Talk:John Wayne/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
← Archive 1 |
Archive 2
| Archive 3 →


Contents

Winterset Iowa

What brought his family to Winterset Iowa and how old was he when they moved away? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.215.29.253 (talk) 21:56, 3 February 2007 (UTC).

Vietnam a Right Wing government cause?

Can someone please explain how the Vietnam War is a "right wing US government cause". The Green Berets came out in 1968, made with a Democratic president and Congress in office, the same officials who oversaw the beginning of the Vietnam War.

Wayne used his iconic status of a patriotic war hero to support right-wing US government causes, including rallying support during the Vietnam War where he contributed his acting and co-direction to the box-office hit The Green Berets (1968) (although the film was critically panned for its highly idealized, fictionalized depiction of war. [3]

It absolutely amazes me how the Democrats get a free pass on Vietnam and their Congressional opposition to the Civil Rights movement and history has been changed to place all blame on Republicans. Remove this biased editorializing, please. --Gypsyjazzbo 08:12, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

The Civil Rights movement was hugely aided by the Democrats in the late '60's, I'm not sure what Civil Rights movement you're talking about. As for the Vietnam statement, it's certainly debatable, but, outside of the government, people supporting the Vietnam war were *generally* right-wing and people opposing it were *generally* left-wing. If you have unbiased documentation to support another interpretation, please share it. ThatGuamGuy 21:34, 5 April 2007 (UTC)sean

It was Eisenhower who started it. (HarveyCarter 23:13, 15 February 2007 (UTC)) na ha! it was the vietnam communist who started it.Russia to China to Vietnam.

Nope. It was Eisenhower who sent the Green Berets to Vietnam.

Actually it was Truman ( a Democrat ) who paved the way for the Vietnam war by not supporting Ho Chi Minhs' bid for Vietnamese independence after WWII which pushed him towards communisum. Truman allowed the French to re-take control of their colonial territory they lost to the Japanese. This was a smack in the face to Ho Chi Minh when all around the world countries that had been held by colonial powers where given their independance. He had studied Communisium in china and watched how it was able to wrest control from the imperialistic puppit Chiang Kai Sheck; so he started his own communist revolution in the North with it's goal to gain independence for all of Vietnam. If Ho Chi Minhs' appeal to UN for an independent Vietnam had been listen to the Vietnam war would have never have happened and strong evidence suggest that he would not have made it a communist country. Further-more it was LBJ ( a democrat ) who escalated Nam from a an advisior military training mission to an all out full combat shooting war. And now for you conspiracy buffs out there it is little known that some of the biggest defense contractors to profit off the war were based in Texas LBJs home state and were also major campaign contributors for LBJ and LBJ was also an investor in these same companies. So why would you escalate a war no body wanted into and all of your top military advisiors warned against. JFK wanted no part of vietnam and said as long as he was president " I will not risk American lives...by permitting any other nation to drag us into the wrong war at the wrong place at the wrong time through an unwise commitment that is unwise militarily, unnecessary to our security and unsupported by our allies". Hmm... funny JFK ( and we all know the murky details behind that ) was assassinated in Texas: LBJ becomes president immediatly escalated the war with no provocation, then decides not to run again and retires back to Texas a very wealthy man: Leaving Nixon to clean up his mess.Mahzzwell 06:20, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

FDR would never have allowed it to happen. (DaveyJones1968 12:10, 11 June 2007 (UTC))

Height

Somebody has listed his height as being 5' 4.5". I'm almost certain this is not case. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.105.13.53 (talk) 21:21, 21 January 2007 (UTC).

His official height was 6'4.5", as he said in "The Quiet Man". Then again, in "The Cowboys" he said "I am 60 years old", and he was actually 65. Many believe his real height was 6'3". (HarveyCarter 15:03, 24 January 2007 (UTC))

John wayne was nowhere near 6`4.5! He looks 2+ inches shorter than 6`3 Jimmy Stewart. http://bilder.filmstarts.de/verzeichnis/film/filme/d/der.mann.der.liberty.valance.erschoss/DerMannDerLibertyValanceErschoss01.jpg And here: http://www.kino.de/pix/FLBILDER/pre03/auto/gal420/03130054.jpg He looks 2 inches shorter than 6`4 Hudson. Rock Hudson once said: "I did a movie with Duke Wayne and i was surprised to find out he had small feet, wore lifts, and a corset. Hollywood is seldom what it seems."

