although I too felt initially that the use of the verb "managed" to describe Wayne's avoidance of the draft had some tinge of bias, I came to the conclusion that while it did him no favors, it was not an unfair terminology. Thus once the proffered lead reached the wording it most recently contained, I offered no objection to it. It certainly sounded from the start as if this were an attempt to denigrate Wayne rather than objectively to describe circumstances, but as the debate continued, I realized I no longer believed that to be the case. At any rate, while I stand by my version of the section, including its lead, I've no quarrel with the lead you offer. Monkeyzpop 14:36, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Filmography please?

Recently started collecting the entire John Wayne series on DVD as a fortnightly issue(I believe this is being done worldwide - I'm in Australia but it's sourced from the UK) Any chance of a knowledgeable person putting a comprehensive list in the article? The DVDs are not being released chronologically - so far we have had films such as Chisum, They were Expendable, Searchers, Stagecoach etc. --MichaelGG 08:52, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Check the links. There are three articles containing a filmography (in sections). Monkeyzpop 19:23, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Too long?

The article is 39 kb right now, but it does not seem too long to me, at least going by current details of the WP length guidelines. Remember, too, that it's the main text that counts when counting kb. Therefore I see no reason for splitting this biographical article into two at this point. Monkeyzpop 19:23, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Burt Lancaster

Shouldn't the article mention the fact that Burt Lancaster was asked in 1979 to write a citation for awarding Wayne the Congressional Gold Medal, and refused? BANNED USER > (172.142.186.188 (talk) 17:07, 13 December 2007 (UTC))

I don't agree. See Wikipedia:Undue Weight. Even if sourced, which the recent edit was not, it does not add to the article in a meaningful way, especially as Lancaster's actual reasons are not explained, even by the innuendo that he was a left-wing democrat (who can be presumed to have refused on the basis of politics). WP is not the place for uncited innuendo. Monkeyzpop (talk) 20:03, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pilgrim

I made this video a while back, and thought that it would be nice to link to on the page. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9O8oLqY2sxo. Anom.

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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))

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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)

[edit] Edits from Banned User HC and IPs

Warning 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

[edit] 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)