Talk:John Wayne/Archive 2

message: 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)
thread_title:  Winterset Iowa 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Vietnam a Right Wing government cause?

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

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

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Height 

message: 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" .
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  (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  (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"  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)
thread_title:  '''"Missed Roles" addendum (to 'John Wayne' Wikipedia Article, "Missed Roles" section)''' 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Real Name(s) 

message: 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)
thread_title:  ZAC McKenney 

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

message: 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)
thread_title: Racism

message: 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)
thread_title: Military service controversy

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  Yeah, no problem. I'll do them later tonight! - Alison ☺ 00:31, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Talk page cleanup

message: 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)
thread_title: Friendship with Mitchum

message: (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)
thread_title:  The Sweetheart of Sigma Chi 

message: 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)
thread_title: Does Wayne die at the end of The Horse Soldiers?

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

message: 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)
thread_title: Wayne's Injury

message: 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)
thread_title: One person, 50 edits to this article in 90 minutes

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)

text:  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)
replies: text:  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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Not vandalism 

message: 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)
replies: text: Check the links.  There are three articles containing a filmography (in sections). Monkeyzpop 19:23, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Filmography please?

message: 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)
thread_title: Too long?

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Burt Lancaster