There is also a famous picture of the 6'3" Gary Cooper visiting Wayne on the set of "Operation Pacific" in 1950, and Cooper looks 2-3 inches taller. In that hugely controversial movie "Big Jim McLain", Wayne gave his height as 6'4". There he was dwarfed by the 6'7" James Arness. (HarveyCarter 19:07, 30 January 2007 (UTC))

By the way, the lifts he wore gave him 4 extra inches. I mean, that is rediculous. I think we should seriously consider degrading him down to 6`2. What do you think. Also, i just saw that picture of Cooper and wayne. He looked closer to 6`1 than 6`2 even. Could he have been only 6`1 1/2. It really wouldn't shock me.

Is it really possible to wear 4 inch lifts? I know Robert Mitchum claimed he did and the Duke was walking badly in some films like "True Grit", but four inches does sound too much. No doubt Wayne kept his hat on in that photograph to disguise the height difference between him and Cooper. (HarveyCarter 21:45, 3 February 2007 (UTC))


Here is an example of a 4 inch lift: http://www.tallmenshoes.com/to40intav1b.html Pretty seemless huh?

I always thought the duke was taller, but he really doesn't look it next to quite a few celebrities.

Unless we can find something really solid to base his height on, maybe it's better just to say something like "between 6'2" and 6'4", or just not mention it at all. The picture of him with Hudson is pretty worthless by itself, since you only see the two of them from the chest up and they're outdoors (ground might not be even), and I'm not sure we should trust anything that's said in a movie anyway - actors say a lot of things in movies to enhance the experience; he may not have been 6'4.5", but he was never actually a fighter pilot, gun-for-hire, or officer for the Union Army, either. Dean Martin was (as far as I've found) 6' and Wayne always seems to have had a couple inches on him, and the pictures I'm finding of him with Jimmy Stewart have them pretty closely matched (and outside - go figure), so I dunno. Also, most of the pictures I'm finding of Wayne depict him with his trademark slouching posture, which could also affect any measurements - I don't think I've ever seen the guy not hunched over or tilted to one side or with his head cocked even just a little. I think 6'2" to 6'3" is a pretty fair guess, but who knows. We can compare snapshots all we like, but it's still original research. The only way to be really sure would be to have a photo of him and several other of his contemporaries (Stewart, Martin, Mitchum, and Hudson) in their stocking feet standing up perfectly straight in front of a height chart. Maybe just "was often claimed to be 6'4.5", but this is disputable" (citation)? intooblv 03:15, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Dean Martin was 5'10" and Wayne wasn't that much taller than him. Ricky Nelson and Walter Brennan were both 5'11" and Claude Akins was 6'1". By 1958, when "Rio Bravo" was filmed, Wayne had started wearing lifts. You can tell he is wearing huge lifts in "Hatari", "The Sons of Katie Elder", "The Green Berets" and "True Grit". (HarveyCarter 17:21, 17 February 2007 (UTC))

What's the "official" source for Dean Martin's height? The only one I've seen that lists him at 5'10" is IMDB, which tends to have some pretty dodgy info in it (much like Wikipedia), but then again I admit I haven't read any biographies on him or anything. intooblv 03:44, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Since Dino was shorter than both Walter Brennan and Ricky Nelson, and was only slightly taller than the 5'7" Frank Sinatra, he clearly wasn't 6 foot. He was also noticably shorter than the 6 foot Robert Mitchum in "Five Card Stud". (HarveyCarter 18:56, 20 February 2007 (UTC))

I think that we should get rid of the front listing of his height until we can all decide on his height.

I know this probably doesn't count because it happened to me rather than someone in a book saying it happened to them ;-), but I met Wayne on two occasions while I was in high school. (I interviewed him for my high school paper.) I was 6'1" tall in high school, and Wayne towered over me. I was in loafers and he wore boots, but the difference was huge. Now, 40 years later, I'm only 5'11", since most of us shrink some as we age. Wayne probably did, too. But he was 60 when I met him, and my eyes barely leveled with his chin. So even if he wore lifts, I'd give an actual 6'4" a lot of credence. If credence is what anybody's looking for.

