Talk:John Wayne/Archive 1

message: It has been often alleged that John Wayne had a very small penis (about 3.5 inches when erect).  Can anyone back this up with evidence?
:Yes, that is why he was so insecure about his sexuality and set himself up as the self-appointed guardian of public morals. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.93.21.100 (talk • contribs) 
::NOTE previous poster (195.93.21.100) is a known troll who continues to push his anti-John Wayne position on these pages.  The only reason he has not been indefinitely blocked is because he's on a static IP address that several others can use.  His comments should be disregarded unless backed up by sources that adhere to WP:CITE. Batman2005 23:55, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What's the point?  The point is that it's thrust into every dead celebrity article on Wikipedia. Everyone has a friend whose friend was chased by some celebrity (who on the other hand was trying to hide it). They all picked up people who could turn around and blackmail them or write a tell-all book after they died. Everyone kept a diary sure to be found and sold to the tabloids. Some of these people were gay and did a little acting on the side. I applaud people who are gay and live proudly as who they are, make no bones about it. I feel terribly sorry for people who have to spend their lives hiding their sexual identity, it must be awful. But there's no point in saying that was true of every single celebrity in Hollywood - especially after they're dead. Maybe they were all bi - I say more power to them, I hope they had fun.Chandler75 15:41, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Penis size

message: I'm the world's biggest fan of the movies of John Wayne -- I've essentially stopped going to movies since he made his last one, and of the perhaps 15 VHS movie tapes I own, 10 of them are pictures starring the Duke.  But I also think that his career, or lack of it, in the armed forces, is germane to an entry about his life.  I'm going to check on it in a moment, but I'm pretty sure that other stars such as Jimmy Stewart and Clark Gable had active roles in the Armed Forces, even on the battlefields.Hayford Peirce 01:30, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  His War Career 

