Talk:John Wayne/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

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)

Friendship with Mitchum

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

vandalism and uncited accusations on page

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

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

Thanks for the good work on keeping up with it Monkeyzpop and others. I delt with him for weeks in the past. [[6]] [[7]]

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

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

What happened to the ban on this guy JJuliech? I thought this new HarveyCarter sockpuppet had been banned again.

If you want it done faster you how to seek out an admin with blocking capabilities, otherwise, you have to wait for one to get a round to it. IP4240207xx 01:27, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I had done that (the legwork AND seeking out an admin -- more than one, actually) and thought action had been taken, but then I saw the same Username back again and was curious why it didn't work this particular time. Monkeyzpop 02:47, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

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

The Sweetheart of Sigma Chi

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

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

Does Wayne die at the end of The Horse Soldiers?

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

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

Icon?

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

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

John Wayne : White Supremacist?

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

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

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

This quote is carried in the section regarding politics. What else do you want to say? Anything added needs to be verifiable and supported by references. This article does not gloss over this statement in any way, shape or form. To what other attitudes are you referring? The fact that he said this doesn't mean that he was an activist for the suppression of other races. In fact, from the quote given, he was actually supportive of increased educational opportunities. The viewpoint may have been old-fashioned and outdated, but it doesn't make him a white supremacist. Wildhartlivie 01:06, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

1) Maybe part of the problem is formatting. 1) Can we get the ENTIRE question (s) and the ENTIRE response (s) in one sub-section, without any edited words, from the actual interview. Then just leave it at that? 2) Another part of the problem is context: a) how many white farm boys from Iowa born in 1907 wouldn't have said something similar? b) If he would have just said: "We can’t all of a sudden get down on our knees and turn everything over to the leadership of any race. I believe in the current leadership until all prospective leaders are educated to the point of responsibility. I don’t believe giving authority and positions of leadership to irresponsible people." ...he would have been much better off. c) But, if he did say "blacks" and "white supremacy" it is sad and regrettable. (I don't have a copy of the interview.) 3) What else was going on the 1971? Nixon (there's an educated leader for you) was paranoid about the Black Panther Party and what was happening in Oakland. Unfortunately, they were getting a lot of media coverage at the time. The U.S. was fresh out of the 60s and Watts, the Baltimore riot of 1968, the Louisville riots of 1968, 1968 Washington, D.C. riots, 1968 Democratic National Convention, MLK, Bobby Kennedy, etc., the 1971 May Day Protests. There was a lot of concern and down right paranoia amongst the leaders in this country, and even more so amongst the right-wing bankers, corporate executives, and the like. Look no farther than the treatment of the guy in the first Dirty Harry movie, and the most of the plot of the second sequel The Enforcer (was it an accident that this movie was based in the Bay Area?). It was sad, but the solid majority of the press coverage that Blacks were getting in 1971 was negative. 4) So, if we put in the full quotes, questions and answers, then frame them around what was happening at the time, maybe it would raise the quality of the section? 5) And, only put in credible responses at that time We can't Monday morning quarterback in 2007. May of 1971 is not 2007. 6) This may have to be a separate article? 7) I have to take in to context this mans entire life, where and when he was born, to whom, where he came from, how he got there, things that happened along the way (the Great Depression, WWII, the Korean War, the nuclear age), his wives, family, friends, people he worked with, people he associated with, etc. So, unless I can walk in his shoes, I can't, then I can't be too judgmental. I may not like everything this man said or did. I may disagree with him on some of those things. But, I also see why he said what he did. 8) And, finally people, this man was not God, he was an entertainer. He made movies to entertain us. If you put more emphasis on an entertainer, that is your fault. People who follow around celebrities have no sympathy with me. If you let John Wayne, Marylin Monroe, Elvis Presley, Frank Sinatra, Barbara Streisand, Jane Fonda, Michael Jackson, Paris Hilton, etc., etc., et al, ad nauseam, be your guide, well, I pity you and worry about your leadership skills and you ability to pick a leader. WikiDon 02:09, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

PS: From Iowa to California, from May 26, 1907 – June 11, 1979, this interview was one drop of sand on the beach of a man's life. WikiDon 02:14, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Here's the thing: the quotations are pretty much presented in the context of the original interview, AND the original interview is fully cited. If we have to include the entirety of everything quoted and cited simply in order to obtain some fanciful "total context," Wikipedia will quickly become the container of all written words in the universe and thus slightly unmanageable. There's nothing distorted about the quote as it currently sits in the article. I believe so because I edited it from a highly distorted version placed by someone more interested in POV than in accuracy. I agree to an extent with your notion that the time of the statement needs to be considered, and furthermore, although I cannot say for certain, I'm not sure that the term "white supremacy," as loaded as it is, had quite the labelistic quality then that it has now. I don't really believe Wayne was saying the same thing that today's Aryan Nation types are saying. It reads much more benighted and paternalistic than KKK. I think Wayne would have wanted to run the KKK and the Aryan Nation out of Dodge. But then I met him and I've read about everything ever written about him, so I've got an awful lot of experience and material to weigh. I despise his general political stance, admire him as an actor and as a gentleman, and sometimes shake my head at things he said and did with a few drinks in him. Or even without. Monkeyzpop 02:26, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I tend to agree that the statement is what it is, in the context of 1971. I also find Monkeyzpop's comment about Wayne being paternalistic valid, given the content about his guilt over the treatment of the Native American. He certainly didn't marry WASP women, which tells me he wasn't a white supremacist as we define it today. Without the Playboy in which this statement was printed to consult, it's not that easy to know the context in which it was even said (though I imagine my ex-husband still has that particular issue, considering the collection in his basement). He may well have been asked about the Black Panther party and other movements of the time. It occurred in the era of Kent State and anti-Vietnam sentiment and I suspect must be taken in light of that time. Personally, I think it's fine just as it is, and Wayne would have needed to be a lot more anti-something to classify him as a white supremacist by today's definition. Wildhartlivie 03:34, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