Considering how the duke was a lift-wearer, it kinda speaks for itself in high-school. Besides, he didn't look anywhere near 6`4 next to 6`3 Gary Cooper. His body itself seemed to be smaller as well. Maybe we should leave him at 6`2-6`4 for now, until we compile more evidence that he was either taller or shorter.

He does look preety big in movies though. I always assumed that he was gigantic! Like 6`5 or something. Doesn't quite look it next to Hudson though, who was an admitted 6`4. And did he seriously wear lifts? It seems hard for a man as mighty and self-respecting as the Duke to wear lifts! But, i guess we all do (movie stars, that is).

Nah, the Duke is more of a 5`10 guy. Cooper is probably 6`0, 6`1. I think Wayne was 6`2 in boots.

Okay, I have to ask - what are the sources that state definitively that Wayne wore lifts, other than a scathing anecdote from Hudson, Mitchum saying he (as an older man with health problems) was walking funny, and pictures of cowboy boots with large, Cuban-style heels? I'm not saying it wasn't so or anything - it's not unusual, and I don't think I'd be shocked - but I noticed that no one in this discussion has listed any real citations to that effect; it's pretty much been taken as a given. Where is this verified? It would be really slick if we could amend the article to say something like "Wayne was billed as 6'4", but was known to wear lifts later in his life [or whenever], so this is disputable." intooblv 02:45, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

You can tell he was wearing lifts in numerous movies like "Hatari!", "The Sons of Katie Elder", "The Green Berets" etc. Wayne looked shorter than the 6'3" actors Gregory Peck, Charlton Heston, James Stewart and Robert Ryan. Wayne was never more than six foot. (JohnRobertsly 17:50, 16 March 2007 (UTC))

That's exactly my point; regardless of how obvious it might seem to one person that he was wearing lifts, someone else will be able to argue the opposite till they're blue in the face, just like the the back-and-forth going on here. Are there any reliable sources that can verify one over the other? I'm still looking, myself. intooblv 00:17, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Whoever wrote 5`10 is clearly off his rocker. Wayne may not have been 6`4, but he certainly was in the 6`0 range. And yes, it is pretty darn obvious that he was wearing lifts in some of his movies. You can see how awkwardly he is walking, and how almost forced it seems for him. He was probably 6`1, and wore lifts to look 6`5 or something. Clearly we all know he was not a 6`4.

The duke was still a cool guy. A liar about his height, but certainly iconic. But to the point, after viewing a few of the pictures posted here, i am going to have to agree on 6`0 flat.

Could wayne be 5`9?

at one point sure, then he grew several inches past it.--Xiahou 01:37, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

He wasn't 6`4, but 5`9?! That is pretty asinine.

I don't think we should list his height til we know more.

Simple solution would be to quote what his offical biography says and cite it. Rather than leaving out facts due to conjecture on what people 'think' by looking. I'd stick with whats written from the source. I don't happen to have a copy, but it seems other editors have quoted from it so hopefully one can pull that fact for us and put it to rest. --Xiahou 23:39, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

So... if someone wrote in Tom Cruise's biography he was 5`10, do you think we should post that as his official height, even though we all know that that is no where near his actuall height. Funny enough, for many years, his official height was 5`9. And yet, he is dwarfed by his 5`9 wife Katie Holmes. But to the point, we should just leave it out.

Not just 'someone' the official biography. Has someone done that? then once cited fix it. Like here. Your Tom Cruise example would say the old height back in the day. Then when compared by someone and put in a reliable source that it isn't true it would then change. If everything thats debatable was left out of articles wiki would be just about empty. Its about cited sources and if his offical bio says whatever measurement, until something besides original research of looking at pics (unless laid out head to toe with size landmarks its all camera pov anyway) We should put in the offical height. Its part of him. Its info. Its something he was known for otherwise we wouldn't even be discussing it. Info, especially cited is part and parcel for wiki. Notability, Cited = included. So again I ask anyone who has access to any offical (aka endorsed, ok'd) biography what does it say, add it and cite it. If someone disagrees, take it out and cite why. This is how it works. Not "well I've seen pics and he looks like..." Cite it --Xiahou 20:55, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Fine, but if we are going to credit him at that height, label it under "billed height". Just to settle matters for now.