message: :Draft dodger. Once defended the homosexuality of Rock Hudson.
The above sort of thing is, to put it nicely, ridiculous.  When was he a draft dodger?  What war?  What difference does it make whether he defended Rock Hudson's homosexuality?  Maybe this sort of information does have a place in a longer article about John Wayne, but just placed into contextless broken sentences, they express factoids that no one could be expected to take seriously.  I don't think this is the way to write article stubs.  Here is a bit about better stubs.
:Per IMDB: "He did well at school both academically and in football. When he narrowly failed admission to Annapolis he went to USC on a football scholarship 1925-7"  What draft-dodger would ever apply to Annapolis? The only film in which Wayne and Hudson played together was The Undefeated where they were retired colonels from opposite sides of the US Civil War. Eclecticology
Notice, also, that you wikified a number of words that actually have articles associated with them.  If you knew what naming conventions we're following, you might have known how to link those words; you could also search (using the form at the bottom of the page) to find out what the exact names of the articles that you want to link to are. --Larry Sanger
----
My, that was ugly. Anyway, I've always heard him referred to as "the Duke" (or "The Duke"), generally not just "Duke", but that might have been different when he got the name as a child, as it's mentioned in the article. It should probably say "the Duke" in there somewhere, but I don't know if it should go in the childhood nickname mention, or as a later note that he became known as "the Duke". -- John Owens 04:54 May 8, 2003 (UTC)
Wayne may have never went to war, but for a man who was risking to lose his career and marraige it would be a tough decision for anyone. i think fans and non-fans can agree he was no Audie Murphy, but he made great movies. Muhammed Ali didn't go, pretty sure he is still viewed as one of the, if not the best, boxer in history. John wayne made some, no a lot of good movies, and lets just leave it at that.
-Jake Carley
Career in danger?  Marriage on the rocks?  While this may not be an attempt to fully justify Wayne's choice, it is certainly an attempt to smooth over the fact that Wayne made money starring in war movies while his peers put their LIVES, not just their marriages and careers, in grave danger.  If made for these reasons, Wayne's choice to not fight should not be ignored because it belittles the sacrifices made by WWII soldiers and their families.  Yes, Muhammad Ali disobeyed the government as well, but Carley's comparison of Ali and Wayne assumes the comparable equality of reason for disobedience (Ali - refusal to fight for a racist society, Wayne - apparent popularity and profitability of war movies) and also equates the Vietnam War to WWII.  -Matt Baker-
Other genuine Hollywood war heroes were James Stewart, Douglas Fairbanks Jr., and Eddie Albert.
Am currently reading Joe McBride's biography of John Ford, and it deals with the subject of Hollywood stars at war, or not. Previously I had understood that Wayne had tried to join up but had being refused a number of times due to physical problems. Apparently this was'nt the case; his careear was taking off (after a decade in the doldrums) at the outbreck of war and he did'nt wish to let his second chance go to waste. He recieved several deferments, and deliberatly did all he could do to stay out of service. In contrast, John Ford - who thirteen years Wayne's senior - was already a member of the forces at the outbreck of war, and saw action in several theatres, most notably Midway. Have to say that Wayne does not come out of this smelling of roses at all; McBride suggests that part of the reason he became such a superpatriot in later years was as a means of asserting his patriotism while at the same time deflecting attention away from his less-than-honourable conduct during the war. Kendrick's not far wrong when he draws similaritys between him and current chickenhawks; I guess it's only someone who's never seen the dogs of war on the loose that feels happy blowing rhetoric. Given Duke's positions on a number of subjects in later years, not to mention his many roles in war movies, I'm genuinely stunned by his actions and quite dissapointed. Fergananim 10:10, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: He was 34 in 1941! How can he considered a draft dodger? You think the Army will draft a 34 year old when there are hundreds of thousands of 18-25 year olds? Then by 1945 when the Military would have considered at 34 year old, he was 38. 67.10.247.73 04:46, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes he was a draft dodger, just like his friend Ronald Reagan. If Wayne had wanted to serve, then he wpould have ensured he was taken, as Henry Fonda and David Niven did. Funny how the most pro-war celebrities never saw action.
Reagan "dodged the draft" by joining the army reserves in the 1930s, before the war.  True, he never saw combat, but at the same time he was hardly a draft dodger.
Well, how many men with four children, an injury that ruined his athletic career at USC (he lost all money since he could not play on Howard Jones' legendary team (how could a future draft dodger have run out on that?), and a ruined shoulder (an injury that I do not see anywhere, but in the Maurice Zolotow biography, Shooting Star (1974) were accepted by the draft board in World War II?  I keep seeing these emotional arguements about how Wayne did his best to evade every turn, but I do not see any citation of documents.  At least there were documents to show the efforts George W. Bush made to steer clear of responsibilities in the Texas Air National Guard (intimating only that he evaded a tour in Vietnam, to Dan Rather's chagrin).--Jvortiz 01:19, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

text: None of those injuries existed, and being married with children didn't stop Henry Fonda (37) from enlisting,
You mean John Wayne anticipated getting drafted in World War II and gave up a football scholarship and four years at USC so he could dodge the draft over a decade later?  What a visionary?Jvortiz 08:40, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Draft Dodger,or Not? 

message: "According to the Internet Movie Database Wayne played the male lead in 142 of his film appearances, an as yet unsurpassed record." - surely Tom Mix (among others) exceeded this. Jooler 10:34, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Playing the lead