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

Wikipedia is not here to argue about "societal norms". John Wayne advocated that white should remain in charge of the U.S. and that blacks, as a race, were too "irresponsible" to do so. Thomas F. Dixon, Jr. was born in 1864, but rarely is he given an excuse for his overt racism simply because he lived during "the times". In addition, he felt no guilt or sense of responsibility to the Native Americans. Now, for somebody who does not think in terms of race, then this is perfectly acceptable, but as his previous statement indicates, he did very much look at the world in these terms, and thus this is applicable to his personality. The fact that he allowed the then-current coverage of black riots to influence his opinion over African-Americans as a whole does not make he bigotry as less tolerable. Note that a white supremacist and a separatist are two different things, and that white can mean not only Anglo Saxons, but Scandinavians, Norse, or Mediterranean peoples. Also remember, not all whites supremacists are a member of a protestant denomination, or even christian for that matter. The words WASP & Aryan are not interchangeable, and neither are the words "old-fashioned" and racist.

PS: From Iowa to California, from May 26, 1907 – June 11, 1979, this interview was the lit cigarett in the tinder wood forest that was his life.

69.250.130.215 22:17, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

In the interest of accuracy, Wayne said he had no sense of PERSONAL guilt over the treatment of the Indians in earlier times. He went on to say that the resentment felt by minority races in the U.S. was "probably rightful." Just for the record. Monkeyzpop 00:59, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

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

Wayne's Injury

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

One person, 50 edits to this article in 90 minutes

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

Not vandalism

Respectfully, my edit is not vandalism.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It's very plainly not neutral. "though a leading tough guy on screen and qualified to perform military service" either implies that he should have joined the army (an opinion) or is entirely irrelevant. Either way, it doesn't belong. Someguy1221 00:26, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Worse than the source's having essentially nothing to do with John Wayne, the sentence itself is given in the source as a quote, so it clearly has no place masquerading as a verified fact. Someguy1221 00:36, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

It is disingenuous to argue the lead is not verified fact when each element of the lead is supported within the body of the section. If the lead is not reliable, then the section is not reliable. Respectfully, you are seeking an excuse to block a legitimate edit.67.83.176.54 13:44, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Someguy1221's points here. Aside from the reliability of the material, it isn't neutral to juxtapose his film image with his personal life. Words like "however", "ironically", and "despite" should be avoided in most cases because they are usually used to prove some point. See WP:SYNTH and WP:AVOID#However, although, whereas, despite. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:45, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

The lead does not use "Words like 'however', 'ironically', and 'despite'" so what is generally very good advice does not apply here. The juxtaposition of film and personal life goes the very core of the controversy. A more nuetral entry would explore those concepts. Indeed, the whole section could be reduced to half its size and still protect the apologist argument while also including that of the critics. (apologist, BTW, is not a negative word.) 65.119.192.122 00:58, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

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

All, please take some time to examine my logic behind my edit and then provide a meaningful response based on its content. If the proffered lead does not belong, then the section does not belong.65.119.192.122 01:08, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

How do you know that I'm a "Wayne enthusiast"? Just because I agree with all the others that your lead is NOT neutral? That doesn't prove that I'm an enthusiast at all. That doesn't prove anything! Like all the others I just think that your lead sentence isn't appropriate. To tell the truth, I think YOUR edit history shows that you HATE John Wayne. Is it true? I don't know! I think it's not important whether one hates or likes him. Every piece of information should be as neutral and objective as possible. You argue that the current lead is not "neutral, factually correct and direct". As I already said, the current lead briefly explains America's (and Hollywoods) role during WWII. What would be more neutral and factually correct? It simply presents historic facts. I think YOU are the one who misunderstood. A lead sentence or some kind of introduction is OK as long as it does not show the editors opinion. For example, if you had just written "John Wayne managed, with the help of his studio, to avoid the draft during WWII" it would have been very neutral and objective (WITHOUT the "...though a leading tough guy on screen..."-part). I suggest you think it over! 213.101.225.193 12:39, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I just followed your edits - you are a Wayne apologist. I am, by professional training, a journalist. I know a little something about writing leads. Your comments indicate you want to hide the controversy. A neutral juxtaposition of facts that encapsulates the issue is required. Even the most mendacious of editors should recognize the weak writing, un-sourced facts and misdirection contained in the current "lead." 67.83.176.54 14:43, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