This has been an interesting investigation. The Cooper/Duke photo does not show the floorinf and I would not consider it valid. On the other hand, I think the term "billed height" might be good since what most people knew about John Wayne is what the studios told them. A lot of trade secrets went to grave with all those people.Jvortiz 09:38, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

It wasn't just that he looked shorter, his body looked smaller in general. but for now, if we must include his height at 6`4.5, it will be under "billed height" can we all agree to that?

sure makes complete sense. Much like wrestlers have seperate for 'billed'. If its the 'facts' that the public has been told but there is much speculation without proof. Saying 'billed' works. Just go with the most 'offical sounding/cited' for billed. Possibly his autorized (is there one?) bio. Or any offical studio stats --Xiahou 17:49, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

He isn't 6`4.5, but it is not my decesion, so just credit it under billed height.

Wayne wore lifts according to Bobby Darin, Rock Hudson, REobert Mitchum, Capucine and many others. Gary Cooper was definitely 6'3" and never needed to wear lifts. Not only did he look 2 or 3 inches taller, his body looked larger as well.

My point being, he was not 6`4.5. His presence was still amazing though. and yeah, cooper was even measured at 6`3 once (no joke).

Great that you say they said that without citing it won't fly. Plus them saying it won't change our delima of what height to list. Billed height is a simple fix to a complex problem. Please sign your posts to, thanks. --Xiahou 00:10, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Wayne was never 6'4.5", he was at best about 6'1". He even admitted to Robert Mitchum that he wore lifts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

You are a tough guy to beat Xiahou, but for now, the height listing stays out.—Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

Stays out? says who? Seems a few of us like the idea of 'billed height' He obviously changed sizes. We all do. Age, illness, accidents, etc. If the studios or his bio said height 'x' then we should list the billed height as 'x'. We would have the citation. What more do we need? billed covers the question of what person says over another pov. Ive seen this issue delt with so much people are so worried about putting in an exaggerated number that they leave it out. Thing is its usually a person where this height or weight is part of the package a standout feature of the person. One of the things John Wayne was known for was his size. Wrestler pages are notorious for this issue and the billed height was an easy quick compromise. Also could fellow editors please sign their posts here, please. --Xiahou 00:04, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Your a cool guy, whatever, include his height, i wont touch it.

I've included new data on Wayne's height, verified by USC Athletic Dept. records from before he was famous, so they ought to be definitive. He was 6'4", 195 pounds when he joined the USC Trojan football team, having been 6'3", 175 pounds two years earlier on his high-school team.Monkeyzpop 06:58, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Wayne was never measured at 6'4". He was in fact about 6'1", and 6'4" with his lifts. That is confirmed by many people including Robert Mitchum, Rock Hudson, Capucine, Bobby Darin etc. It is also why he appeared shorter than 6'3" stars Gary Cooper, Charlton Heston, Gregory Peck, Robert Ryan, James Stewart and others. (Gibsonism 16:36, 24 April 2007 (UTC))

He was not 6`4.5. thats for sure. Although not quite as short as 5`9 as someone posted above. Actually, if he was 6`1, then he would be 6`5 in his lifts. He wore 4 inch lifts. that is plain rediculous!

Close enough to 6`3 in my opinion. Coolkider

  • I'm reposting this since no one seems to have noticed it, and it strikes me as definitive: "I've included new data on Wayne's height, verified by USC Athletic Dept. records from before he was famous, so they ought to be definitive. He was 6'4", 195 pounds when he joined the USC Trojan football team, having been 6'3", 175 pounds two years earlier on his high-school team." If John Wayne was listed by his high-school athletic department as 6'3" in 1925 and by his college athletic department at 6'4" in 1927, why would anyone have a problem believing he was 6'4" a few years later, just because he was famous? Monkeyzpop 07:21, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

They typically measure you in shoes in college or high-school. and usually they are pretty thick heeled sneakers. That would seem to support wayne being 6`2-6`2.5.

  • They measured me in high school AND college in my bare feet. Of course, that was a long time ago. Not as long ago as Wayne's college days, but a long time.