message: In a very uncomplimentary light in the Public Enemy song Fight the Power (lyrics), from the 2002 album "Revolverlution". The lyrics state that Elvis Presley was an evil racist, then seems to lump Presley and Wayne together. Since Wayne married three Hispanic women and had many black friends such as Sammy Davis Jr, it does not appear he was racist.
The above passage comes from the Wikipage. It appears to be a merely unsubstantiated rumour, however it carries much more weight than some might assume (if IMDB is to be believed). Wayne has admitted that he was a "white supremacist":
"In a May 1971 Playboy magazine interview, on the subject of blacks making strides towards equality in the U.S., he stated that he believed in "white supremacy" until blacks were educated enough to take a more prominent role in American society."
And he has clearly commented on the  Native Americans:
[On Native Americans:] "I don't feel we did wrong in taking this great country away from them. There were great numbers of people who needed new land, and the Indians were selfishly trying to keep it for themselves."
Now, of course one must keep in mind that these quotes could have been taken out of context, but one must also at least make mention of them in the article. The first quote obviously demonstrates that Wayne was at least somewhat elitist (wanted to keep the vote from the 'lessers') and/or racist (wanting to keep the vote from the Blacks specifically), and in favour of a geniocrity (wanted only the intelligent to vote). I would have to say it is probably somewhere in between since he never made comment that he would be in favour of uneducated white people from voting, just African-Americans.
Looking at the time periods that these quotes were taken from might also give evidence, as Wayne's position may have been the defacto standard. That being said, I figured I out to stick this in.
------------------------------
Yeah, he was racist.
Wayne's quote about Blacks becoming educated enough to participate in the political process is racist on its face.  In the U.S. intelligence is not a prerequisite for political participation, which both I and the writer of the previous post assume Wayne meant by "a more prominent role in American society".  Thus, the assertion that Blacks should not be able to participate in the political process until they reach some kind of set standard of education non-existent for whites is little more than a Jim Crow literacy test for an entire people.  And keep in mind that this comment was made in 1971.  Apparently the Civil Rights movement, which basically ended 200 years of de jure discrimination against Blacks, failed to persuade Wayne that Blacks were educated enough to participate politically.  And simply because Wayne's position may have been the de facto standard of the time, a point that is arguable at best, does not make his comment any less racist. 
Lastly, this quote: "Since Wayne married three Hispanic women and had many black friends such as Sammy Davis Jr, it does not appear he was racist," is the most ludicrous thing I've seen on a seemingly intelligent website.  The assumption that whites who have black friends and marry hispanics are, as a result, not racist is ridiculous.  This quote implies that, because Wayne liked Blacks and Latinos, he couldn't have been racist, when in reality whites have a history of liking minorities, but still being racist. (Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemmings,and Strom Thurmond and Carrie Butler are two examples that come to mind.  Lincoln, the emancipator himself, liked Blacks enough to see the evil in slavery, but clearly stated that he was not, nor would he ever be in favor of equal rights for Blacks during a campaign speech in southern Illinois.)  Racism itself is not necessarily a hatred of another race (which would preclude friendships and relationships with members of that race), but instead a simple belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability, and that one race is superior or inferior to another.  This definition certainly allows for Whites to befriend and even have relationships with minorities, as long as the White subscribes to the belief that he or she is a better and more deserving person based solely on his or her race, as was the case with Wayne.  -Matt Baker-
* His statement: "that blacks were not yet qualified to hold high public office because discrimination prevented them from receiving the kind of education a political career requires."; was not an indication that he was racist, but was a statement of fact as to how he felt the system operates. That system, favoring “white-Anglo-Saxon-male-Protestants”, is still firmly in place today. Women, along with all minorities, face the same problem of having the political knowledge, savvy and "where-with-all", to break the "male-WASP" hold on the White House. Now, Kennedy broke the Protestant barrier, but he was not far removed from this norm, and he used a massive amount of cash, political maneuvering and favors, and the media to do it. He won a close election over a television inept Nixon. Until a president from another group, of race or sex, attains the Oval Office, this problem will continue. This education process carries far beyond the classroom, to Madison Avenue, manipulation of the media, distribution of massive amounts of funds, to the formation and control of political machines. If “any” other group wants to achieve the address of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, the must master all of these facets of political education.
* When can a man just state what the facts are, of how things are, without being called a racists? There have been no black Presidents, or Vice-Presidents, and under the present system there doesn't seem to be one on the horizon. Until any minority becomes "educated" to work the system in his favor there won't be one. This is just a statement of fact, and does not make me a racist. I would support Colin Powell, but I would not support Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton. But, I don't see a "machine" getting behind General Powell at this time. I would have supported Powell over both Kerry and Bush in the last election. Hell, I'd support Russell Simmons or Sean Combs over those last two.
These quotes are undeniably racist:
"I'm not going to give you those I-was-a-poor-boy-and-I-pulled-myself-up-by-my-bootstraps-stories, but I've gone without a meal or two in my lifetime, and I still don't expect the Government to turn over any of it's territory to me. Hard times aren't something I can blame my fellow citizens for. Years ago, I didn't have all the opportunities, either. But you can't whine and bellyache 'cause somebody else got a good break and you didn't, like these Indians are. We'll all be on a reservation soon if the socialists keep subsidizing groups like them with our tax money."
"Look, I'm sure there have been inequalities. If those inequalities are presently affecting any of the Indians now alive, they have a right to a court hearing. But what happened one hundred years ago in out country can't be blamed on us today."
Asked whether the Native American Indians should be allowed to camp on their land at Alcatraz: "Well, I don't know of anybody else who wants it. The fellas who were taken off it sure don't want to go back there, including the guards. So as far as I am concerned, I think we ought to make a deal with the Indians. They should pay as much for Alcatraz as we paid them for Manhattan. I hope they haven't been careless with their wampum."
These are all from Wayne's infamous Playboy interview from May 1971. It is impossible for anybody to seriously deny that the Duke was racist.
I doubt anyone can deny John Wayne was a racist, but that does not make it bad. Whats wrong with wanting only White Protestant men in government?--Sicamous 04:23, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Racist" 