If you really are a journalist then your research on my edit history is quite poor! The only edit I've done was deleting your sentence. That doesn't mean that I'm a Wayne apologist. I just want the section to be neutral. You should hear yourself talking: "Your comments indicate you want to hide the controversy." Sounds as if this was a conspiracy theory or something like that. In fact it seems you want to run him down. Don't get me wrong, it's OK if you don't like him, but this should not be reflected in your edit. Furthermore, I have my reasons why I believe that I know a lot more about journalism than you do. First of all a journalist should know that a lead is a neutral sentence which serves as an introduction to the main text. Sometimes it even summerizes the content. It does not reflect the author's opinion. In some way your "lead" is an introduction ("he managed to avoid the draft." - that's a fact and that's what the section is about) but mainly it's an opinion and therefore inappropriate! (See my suggestion for a formulation above.) Moreover, a real journalist never loses sight of the main issue: this discussion is not about you or me, it's about the article. And the article is not a newspaper report or a news broadcast about an event which happend two days ago. It's an article in an online encyclopedia. The "neutral juxtaposition" is already pointed out in the main text itself.213.101.225.193 19:37, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

The proffered lead is neutral. I do not hate John Wayne (I, in fact, am a huge fan) and avoiding the draft while talking tough is the heart of the controversy. Your John Wayne edits are not just on this page and multiple IPs do not hide your work. It's okay to be an apologist, just don't let it affect your role as an editor. Now, if you are done writing about me, let's return to the issue: this section of the article is horribly written. It is largely unsourced. Where it is sourced it is primarily to a single book written by Wayne apologists, and it actually takes a side in the controversy. A simple read of this section leaves a clear presentation of the apologist side, often presented as fact rather than opinion, but not the side of the critics. It is purely not NPOV. It is not written in encyclopedic style. It is a failed section that is only being defended because it supports the apologist opinion. What no one has yet to articulate is how the proffered lead is not neutral. Every aspect of the proffered lead is a verified fact. It expresses no opinion. It does not take a side in the controversy. Please present a cogent argument against the lead. If you fail, the lead will be returned to the article.67.83.176.54 13:54, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

How do you come to the conclusion that the Olson-Roberts book is a book written by apologists? After all, this is the first major work EVER to put the lie to the notion that Wayne wanted badly to join the military but couldn't. It's the first book to document in great detail the efforts he and Republic made to keep him OUT of the military. I've read just about everything ever written about Wayne, and the Olson-Roberts book strikes me as the closest thing we will ever have to an intelligently objective view of the man in book form. As to your opinion of the quality of the writing of the material in this section as presently represented, and of the material as biased in Wayne's favor, let me say this: I am responsible for much of the tone of that section now, as well as a great deal of its style. While I did not write it from scratch, I did re-create it after numerous attempts to skew it inordinately into a subjective assassination of Wayne's character. The edit wars were, for a while, quite tedious and long lasting. What I attempted to do with the material was to lay out the facts as best I could (including but not limited to the exquisitely detailed analysis of Wayne's draft records from Olson & Roberts, which has never been questioned, to my knowledge), and while shooting down in its entirety the myth that Wayne could not join the military even though he wanted to, at the same time to allow for some benefit of the doubt as to his motives by quoting those (such as his widow) closest to him as to what his mindset might have been. That seemed far better than promoting him either as a shackled would-be hero or as a coward, neither of which fits the verifiable information we have. Although a great admirer of Wayne the actor and, to some extent, of Wayne the human being (I despise his politics, for the most part), I made enormous efforts to be objective and at the same time fair in this section, which has too often been the target of Wayne-bashers. Bash him all you want, but use facts to do so, is my plea to those people. As to the "terrible" writing, all I can say is (a.) my work on this section is in the form of re-emphasis and re-phrasing rather than a page-one rewrite, as I didn't think the original problems with the section justified my scrapping every word that had been written previously, and (b.) with a forty year career in journalism, published book and article writing, and the teaching of journalism and English composition, I regret to think that all I've come up with here is a "horribly written" section. I've been extremely fortunate never once to have had a bad review of my writing until now. And I've had lots of reviews. I've reread the material looking for the faults you suggest, and while there are aspects of inelegance caused primarily by my attempt to use as much of the previously written section as possible, I do not find the horrible examples you mention. While it is not the paragraph I would have written as a fresh piece of original writing, and while I don't agree with everything in it, I just don't see it as the horror you obviously do. And finally, although I too felt initially that the use of the verb "managed" to describe Wayne's avoidance of the draft had some tinge of bias, I came to the conclusion that while it did him no favors, it was not an unfair terminology. Thus once the proffered lead reached the wording it most recently contained, I offered no objection to it. It certainly sounded from the start as if this were an attempt to denigrate Wayne rather than objectively to describe circumstances, but as the debate continued, I realized I no longer believed that to be the case. At any rate, while I stand by my version of the section, including its lead, I've no quarrel with the lead you offer. Monkeyzpop 14:36, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Filmography please?

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

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

Too long?

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

Burt Lancaster

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

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

Pilgrim

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