Sorry, Wayne was NEVER 6'4". He was six foot at the very most, as confirmed by numerous people who knew him well such as Robert Mitchum, Rock Hudson, Capucine, Bobby Darin etc. (Chunda18 19:48, 9 May 2007 (UTC))

Believe what you want. I met him twice and he was EASILY 6'6" in cowboy boots, which suggests 6'4" as a natural height. Boots and lifts combining to add 6" would have made him tip over! Anyway, the college athletic department measurements stand up pretty solidly to me. Also, I know Wayne's sons, and even Patrick, at 6'2" or 6'3" was shorter than his dad, even in beach photos where they were barefoot. It doesn't really matter to me how tall the man was, but it seems to me that some people get a sense of "getting even" with Wayne if they can convince everyone that he was smaller than reported. By the way -- how is it that we're supposed to believe the "confirmations" of people who "knew him well" like Mitchum, Hudson, Capucine, Darin, but we're NOT supposed to believe the confirmations of people who knew him REALLY well like his wife, his children, or actors who worked with him not once or twice but twenty or thirty times? Darin? Capucine? Capucine??? Monkeyzpop 17:34, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

His wife and children are just trying to keep the legend alive so they can keep cashing in on his long-gone fame. Robert Mitchum saw that without his 4-inch lifts Wayne was no taller than him, and Mitchum was around six foot. Patrick was shorter because he didn't wear lifts. Wayne was never measured as 6'4" because he was NEVER any more than six foot maximum. Btw, Capucine absolutely hated the untalented, racist Wayne and saw him putting his wig and built up boots on every morning. (Chunda18 11:15, 11 May 2007 (UTC))


  • You know, even before I saw this last, I was going to write that you sure hate this long-dead fellow, but now I see that you have no interest whatsoever in anything encyclopedic. You simply want to use this forum, Wikipedia, as an easy way to vent your anger and, seeing how much of this relates to height. I hate to inform you of this, but you can't hurt Wayne. He's dead and gone, and one day you will be, too, and then maybe you won't feel so bad. I don't want to engage in edit wars. But I feel compelled to provide documented, verifiable information to various subjects here, and will avoid and revert as much POV as I can. If you look at my submission history, I think you'll find that I try to be objective. I don't worship Wayne nor do I feel threatened by him. You, I feel sorry for. BTW, I knew Robert Mitchum. He was taller than 6'0", maybe 6'3". And on his worst day (which could be considerable), he was never as jealous as you. Monkeyzpop 16:46, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


  • "How exactly can one be jealous of a guy who died 28 years ago?" You tell me. You're doing a great job of it. I bet a buck if Wayne had been Alan Ladd's height, you wouldn't give a shit how tall he was. But it's pretty clear that however tall he was. As to Mitchum, I never measured him and I don't carry his drivers license around like you do, but I was 6'1" when I first met him (I'm only 5'11" now -- age does that), and Mitch was taller than me then. Maybe HE wore lifts too. Maybe I was unconsciously crouching. Maybe how tall a person is doesn't mean anything at all, beyond what publicists and jealous people think. The fact is, Wayne's height doesn't really matter other than as a matter of record. His record during the war was not remotely as admirable as some people's and not remotely as admirable as his die-hard fans would have it. But you, sir, are fixated.Monkeyzpop 20:38, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

The fact is, Wayne was never more than six foot without his lifts, the same as Mitchum. (Chunda18 23:10, 12 May 2007 (UTC))

I apologize for the rancor of my previous post. As to this old Eugene McCarthy campaigner being a "dumb Republican fuck," that will create gales of laughter among my friends, especially my comrades in Vietnam Veterans Against the War. And today's teenagers don't know who Cagney or Bogart or Garfield or any of the other left-leaning stars were, either. More's the pity, for the teens' sakes. Monkeyzpop 08:47, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Do you guys mind??!!! This is supposed to be about how tall wayne is!! not whether or not he was a draft-dodging racist!!! Or how you to feel about each other. no one cares, and you are just making idiots of yourselves. I mean really "Must be somethin in the Rhode Island water" What the hell is that?!! Seriously guys, lets have a nice discussion about Wayne's height. that is all this particular section was made for. If you guys would like to discuss your political views, just exchange emails. but here, just keep it to height! OKAY!!!!

  • As I said, I apologized for my harsh words. I didn't realize that the "water" comment was harsh. It seems less harsh than being called a "dumb Republican fuck," which I was called a few lines earlier. At any rate, I've left the field of this particular fight. I've also educated myself on better means of resolving disputes here. Monkeyzpop 22:05, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

As for his height, i think he was 6`0-6`2. He was not 6`4.5. He didn't look anywhere near it next to most celebs.