message: Wasn't John Wayne of predominatly Scots-Irish descent? Why is he listed as Irish-American?
* From Genealogy.com; what lineage they have, has decedents coming from both Ireland and Scotland.
** FATHER: Clyde Leonard Morrison 
** MOTHER: Mary Alberta Brown
The Irish-Americans probably just claimed him first because they need a hero. 
*From the Dictionary of American Family Names, Oxford University Press, :
** Morrison: Scottish: patronymic from the personal name Morris.
** Brown: English, Scottish, and Irish: generally a nickname referring to the color of the hair or complexion, Middle English br(o)un, from Old English brun or Old French brun. This word is occasionally found in Old English and Old Norse as a personal name or byname. Brun- was also a Germanic name-forming element. Some instances of Old English Brun as a personal name may therefore be short forms of compound names such as Brungar, Brunwine, etc. As a Scottish and Irish name, it sometimes represents a translation of Gaelic Donn. As an American family name, it has absorbed numerous surnames from other languages with the same meaning.
WikiDon 21:58, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Irish-American?

message: Did John Wayne ever actually say "Get off your horse and drink your milk"? If so, when? Not Josh 23:12, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Real Quote? 

message: This footnote seems appropriate:
:He was, and is, called "Duke" by his friends and when he was present; he was, and is, called "The Duke" when being referred to in third person on television shows, in magazines, or by people in casual conversation.
But is is attached to an introductory paragraph saying that he was nicknamed "Duke."  But since this is an encyclopedia, it is closer to being a "television show or magazine refering to him in the third person" than to being a "friend of John Wayne" (let alone one in his presence, as he is completely dead).  So he should be noted as "popularly called The Duke" in the article, with the footnote explaining "Duke" as a private nickname.
*In his early films, before acquiring the "John Wayne" stage name, he was billed as "Duke Morrison", not "The Duke". Wahkeenah 18:45, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Duke or The Duke?

message: The Flying Tigers movie reference should point to the article about the movie (which doesn't appear to exist).  Instead, it points to the American Volunteer Unit nicknamed "The Flying Tigers."  The movie was fictional, and the movie reference should probably not point to the real unit.  Rklawton 19:17, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Flying Tigers

message: There is an IP address that has had a history of whitewashing this article, actually 2 IP addresses, whom I have good reason to believe to be the same person. These IP addresses are 69.255.5.175 and 69.255.18.225. He seems to be mostly removing stuff from song lyrics. --68.100.150.117 03:07, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Frequent Whitewashing attempts 

message: The draft controversy section should be expanded to detail all the other controversies of Wayne's life, eg his support for blacklisting, his presidency of the Motion Picture Alliance for the Preservation of American Ideals, his 1971 Playboy interview, his remarks on blacks, native american indians, homosexuals etc. User:195.93.21.100  17:29, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversies

message: "and serials for Mascot Studios, where he played the role of d'Artagnan in The Three Musketeers, set in modern North Africa, with co-stars Ray Corrigan and Max Terhune. In this same year (1933), Wayne had a small part in Alfred E. Green's succes de scandale Baby Face."
I'm watching Nightriders on AMC right now, and it is part of his role in the Serials from the 30's.  It is by Republic, not Mascot and he is part of a group known as the "Mesquiteers" which is obviously based on the Three Musketeers but isn't the same as playing d'Artagnan.  Also, it is a traditional western in the US...not North Africa.  I've looked at the IMDB listings and see no roles at this time where he is listed as d'Artagnan.  Is this some mistake?  Vaginsh 10:18, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Serials 

message: That section was pure speculation, not a single source was quoted saying ANYTHING about there being a controvery in him not serving. Simply saying that since he didn't serve and other people his age or older with children served doesn't make it a controversy.  The section was ridiculous, it contradicted itself and was basically pointless and non-important, one or two editors disagreeing with him not serving is not controversial.  I've removed it until sources can be found to lend credence to this supposed "controvery" that was created by him not going to Vietnam. 75.2.20.119 23:58, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems as if the anonymous IP user who refuses to sign his comments just doesn't like John Wayne and will go to all lengths just to slander him.  Like I said previously (when I wasn't signed in) I have no problem including the information only if it is properly sourced.  Meaning that there have to be sources talking specifically about the controvery and all of your little subjective comments like "cowardice" and the like have to be sourced or they'll be removed.  Find the sources about him dodging the draft and it can stay in, if not i'll revert and as you keep doing it you'll be in violation of the 3RR and you'll be blocked. Batman2005 13:04, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you KillerChihuahua, additionally, I did some research myself and the first 4 pages of a google search on "John Wayne+Draft Dodger" brought up only blog websites and personal opinions, not a single source from a magazine, newspaper, news outlet, etc. that mentioned this "big controvery" that the editors here are trying to push across. Batman2005 13:30, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Please see WP:V, specifically, that WP is not about truth it is about verifiablity. This is not negotiable. You are now in violation of 3RR, and I will block if you re-add this information without proper sourcing. KillerChihuahua?!? 14:06, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm reporting that as a personal attack. Batman2005 14:11, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Continued thanks KillerChihuahua, I understand its an AOL registered IP address, but there's got to be something that can be done about his continued personal attacks and adding of nonsense to these pages.  On a side note, I find it humorous that he's talking about my Bob Hope quote while comparing everyone else to Nazi's. Batman2005 20:46, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not much. Just revert and WP:DNFT. KillerChihuahua?!? 20:48, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I suppose. Batman2005 21:11, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Draft Controversy?  Not hardly... 

message: As you can see this page has been protected.  An AOL Anon was in violation of WP:3RR for reinserting unsourced material after being asked to provide sources regarding the "Draft Controversy" section.  Here's my stance.  
* I've found no sources that point to an actual "controvery" the entire section was loaded with POV and commentary, quite a bit of it by the IP user, but the fact is that I did a google search and found no reputable sources about a draft controversy.
* WP:CITE clearly states that sources should be provided for all material which could prove divisive.  This is obviously divisive, the IP user provided no souces whatsoever, not even ones that meet the lowest wikipedia standards.  
* I have no problem including it minus the IP users commentary and subjective language and with proper sources for ALL included material.  If Gore Vidal used to laugh about John Wayne then we better have a source.  And so on...
Lets discuss this like civilised people and come to a consensus that we can all agree on. Batman2005 14:16, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: NOTE Please be sure to look at this users edit history before taking credence in anything he says, its quite obvious that he's pushing his POV as well as personally attacking those who disagree with him.  Were it not for him being from an AOL account he likely would be indefinitely blocked for these actions. Batman2005 14:36, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  PROTECTION... 

message: The list of songs should also mention "John Wayne Was a Nazi" by MDC. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.93.21.100 (talk • contribs) 
:Go away troll. Batman2005 04:30, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How is that trolling? That is a song by the band (and it's one of their most well-known). The only thing I can say is the person didn't look too closely, since it's already there. The Ungovernable Force 05:27, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see this users edit history of pushing his pov all over this article, personally attacking users, violating the 3RR, etc. Then you'll know how it is trolling. Batman2005 13:51, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

text:  ^^^^ Troll. Batman2005 23:56, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Songs about Wayne

message: Dick Cheney's article mentions how he managed to dodge the draft four times during the Vietnam War. Since Wayne was a self-elected Republican politician who was responsible for continuing America's disastrous involvement in Vietnam his refusal to serve his country in WW2 has to be mentioned in the article, along with all the other controversies such as his racism, his alcoholism, his wife beating and his active support for blacklisting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.93.21.100 (talk • contribs) 
::Again, above user is a known troll. Batman2005 23:44, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Source? Reliable source? None. It will be reverted again as orginal research. You must have a source which meets WP's criteria. KillerChihuahua?!? 11:31, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Draft controversy