I'm curious. Why is Wayne's height so important that it engenders all this talk and rancor? Nobody talks about how tall Henry Fonda was, or Errol Flynn, or Preston-freakin'- Foster. It seems to me that (a.) height is something that's as indicative of who a person is inside as eye color, and (b.) a lot of people think some good can be gained by convincing the world that someone was either taller or shorter than he was "supposed" to be. What's the point? And finally, facts are just facts. If there's a believable citation, use it. Arguing against cited material without providing reliable cites of one's own seems counter-intuitive to me.Monkeyzpop 22:05, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Nobody ever disputes that Hank Fonda was 6'1", that Errol Flynn was 6'2", that Gary Cooper and James Stewart were both 6'3", that Clark Gable was 6'0", that Burt Lancaster was 6'1" etc. Yet Wayne's height has always been disputed. Why? Because he clearly wasn't 6'4.5". Although it has been claimed that he didn't begin wearing lifts until 1958, he was clearly wearing built up boots in "The Searchers", filmed in 1955, and he only looked 3 inches taller than the actor Jeffrey Hunter, who was 6'0". He looked hardly taller than the 6'1" Claude Akins in "Rio Bravo", and you can tell Wayne was wearing lifts in that movie. Wayne's height is important because it symbolizes how fake his entire life was - America's hero who never did a single heroic thing in his entire life, never served in the military, wasn't a real Westerner, represented everything that is bad about America, and is an enduring icon for the far Right. (Chunda18 10:15, 15 May 2007 (UTC))

i have never heard wiser words chunda18. That was put so perfectly. Amazing wisdom. And totally not 6`4.

It doesn't matter particularly since the whole height issue is no longer part of the main article, but a viewing today of Allegheny Uprising gave some interesting insight, in that Wayne wore heelless moccasins throughout the film and in one scene was barefoot (as were the other actors). Barefoot, Wayne appeared slightly taller than 6'2 1/2" Chill Wills and roughly the same height as 6'4" Moroni Olsen. In a scene with 6'3 1/2" George Sanders, Sanders wearing boots with heels clearly 1.5" to 2" in height, is slightly taller than Wayne, who wears the heelless moccasins in the scene. Just passing this along as of minor interest. I don't much care myself.

The best i would give him is a flat 6`2.

Interesting note about the Mitchum remark that Wayne wore lifts. What Mitchum actually said in the interview (actually more than once -- Mitchum liked to repeat stories. He told me a story three different times that was identical except that the names changed every time!) was this: "He likes to keep people 'Wayne-conscious.' The man's six-foot-four and he wears four-inch lifts! Says it gives him that Wayne walk."Monkeyzpop 01:38, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Well of course Wayne wasn't "8 inches taller," unless Mitchum were barefoot in all his scenes. And the quote you mention is right, but it's only one of several times Mitchum made the remarks. He also made the remark I quoted. Of course, Mitchum also said Alan Ladd was the same size as "a dish-washer's hand," so do we now have to buy everything Mitchum says as literal truth? BTW, I like how you even managed to get politics into a discussion of height. Simmer down, fella. We lefties are doing just fine without getting all foamy around the mouth. (Said with a smile.)Monkeyzpop 19:35, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

John wayne definetely wore lifts. that is something which is undisputable right. we all agree on that. now, how tall was he without those monster boots? well, that is a whole other story. i have heard many different claims. i have many friends who have met John wayne. one of them said that he was about 6`2. another said that he thought he was 6`5. and the last one said 6`0 flat. could it be that wayne was only 6`0 flat, and all of the other times was wearing lifts? maybe, but i'd like to go deeper. the friend who said a flat 6`0 himself is 6`4, so he may have seen 6`1, and confused it for 6`0 perhaps? or he made it up. but i trust my friend. as for the man who said 6`2, he is 6`2 himself, so i would tend to trust him the most, considering that he must of looked him right in the eye. and the third friend who said 6`5, well, he is sadly a very small 5`6 1/2. so i cannot take his word for it. in my opinion, John wayne was 6`2.

Wayne was six foot. (DaveyJones1968 23:02, 6 June 2007 (UTC))

Probably around that area. 6`0-6`2. but wayne was NOT 6`4.5. i don't know where the heck he got that number from;.

He made it up. He was about the same height as Forrest Tucker in "Sands of Iwo Jima" and Tucker was 6'2", NOT the ridiculous 6'5" some sources claim. (DaveyJones1968 13:47, 12 June 2007 (UTC))

"Missed Roles" addendum (to 'John Wayne' Wikipedia Article, "Missed Roles" section)

I'm not sure how to make this addition (the sometimes complex or ambiguous Wiki rules don't provide clarity, either), so I'll post it here and perhaps an "expert" can help.

It was broadcast several times today (Thursday, March 01, 2007) on AMC (the American Movie Classics channel) during the showing of the John Wayne movie, "McQ" (1974) that John Wayne was offered and subsequently rejected the role of Inspector “Dirty Harry” Callahan, missing out in what is arguably one of the most famous and successful movie franchises of all time, "Dirty Harry" [1].

The Inspector "Dirty Harry" Callahan character went on to catapult Clint Eastwood into fame and fortune, with Clint having great later success as an accomplished actor, multi-Oscar-winning director, producer, and composer.

I was able to ascertain from IMDb.com--a film-industry-reliable and often-noted, albeit not “perfect” source--that John Wayne did, in fact, reject the Inspector “Dirty Harry” Callahan role. There are two references in IMDb.com about this, each having its own degree of detail.

The first reference is from the IMDb.com “Dirty Harry” (1971) trivia page [2] (para. 7), and suggests that John Wayne was offered, but turned down the famous “Dirty Harry” role because he “didn’t want [Frank] Sinatra’s leftovers”. The reference further elaborates that Clint Eastwood was suggested for the role by Paul Newman, who was offered and refused the role after John Wayne's rejection of it. Apparently, the “Dirty Harry” role was originally intended for Frank Sinatra, and was declined because Sinatra had a hand injury [further citation needed], leading to John Wayne’s alleged “leftovers” remark.

The second IMDb.com reference regarding John Wayne refusing the Inspector “Dirty Harry” Callahan role is from the IMDb “John Wayne (I)” biography page [3] (approx. para. 75), and suggests that John Wayne turned down the role because he thought it didn’t coincide with his screen image--that the role deviated radically from the roles John Wayne usually played.

It was further suggested that director Don Siegel commented about John Wayne’s refusal of the “Dirty Harry” role, comparing it to John Wayne’s later role of “McQ”, saying that "Wayne couldn't have played Harry. He was too old. He was too old to play McQ--which was a poor rip-off of Dirty Harry."

Also, on the same IMDb.com page (the latter URL), approx. para. 73, it is suggested that John Wayne refused an offer by Clint Eastwood to pair-up and do a western movie. John Wayne allegedly angrily and censoriously refused, citing the violence in Clint Eastwood’s “High Plains Drifter” (1973) movie as the reason.

Some of the above information is also cross-referenced in Wikipedia's own "Dirty Harry" [4] article, but sources in that article are not specifically cited for some cross-referenced information and it is uncertain whether or not a Wikipedia cross-reference is adequate for information verification purposes. ~~~~~ <;)))>< ~~~~~ NakedStranger 04:35, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Real Name(s)

By now, it seems pretty clear to serious students of the man that his birth name was Marion Robert Morrison. This is what is on his birth certificate. Additionally, it can be confirmed that at a very young age, his parents changed his middle name from "Robert" to "Michael." A false story circulates that the new middle name was actually "Mitchell," referring to various sources for confirmation, most often an "erroneous press release." The facts, however, prove otherwise, that Wayne's middle name was indeed changed to "Michael," and not "Mitchell." Wayne clarified the issue himself, in an interview with Michael Munn, recounted in Munn's book "John Wayne: The Man Behind the Myth." Wayne said, "My parents named me after my grandfather, Marion Mitchell Morrison. Only my middle name wasn't Mitchell. It was Robert. And that's the name on my birth certificate. My parents changed my middle name to Michael because they wanted my younger brother to be called Robert." Wayne's oldest son was named Michael because Wayne wanted to give his name to his son, but "I sure as hell wasn't going to name my firstborn Marion." Additional weight is supplied by the fact that when Wayne made an incognito cameo in a "Wagon Train" episode directed by John Ford, the pseudonym he chose was "Michael Morris." Monkeyzpop 11:23, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

ZAC McKenney

What and who is this Zac Mckenney. I have never heard the name before and nothing comes up for it when I goggle it.71.101.63.193 05:14, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


Top image

Right now its a VERY darkend image from the Searchers it says. Would not a clearer picture be better for the 1st one people see?--Xiahou 23:42, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I switched it with another so the much to dark picture isn't the first one of the article. --Xiahou 22:01, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I do not know what picture that top image is, but it is not from the Searchers, or even the 50s. It looks like a 1970s image.