message: I remember seeing a film about Vietnam some years back (in the 8th grade in fact, it was around maybe 95 or 94), where a few veterans were talking about their experience in the war.  One particular vet said that Wayne came to visit them after a particular offensive, he was dressed up in full cowboy gear, fake guns and all, and that when they (the soldiers) saw him they laughed at him and booed him all the way back to his helicopter.  The reason for this being that in their eyes he was a phony.  Just wondering if anyone else saw that, or if there's any validity to that story.  Also, I'm not trying to insinuate anything here, and I'm REALLY not trying to start another debate about draft-dodging or anything like that, just wanted to see if anyone else ever saw the film in question.  Levid37 00:07, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've not seen the film in question, I have seen videos of USO shows and visits that he did with troops and in those he wasn't greeted with anything other than applause.  The IP editor will likely weigh in with some patent nonsense about him being a facist nazi, or a communist, or satin himself.  But to answer your question, i've never seen the film in question. Batman2005 01:56, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Wayne was once booed off the stage while visiting the troops during World War II because they were disgusted at how the chickenhawk Nazi had aggressively avoided service while sending young boys to their deaths. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.93.21.100 (talk • contribs) 
You know, that comment is so over the top that it almost has to be sarcasm.  If not, it's usually preferred that you get your facts from somewhere other than a Public Enemy song buddy. Levid37 01:50, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Levid i'm afraid you're wasting your breath arguing with the John Wayne article troll.  He is a troll known for pushing his pov at the expense of any reputable source.  The only reason this vandal has not been indefinitely blocked for his inflammatory edits and vile personal attacks is because he is an AOL editor and thus gets a free pass.  I would suggest not wasting your time with this "person" and just revert his edits on site as they're likely vandalsim only. Batman2005 19:07, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yet another Vietnam question 

message: This item has now been given a licensing tag. It is probably the most appropriate to use--not these senseless screen shots.
I have applied the Biography Actors Info Box. I will leave it to others to decide what roles to list on it.  Check out Helen Hunt (of all people) to see good examples of how to use the box.
trezjr 02:12, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: US postal service john wayne.jpg

message: *1) The format is terrible.
*2) It is not standard form to input random quotations into articles.
*3) There is a wikiquote page with quotations attributed to John Wayne where this quote would be better served.
*4) Having only one quote from John Wayne is pointless, if you want to input quotes, then add more than one under their own sub-section.
Removing again. Batman2005 15:07, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What in the hell are you talking about? Batman2005 16:52, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  trezjr, stop adding the quotation into this article.  Your were bold and made a change, it was then reverted (as per WP:BRD) you then, against policy, reverted the change and demanded a talk page discussion be started.  I started one, you then AGAIN reverted to include the quotation without providing any compelling reason for inclusion in the article.  I have provided FOUR compelling reasons not to include one random quote in the article, and have offered a compromise (by saying that it would be more appropriate to add a separate subsections titled "Quotes" and then list your quote along with other from Wayne, or about Wayne).  You completely disregarded this option and against traditional style added your quote in the middle of a section.  The burden is on you to provide a convincing argument for the quotation, if you cannot it will be summarily reverted. Batman2005 02:49, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

text:  I've done a quick look at quite a few biography pages, and I've seen ZERO with this quote box format.  Additionally, as per my suggestion, there are a number of bio pages which list a series of quotations in their own subsection of the article.  Listing one random quote is quite subjective of a thing.  What is the criteria for selecting such a quote? why that one and not another? What if someone wants their favorite John Wayne, or Ronald Reagan, or Bill Clinton, Nelson Mandela, Ghandi, etc. quote in there.  Thus why listing them in their own subsection is a better alternative, and one more widely used by both Wikipedia and Wikiquote. Batman2005 01:12, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quotation... 

message: That last entry was for the benefit of an administrator. Take it for what it's worth.
My main beef was that twice you made the delete without contact. Posting on the discussion page...as you make the change...is not really discussion. Allow some time for a response.
In any event, the quote boxes you don't seem to like are being used by the WikiProject Biography, as I mentioned.  It's not my invention.
I see no problem with a single quote, say if it is relevant to text in that general part of the article.
Just for the sake of argument, would you consider running it at the end of a chapter for a period of time and see what the consensus might be (your suggestion).
trezjr 22:41, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've done a quick look at quite a few biography pages, and I've seen ZERO with this quote box format.  Additionally, as per my suggestion, there are a number of bio pages which list a series of quotations in their own subsection of the article.  Listing one random quote is quite subjective of a thing.  What is the criteria for selecting such a quote? why that one and not another? What if someone wants their favorite John Wayne, or Ronald Reagan, or Bill Clinton, Nelson Mandela, Ghandi, etc. quote in there.  Thus why listing them in their own subsection is a better alternative, and one more widely used by both Wikipedia and Wikiquote. Batman2005 01:12, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Hey, dude...

message: The article mentions that "McLintock!" is the only John Wayne movie with no character deaths.
There are several deaths during the battle between the settlers and Indians. Maybe they don't count since they're not 'named' in the script.  John1957
Turner Cassic Movies just showed the film last night. While the indians do shoot up the town, no one is killed. Fred8615 16:03, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think BOTH of these arguments bring into play one of the most cardinal rules of wikipedia, no original research.  If it is quoted somewhere saying that McLintock is the only John Wayne movie with no character deaths, then by all means include the material and provide the source.  However, editors here can't "form their own trivia." If there is no source out there by some reputable media outlet talking about this trivia piece, it should be removed.  I will add a "citation needed" template and give about a week for someone to provide one, then I'll remove it as Original Research/Unsourced. Batman2005 01:56, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That is STILL original research.  Trivia sections are highly unencyclopedic in most forms, including this one.  If no source from a reputable work (media, television, newspaper, biography, etc) can be found, then it must be deleted.  Yes, that is the "prime directive" of wikipedia.  Verifiability.  Solving the growing problem isn't my concern. Ending the discussion on whether or not people are killed in this movie is.  The simple, correct, and most wiki-policy satisfying solution is to look for an outside source that specifically discusses this trivial bit and citing it in the article. If no source is found, then it must be removed as unverifiable.  Simply saying that you have watched the movie and don't see anyone killed is subjective, perhaps another person sees somebody killed, or perhaps another person sees it totally differently, arguments ensue and we're still devoid of any reputable source.  Thus why potentially divisive material, such as this, should be sourced. Batman2005 01:12, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Nothing, that's the point.  If someone finds a certain piece of trivia that could be dubious and requests a citation, then it should be provided.  Obviously the person should do some searching themselves first, but as we know, that's not always the case.  If any users adds a tag for a citation, then it needs to be cited.  I recently tagged quite a few things on the Alessandro Del Piero article that I was unsure on, and they were all cited properly or removed.  Remember, verifiability is the key, and using reputable sources is key, if those two can't be done, then the information isn't credible. Batman2005 02:05, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think so, now its just a matter of seeing if other people agree. Which, from my experience on here, if its a reasonable solution...they'll do the complete opposite. Batman2005 02:58, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Movies with no deaths 

message: Your reasoning is all fine and good, but by that definition, every item in the Trivia section, not to mention almost every line in the article, should have its own citation. What if your source is another wikipedia article?
Is that really the prime directive of the wikipedia rules, as established?
This is a situation that, by this item alone, is small potatoes.
In actuality, by this standard, I bet you could eliminate 80 % of what is on Wiki. I just completed 2 weeks work on a bio of a living person from scratch. It got an A-class grade--there's only about 3 dozen of those out there--but I hade to citation almost every single paragraph.
How do you solve this growing problem?
Which, by the way, I've watched every single frame of that movie; no one is killed.
trezjr 23:02, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That is STILL original research.  Trivia sections are highly unencyclopedic in most forms, including this one.  If no source from a reputable work (media, television, newspaper, biography, etc) can be found, then it must be deleted.  Yes, that is the "prime directive" of wikipedia.  Verifiability.  Solving the growing problem isn't my concern. Ending the discussion on whether or not people are killed in this movie is.  The simple, correct, and most wiki-policy satisfying solution is to look for an outside source that specifically discusses this trivial bit and citing it in the article. If no source is found, then it must be removed as unverifiable.  Simply saying that you have watched the movie and don't see anyone killed is subjective, perhaps another person sees somebody killed, or perhaps another person sees it totally differently, arguments ensue and we're still devoid of any reputable source.  Thus why potentially divisive material, such as this, should be sourced. Batman2005 01:12, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: ...all fine and good...