Also, why so many Searchers images? All those movies and only those? Why not the High and the Mighty? The Conqueror? Sands of Iwo Jima? In Harm's Way? Donovan's Reef? You get the picture? How about some cinematic diversity? Get away from the Westerns if we want balance.Jvortiz 09:48, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, "The Conqueror" and "Donovan's Reef" were crap. —Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

oops thats the original caption from the muddied picture I moved. Have to remove that. Thanks. --Xiahou 00:43, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Racism

The article needs to mention Wayne's racism and the songs he is featured in, as these are both significant. (Granville1 23:00, 23 April 2007 (UTC))

Songs Wayne was mentioned in are at best trivia items, which are generally frowned up on in Wikipedia. I think it's legitimate to discuss Wayne's racial views, including his controversial (but, I think, not always well-understood) statements. But attempts to put statements into this article that simply say "Wayne was a racist" and "He did this or that because he was a racist" are non-encyclopedic and hugely POV. I'll revert that sort of statement, regardless of topic or slant, wherever I notice it.Monkeyzpop 06:58, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Military service controversy

It's bad enough to revert clearly cited statements, returning them to uncited POV statements, but to revert them while leaving the citations in place, to suggest that the citation bears out the POV statement when in fact it does not, is poor behavior. Either come up with your own citations that counter the ones I provided with specific documentation, or hide your obvious subjectivity better by erasing the citations, because it's bad enough to twist the facts to fit an opinion, it's worse to claim that documentation supports that opinion when in fact it undermines it.Monkeyzpop 06:58, 24 April 2007 (UTC)


It's a little hard to credit the person who keeps changing this section into a POV forum when he can't get his facts straight. Using Ronald Reagan (born 1911) as an example of stars older than John Wayne (born 1907) to make any point is revelatory, to say the least.Monkeyzpop 04:35, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

The section is not POV at all because it is all fact and ahs all been verified. Wayne never tried to enlist, Reagan was less than 4 years younger and enlisted. It is noteworthy that none of the other draft dodgers tried to set themselves up as military heroes in pro-war movies. James Stewart served throughout the war, and only ever made one war movie (The Mountain Road) - which was very definitely anti-war. (Glades21 17:31, 27 April 2007 (UTC))

Well the person who kept changing it has been blocked time and time again for sockpuppets that I pieced together from all the similar and simply exact same edits and arguements in articles (others besides this one, that first clued me in). Most accounts were already blocked or on their way for disruptive and personal attacks. To this article and others. The history of it reads like a soap opera. [[5]] (above editor Glades21 included) Seems its quit for now...--Xiahou 01:36, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Talk page cleanup

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the John Wayne article.
This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.

So looking back there is alot of crap on here especially from our resident sockpuppet master and his MANY accounts. So I am going to be bold and remove outright talk page vandalism. Taking some out might make some conversations sound odd but basically if its not about improving or things happening in the article per talk page guidelines this isn't a fourm and it shouldn't be here. --Xiahou 23:37, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

  • I'd say maybe archive a whole bunch of old conversations. I did a bunch of them some months back, but it looks like another clean sweep may be in order - Alison ☺ 23:53, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
should I even leave confirmed sock puppet comments up? I am torn on them. They are about the article (when hes not ranting) yet made from an illegal account that was created to avoid a sockuppet block and then continuing in the exact same form with another. --Xiahou 00:01, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
I'd say just archive them or delete them. Sounds like trolling, actually & it's not being constructive. Either way, most (all?) of the threads on here are dead anyway. - Alison ☺ 00:10, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
I posted the question should a known sock puppets comments be kept on the talk page guideline discussion page interesting to see what comes of it. I haven't archived a article talk page before. Ive stumbled through mine a couple times. True that these are dead. I just looked at the history and saw you archived them not long ago. Would you mind again? --Xiahou 00:27, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, no problem. I'll do them later tonight! - Alison ☺ 00:31, 27 July 2007 (UTC)