message: Based on this initial research, I'll withdraw the point...
All Experts
trezjr 12:20, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Withdrawn

message: You miss the forest for the tree.
I could care less about the item.
What I am saying is what's to prevent someone from going in and tagging every item in Trivia and 80% of the article.
trezjr 01:47, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nothing, that's the point.  If someone finds a certain piece of trivia that could be dubious and requests a citation, then it should be provided.  Obviously the person should do some searching themselves first, but as we know, that's not always the case.  If any users adds a tag for a citation, then it needs to be cited.  I recently tagged quite a few things on the Alessandro Del Piero article that I was unsure on, and they were all cited properly or removed.  Remember, verifiability is the key, and using reputable sources is key, if those two can't be done, then the information isn't credible. Batman2005 02:05, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think so, now its just a matter of seeing if other people agree. Which, from my experience on here, if its a reasonable solution...they'll do the complete opposite. Batman2005 02:58, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: F&G Part II

message: The troll made a post that wasn't vandalism.  I thought I felt the earth move. Batman2005 21:49, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  HOLY GOD... 

message: The section on iconic status is meant to further describe what is given only one sentence in the opening summary but is not further covered in the article. Wayne was (and still is) a major icon for patriotism and war heroism. More (or better) ways to describe (or demonstrate) that status could be given, but what is there does and should deal with any disparities between the idealized hollywood image and the actual facts. A key identification for being an "icon" is that there is an image that spans acting roles, such that the person is no longer an actor looking for good roles, but more of a "role" looking for good acting jobs to further promote that role. As I last left the iconic status section, my wording was not intended to degrade Wayne as a person, and was certainly avoiding getting into the controversial aspects (e.g. draft dodging, etc.). Rather I think it is reasonable to note in this article where the icon or fictionalized character of John Wayne stops and the real John Wayne begans. Hopefully, there should be no controversy that the iconic version of John Wayne (versus the real John Wayne the person) gives only a 2 dimensional view of heroism, military service and american ideals and that this heroic image was used for better or worse by Wayne and others as means to promote those same ideals through several decads (and wars). Whidbey 08:37, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Iconic Status 

message: Just wondering why there are footnotes and notes?  Shouldn't they be merged together?  Thanks.  Roaming27 08:11, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Footnotes or notes

message: See Wikipedia:Trivia (a proposed but not accepted policy) for a discussion of trivia in articles. See WP:FAC for more discussion regading trivia sections. In short, if it is imporant enough to mention, it belongs in the article. Triva sections give the overall air of a fanzine or gossip rag. Finally, revisit WP:V, a completely non-negotiable policy regarding sourcing. KillerChihuahua?!? 23:10, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I plan to remove unsourced content per WP:V, with the added impetus that it is completely irrelevant to an encyclopedic article about the subject. Please also see Wikipedia:Avoid trivia sections in articles, which is an accepted guideline on Wikipedia. KillerChihuahua?!? 19:29, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A large amount of information you removed demonstrates Wayne's role in American culture. You could argue that removing, for example, "Gary Burghoff sometimes mimicked John Wayne's voice and mannerisms in episodes of M*A*S*H, as his character Radar O'Reilly." is appropriate, but quite a few of those factoids are important examples of how America views Wayne. The fact that a punk rock band recorded a song called "John Wayne is a Nazi" or that Charlie Daniels sang about how he'd rather have Wayne as his president are important indicators of American culture. I'm also confused as to why you think a section on his political beliefs is unimportant, but that's a different issue. Stilgar135 23:17, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think a lot of it is relevant, and encyclopedic, and should come back.  It's acceptable to make mention of the numerous songs that talk about John Wayne, calling it "trivial" is one editor's judgement call.  This was overkill, like using a bazooka to take out a fly. Or maybe we ought to have a dedicated article page for popular references to Wayne in film and song, see this article for ideas. Blockinblox 18:06, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Triva

message: Substituted at 20:37, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment