Talk:John Wayne/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Why is this article protected?

Do people really feel the need to vandalize John Wayne? Shame on them for defacing such a revered American hero!Here, Have Some Of My Germs (talk) 20:53, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Take a glance at the recent history -- User:HarveyCarter's IP socks are actively vandalizing many mid-20th century actors' pages again. Ashdog137 (talk) 21:06, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

So the article is protected, and patent nonsense in the article (such as an alleged career-changing injury at a place--the Wedge--that didn't exist at the time of the alleged injury) is allowed to remain unchallenged. This is not a good policy. How many other fabrications are allowed to remain in this article because it is protected? For example, given Waye's successful efforts to dodge military service during WWII, is the claim that he attempted unsuccessfully to enter a service academy documented (as with a photocopy of his application), or merely based on verbal assertions?Drwin808 (talk) 01:57, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

If you have specific edits that should be made, they can be requested on this talk page by using the {{edit protected}} template. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 02:08, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Cause of death

In one section, this article states the cause of death was stomach cancer; later, it states he had lung cancer from a heavy smoking habit. Was the lung cancer primary and then metastasize to the stomach? A clarifying edit would be helpful to resolve this apparent contradiction for the reader. JGHowes ^talk - 02:43, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

You're right that a clarifying edit is needed. I've just provided one. Wayne had lung cancer in 1964 but was declared cancer free five years later. Fifteen years later, he developed stomach cancer, from which he died. Although the two cancers are covered in separate sections, there is reference to the earlier lung cancer in the Death section, as relates to the rumors of radioactivity from the Conqueror set causing one or both cancers. I've adjusted the wording so it no longer possibly misleads as to which of the cancers caused Wayne's death. Monkeyzpop (talk) 03:55, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Good, that clears it up nicely. Happy editing! JGHowes ^talk - 04:06, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Possible fallout exposure

Although the 41% incidence of cancer in the cast and crew is very close to that of the general population,[61]

The statistic quoted is for *lifetime* risk. As the cast and crew were, in general, adults at the time of filming, a lifetime risk statistic is *irrelevant* to their *subsequent* cancer incidence.

At the risk of beating a dead horse, let me be absolutely clear. Lifetime risk includes the risk of being diagnosed with cancer during infancy, childhood, etc. As those periods of the lives of the cast and crew had passed by the time filming occured, their risk of cancer had correspondingly diminished.

You cannot use lifetime cancer risk as a comparison for cancer incidence after a common exposure for adults. The appropriate comparison would be to the actuarial tables for cancer risk based on the median age of the cast and crew.

Using lifetime risk is not an acceptable approximation, especially in this case in which the two figures are coincidentally so similar, as it is horrifically misleading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hilaryholz (talk • contribs) 19:25, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Hilaryholz (talk) 19:28, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

That's a very interesting distinction, one well worth bringing up. The problem insofar as WP goes is that what's there now in no way violates WP guidelines, even if it's misleading. It's cited, the numbers on each side of the comparison are accurate, even if it's an insupportable comparison. So how do we fix it? I suggest that we eliminate the lifetime cancer risk statistic (and its citation) and simply leave it at 41% of the cast and crew got cancer, with many people suggesting the radiation as the cause (with the citations for that intact). How does that sound? Monkeyzpop (talk) 09:49, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Image

Why is there an image of someone called wayne newton playing the guitar? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.205.84.30 (talk) 14:58, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Lung cancer

"...and jumps his new horse over a fence. Despite popular belief, Wayne did not jump over the fence himself. In fact, according to biographer Garry Wills in his book on Wayne, Wayne was not healthy enough to do such stunts. It should be remembered that Wayne had an entire lung removed four years prior to making the film and actually had trouble walking more than 30 feet without breathing heavily." Taken from True Grit. Shouldn't that be mentioned along with the info on lung cancer? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.146.76.80 (talk) 23:16, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Glen Campbell has indicated that John Wayne did do this stunt, where is the evidence to suggest otherwise? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.95.170.99 (talk) 14:02, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Another tidbit of "American Icon" trivia

Twenty-odd years ago, as a Light Attack Naval Aviator flying the LTV A-7 Corsair II out of NAS Lemoore, CA, we regularly practiced gunnery with our Vulcan cannon by strafing ground targets on ranges. The idea in strafing (contrary to what you usually see in Hollywood movies) is to adjust the flight path of the airplane while firing at the target so as to keep the stream of projectiles concentrated in a tight group on the target itself. On the range, if one allowed their aim to stray such that the stream of projectiles "walked" or "sprayed" across the target (like you usually DO see, with a string of rounds throwing up dirt trailing in a line across the area of the target), it was critiqued as a "John Wayne"--it looks COOL, but that's not what we're after; it's just the way they do it in the movies!192.100.70.210 (talk) 16:12, 1 February 2008 (UTC)CBsHellcat

WP:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers priority assessment

Per debate and discussion re: assessment of the approximate 100 top priority articles of the project, this article has been included as a top priority article. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:44, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Dirty Harry

The article should not repeat the urban myth that Wayne turned down "Dirty Harry", because in reality he was never offered the film since he was plainly too old by then to play a tough cop. Frank Sinatra and Paul Newman were the only actors offered the film before Eastwood. (92.10.208.65 (talk) 08:30, 6 March 2008 (UTC))

• He was offered the role and he sure as hell was not to old to play a tough cop. See McQ and Brannigan (film) both made after Dirty Harry. He turned it down because he felt it, like High Noon and free speech, was anti-American. Wayne was a great actor, but totally ignorant regarding politics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BillyJack193 (talk • contribs) 14:30, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Wayne was actually quite well informed on political matters and had a fairly sophisticated awareness. His politics were bluntly conservative (most of the time), but not ignorant. But this is not a forum for such things, it is a place to discuss the article, not the subject. Monkeyzpop (talk) 15:38, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Which is what I was doing by correcting the previous user who stated that the fact that John Wayne turned down Dirty Harry was false. BillyJack193 (talk) 17:40, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Which contribution, of course, critically needed that drive-by comment about John Wayne and free speech. Take it to a political blog, please. Mark Shaw (talk) 18:24, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually he was never offered the part. By the way, both McQ and Brannigan were crap. (92.13.223.156 (talk) 12:27, 5 June 2009 (UTC))

It should be noted that Robert Mitchum was also offered the part of Dirty Harry and turned it down. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.230.247.85 (talk) 05:09, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

That seems like trivia that, if anywhere, would belong in the Dirty Harry article. Mitchum turning a role down doesn't belong in Wayne's article. --Onorem♠Dil 05:28, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Physical stats

John Wayne's physical stats are stated as: 6-foot-4-inch, 225- pound frame (1.88 m, 142 kg). (His height has been disputed.)

I don't know where this data is coming from, but the conversion to the metric data is definitely wrong.

According to the metric data, John Wayne had a size of 6 foot 2 inch and a weight of 313 lbs. This would be pretty fat, and I don't remember him that heavy.

It rather seems to me that the metric data have to be corrected to 1.93 m, 102 kg.

Since I can't tell for sure which numbers are wrong, maybe someone else has more information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.250.98.194 (talk) 22:47, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

27 Mar 2008 revert

I deleted James Stewart (misspelled Stuart) from the list of actors who rushed into military service after Pearl Harbor because Stewart was already in the military by then. And I reverted the edit from Roman Catholicism to Roman Catholicism Catholic because that is both a bad way of handling the linkage and bad English. Monkeyzpop (talk) 14:51, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Stewart removed from list of actors who joined military after America entered WWII

As noted in the section above, James Stewart joined the Army Air Corps BEFORE America entered World War II, and thus he does not belong on a list of actors who joined AFTER. Monkeyzpop (talk) 11:04, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Yikes, who wrote this entry, Clint Eastwood fans? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drstrangelove57 (talk • contribs) 07:16, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Read Gary Wills' book for the true account of Wayne's draft dodging.

The phrase "Thus, John Wayne did not "dodge" the draft, but he never took direct positive action toward enlistment" is subjective, is unsourced and should be removed. The writer of the section, while still attempting to push his own persepective, is much improved of late, but still needs to realize that a well written article allows the reader to form his own analysis of the objective facts. Further, there is a logical falicy in the conclusory statement: at no point is the common term "dodge the draft" defined, and as it lacks a proper definition, can not be included by reference.

The phrase "by all accounts" is evidence of a weak and biased writter. You can not claim something is "by all accounts" unless the writer can demonstrate the examination of "all accounts." Given the controvery that surrounds this issue, I am confident at least "some accounts" would disagree. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.83.208.224 (talk) 01:42, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Pictures of John Wayne

Personal pictures of John Wayne on location taken by Barton B. Mac Leod. Website: BartonMacLeod.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.109.79.49 (talk) 12:56, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Edits from Banned User HC and IPs

Wikipedia's banning policy states that "Any edits made in defiance of a ban may be reverted to enforce the ban, regardless of the merits of the edits themselves. As the banned user is not authorized to make those edits, there is no need to discuss them prior to reversion."

1) HarveyCarter (talk · contribs) and all of his sockpuppets are EXPRESSLY banned for life.

2) Be on the look out for any edits from these IP addresses:

AOL NetRange: 92.8.0.0 - 92.225.255.255

AOL NetRange: 172.128.0.0 - 172.209.255.255

AOL NetRange: 195.93.0.0 - 195.93.255.255

The Dirty Dozen and Patton

The Patton addition was added here by 71.212.254.128 (talk · contribs) on 22:47, 17 October 2007

The Dirty Dozen addition was added here by 58.167.241.67 (talk · contribs) on 19:21, 20 February 2007

Who says that Wayne was offered these roles? Prove it or lose it. ~ WikiDon (talk) 03:44, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, this is mentioned in the Special Features section of the Dirty Dozen DVD.99.103.230.244 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:48, 17 May 2010 (UTC).

John Wayne and Tommy Morrison

It is completely untrue that Tommy Morrison was the great nephew of John Wayne - it was invented by Morrison's promoters in order to drum up interest in the latest "great white hope" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.231.35.100 (talk) 05:06, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Blazing Saddles

The article states: "Wayne was approached by Mel Brooks to play the part of The Waco Kid in the film Blazing Saddles. After reading the script he said, 'I can't be in this picture, it's too dirty...but I'll be the first in line to see it.'" But I've heard he was offered the role of Taggart. Which is it? TuckerResearch (talk) 05:42, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Film career

The section about his film career needs some reworking. Since there appears to have been problems with vandalism on the article in the past, I thought I'd better mention it here, instead of just deleting problematic stuff.

The second paragraph about his training from stuntmen links to a somewhat unsuitable source (Think Quest: Library), since the source is not a primary source. That source should be removed, and a better source for the claims should be found.

The other paragraphs often lacks sources, and I've inserted tags where appropriate.

The finale two paragraphs of the section are not encyclopedic in nature, and should be deleted. --Kristjan Wager (talk) 16:34, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

References and a reword would be appropriate. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:52, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I have added some poll figures on Wayne from Motion Picture Herald, Box Office and Quigley's. I think they are relevant to the article, but not sure if this is the right place. I have also relied on secondary sources for the first tw. Any primary source info would be welcomed. gramorak 10:50, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Who screwed with the article?

There is some blatantly-wrong and tampered information that appears with his early childhood. Will some John Wayne fan please go in and correct it? Thank you.Boredwibilly (talk) 18:26, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Step through the editing history in "difference" mode to see what was changed, by whom and when. — Quicksilver^{T @} 16:02, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Was -vs- Is

His father WAS a pharmacist, but isn't now because he's deceased. John Wayne WAS a(n)... American film actor, but isn't now because he's deceased. John Wayne (even though deceased) still IS an Academy Award winner. John Wayne (even though deceased) still IS an Golden Globe Award winner. His father (even though deceased) still IS of Scottish/Irish/English decent. His mother (even though deceased) still IS the former Mary Alberta Brown.

Some things become past-tense when the subject dies (e.g. the job they did, where they lived, etc).

Other things stay true, and present-tense, regardless of death. For some examples: John Wayne still IS the father of Patrick Wayne; John Wayne still IS the star of Sands of Iwo Jima.

Another sentence showing the difference, using both WAS and IS: John Wayne WAS the husband of Josephine Alicia Saenz; John Wayne still IS the first husband of Josephine Alicia Saenz.

The first sentence is difficult because it mixes what was (an actor) with what still is (Golden Globe winner, Academy Award winner) all under the past-tense 'WAS'. I've only fixed the one about his mother until I see if someone's autobot comes around to mindlessly revert it. Joe Hepperle —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.213.225.99 (talk) 12:55, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

It is not correct to say about a dead person that he is the husband, father, son etc, as he no longer exists. The only way to use is in regard to him wouold be to state something like 'he is regarded as one of the best film actors', as in that case it is the current opinion that exists, though Wayne no longer exists. Biographies 2 (talk) 03:07, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Billy Idol reference

See this diff: [1]. Does the Billy Idol reference belong at all? Seems pretty trivial to me, and I say let's take it out. Mark Shaw (talk) 00:41, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Racist and controversial statements to Playboy magazine

See this version: [2]. I propose the following changes/improvements:

Including the word "racist" in the section header is arguably accurate, but leaving it as "controversial statements to Playboy magazine" would be more neutral and hence more appropriate for an encyclopedia.

In the body of the section:

In an interview with Playboy magazine in May 1971, Wayne made very incendiary remarks.

"Incendiary" is a value-judgment conclusion; not encyclopedic, unless a cite to contemporary outrage is included. Reword to eliminate this.

He then continued to discuss race relations including the militant blacks and the civil rights movements, empathizing his beliefs in white supremacy and his opinions regarding the "genetic inferiority" of African Americans, "I believe in white supremacy until blacks are educated to a point of responsibility. I don't believe in giving authority and positions of leadership and judgment to irresponsible people...The academic community has developed certain tests that determine whether the blacks are sufficiently equipped scholastically. ....I don't feel guilty about the fact that five or ten generations ago these people were slaves. .... I wish they'd tell me where in the world they have it better than right here in America."

I don't see anything in there about genetics, black militancy, or the civil-rights movement. Perhaps "He then continued to discuss race relations:" or "He then continued to discuss race relations, emphasizing his belief in white supremacy:" (since, according to the cited source, he did use that term.)

Also, the ellipses are in correct. An ellipsis is three dots (unless a period is included to make it four dots), with a space after but none before. And as noted by my boldface just above, "empathizing" should be "emphasizing." These are copyediting criticisms, though; there are others, including the use of commas, but those are beside the point at the moment.

He also alluded to his disgust with the North Vietnamese Communist forces during the Vietnam War, (etc.)

This has no place in a "controversial statements" section as it assumes the reader opposes/opposed the Vietnam war and hence would find Wayne's comments on the enemy controversial. It would be better placed in the "politics" section.

All that said: I've found a lot of references to this interview, but no scans, PDFs, or other such of the particular issue of the magazine cited. I'm not saying anything about the veracity of these reports, just noting that here for the moment. Personally (and I mean that literally, it has nothing to do with my assessment of the article itself or the encyclopedic value of the citation), I'd have to see the interview on paper or in a scan before believing it actually went as reported. Mark Shaw (talk) 14:40, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I've reverted the section to what stood for a great long time, a far less "incendiary" (in itself) version, which I believe is an objective view of what Wayne said and the context in which he said it. Looking at the edit history of this section over the past day or so, it seems pretty clear that there is an agenda on the part of someone to lower the reader's estimation of the subject by overemphasizing or selectively quoting portions of the interview. As edited recently, the section is not very subtle in its outrage, which in an individual's subjectivity may be justified, but not in the objectivity demanded of WP. I think the new edit stands astride the issue fairly, without overemphasis in either direction. (Also, I have the interview and will attempt to post a scan somewhere that it might be judged by editors--despite that being a bit more in the way of citing than WP normally calls for! Monkeyzpop (talk) 16:40, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure a complete reversion is appropriate, but it's probably the best course of action while the section can be discussed. I certainly agree about the tone and texture of the new addition. (I did change one word from your edit that I thought carried a bit too much weight for an encyclopedia.)

The deletion of "infamous" is agreeable to me. I reverted in a chunk. That word didn't bother me, in that I take it to mean "famous in a way seen by many as negative" rather than "famous BECAUSE it is negative," but your edit eliminates the issue entirely. Monkeyzpop (talk) 17:03, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd love to see the interview in its entirety, and perhaps others would as well. If you need a place to host it, I can do that if it isn't too large. Email me and we can arrange for that. Mark Shaw (talk) 16:51, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Nag me if you want. It won't be today or tomorrow, gotta dig for it when I have time.Monkeyzpop (talk) 17:03, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I own the magazine and I highly advise actually owning references and not searching the net for them. You can split hairs about bad punctuation all you want but those are HIS OWN words and that interview is VERY well known. I'm not sure way anyone who is his fan would want to hide who he was but fans and scholars have different agendas. The previous edit was essentially a whitewash created to make it look like the Duke was only a small part of the "bad old days of white supremacy (John E Rankin, Dies, Biblo, Hoover etc) and the cold war" but he was and it needs to be focused on. He was a huge racist and anti-communist just like Ronald Reagan. Why you feel shame about this as fans is your own concern, it's who he was.Catherine Huebscher (talk) 9:17, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Catherine, I agree that a warts-and-all treatment is appropriate, so long as things are balanced. And John Wayne was certainly controversial in his views; the question is how much of that sort of thing to include here. I would caution you not to assume too much about my own opinion about Wayne and my own agenda here, though. In particular, I don't have much of a problem with the idea of emphasizing these "warts" more than they have been in the past. Let's just hash that out here first, though, okay? Mark Shaw (talk) 17:29, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

It's all his words, I'm just describing what was said.I actually showed restraint. What do you propose? Keeping in mind that John Wayne himself would have wanted all of those quotes left in and celebrated , if he is indeed the man he said he was.Catherine Huebscher (talk) 9:32, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not really sure what to propose, but I think it bears discussion. There is at least one other editor involved in this as well, too, remember. I see that you've already restored the section, which is (in my opinion) unfortunate; however, I see also that you've implemented the changes I originally suggested, so I won't kick too much. But just so you know: I intend to edit it, purely for punctuation and the like (I won't change any of your wording in any material way), if it's still there when I get back from lunch. Other than that, I'm waiting to see what others will have to say. Mark Shaw (talk) 17:50, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

My concern is that this article is the only place on the net that I'm seeing the interview mentioned in any real length, wikipedia is THEE main source for so many things so articles on film superstars need to be detailed. I also think that as the lead mentions his conservative views that they be fleshed out and cited. I'm amazed that so many of the racist, cold warriors have their history altered or chunks of it deleted, to reflect today's values. Who they said they were and their well documented actions is all very clear to me! Paul Robeson , the OPPOSITE of who JOHN Wayne was, is uniformly always linked to the USSR and I had no issue including that aspect when I revised his article, knowing that it will almost ALWAYS be misconstrued and too complex to decipher for most. But I am proud of that fact that HIS legacy stands up to the truths and opinions and has not been altered despite my dislike of the material. Catherine Huebscher (talk) 10:14, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I've cleaned up some of the punctuation and such in the section, as I said (above) that I would. By way of continuing the discussion about how this section should eventually look, I repeat my previous comment that the third quote (about the Communist North Vietnamese) really belongs in the "politics" section. Mark Shaw (talk) 19:23, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Ms. Huebscher's allegation that my edits stem from a desire as a " fan" to whitewash Wayne are without merit. I'm not a fan, I'm a professional film historian and biographer. I am the source of most of the detailed, sourced edits in this article revealing Wayne's attempt to avoid military service during World War II. I'm trying very hard to help create and sustain a balanced view of the man. Now, "balanced" doesn't mean for every good thing there has to be a bad thing or vice versa. I'm sure someone could come up with a paragraph of similar size of innocuous statements by some pretty awful people, but an entire section devoted to a single interview in which Hitler commented on his love of humanity would be seen pretty much for what it was, an attempt to make one interview an unbalanced focus of the article. Wayne was unenlightened in his views, particularly from today's viewpoint (not that his remarks in this one interview weren't seen that way at the time), but this interview (in which, by the way, the interviewer makes note that Wayne has been drinking steadily throughout) should not, from a Wikipedia standard, be the only interview or interpretation so thoroughly examined in this article. To force the amount of focus and (from Ms. Huebscher's remarks in this discussion) antagonism on these remarks in this article does disservice not to Wayne but to the encyclopedic nature of Wikipedia. People who want to read the paragraph as I and (subsequently) Mark Shaw amended it will have ample idea of what may be contained in the interview and follow the citations and read it themselves, as is WP standard. To set the entire interview figuratively in boldface and print only the material which will seem inflammatory outside the whole and outside the context is to force, consciously or accidentally, an opinion on the reader. I, too, own the magazine and reprinted copies of the interview, as well as hundreds of other interviews with Wayne. This one is not emblematic beyond all others. It is wrong to treat it that way, simply because it was the most (only?) notorious one he gave. (See Marlon Brando's article for a WP article that handles similar matters well, at least at my last reading of it.) Wayne, like most of us, was a very complex individual. WP's job is to illuminate that, not to single out the parts of him we don't like. Monkeyzpop (talk) 21:40, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

For starters Wayne is not a major political/War figure of the past 500 years, Hitler, for brevity's sake does not require each and every antidote but honestly, if an interview existed it should or could be connected to his page in some fashion if someone wanted to take the time.WP is about the dissemination of well cited information afterall. Please. That is who he was and who he said he was -bottle or no bottle-1949 or 2009-and he would be the first to admit it from what I've gleaned. If you want to mention him drinking then you should but please cite your source.The John Wayne and Jimmy Carter interviews are easily the two most famous in the magazines history.in fact i have a friend who works at the magazine who i will ask for a second opinion.

I can't control a readers' reaction. Many will be offended by him and many will be assuredly happy and many will not care-one could easily say he was a racist, an American fascist, refused to act with blacks and have no problem citing more than one source. Once again, I showed restraint because its not an article about that interview alone but a survey of JW's life ,there was other parts where he sounds literally like David (ahem) Duke because that is WHO HE WAS, he shared white racist anti-communist values ala Hoover and Rankin regardless of his sliver screen charm. If a wikipedia article is positioning a film legend as the "enduring American Icon" that he was then it follows his icon status should be illuminated by showing his values.

"This one is not emblematic beyond all others. It is wrong to treat it that way, simply because it was the most (only?) notorious one he gave."

It IS though-it's one of the all time most famous interviews of any celebs-especially for Playboy- and that's why his fans hate it mentioned and why many of his bios either leave it out, apologize for it or whitewash it. I've even read accounts that say "he was just a man of his time...after all he married Hispanic women exclusively so he could not have been "that" racist...Wayne, like most of us, was a very complex individual..."

What I wrote is 100% in keeping with what wikipedia stands for: the neutral dissemination of cited information. There is especially nothing bias about a man's own words verbatim.Catherine Huebscher (talk) 21:40, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. It is clear to me from it that you do indeed have a task you are set forth upon, to make clear to the world that Wayne deserves condemnation more than any other response. Your reluctance or inability to relate your responses in an objective manner to the points raised by myself and the other editor suggest to me that you are unwilling to accept anything which does not conform to the agenda you have chosen. I am at a loss as to how to have meaningful colloquy with you, therefore.

Editing, even editing of a man's verbatim statements, is inherently biased. Every edit, every selection, every ellipsis, colors the reader's response in the manner consciously or unconsciously intended by the editor. I do not believe you can claim that you selected THIS interview and THESE portions of the interview and deleted THESE portions of the interview out of a desire to present a verbatim record of the man from a purely objective standpoint. You are pushing an agenda, an anti-Wayne agenda. I am pushing an agenda, too -- as objective and fair an illumination of the whole man as I can manage. I see that we disagree which is more important.

I did, by the way, cite my statement about Wayne's drinking during the interview. It's IN the interview, in the interviewer's introduction. Monkeyzpop (talk) 07:13, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I've held back here for a bit, to let this percolate in my mind. Here are my thoughts this morning:

• I think it's clear that Catherine is pushing a POV. (Not that that's necessarily a bad thing; see below.)
• Whitewashing the negativity of the Playboy interview, or leaving it out of the article entirely, would also be POV-pushing; by omission, if you will.

A Wikipedia article must be as fair, balanced, and informative as possible. The consensus nature of Wikipedia lends itself quite well to this; to wit: it's perfectly okay for an editor to exercise an agenda (by, among other things, pushing a POV on an article) if that's done in an atmosphere where others will push back and they all have an equal say in what eventually results. The quality of the resultant article can only be improved, provided all voices get sufficient hearing. This is analogous to the adversarial system that works (reasonably, if not perfectly) well in common-law courtrooms and bipartite political systems.

I think that's what we have here: a fairly well-balanced, if perhaps polarized, body of opinion on what should and should not appear in the article where the Playboy interview is concerned. And we seem to be making progress - in particular, I'm personally very pleased with the progress thus far. I'd encourage both other editors (and any others who might join in) to keep it up.

Here, specifically, are my thoughts on the current status of the section (represented by this diff: [3]):

• The section seems a bit long. That's an impression, though; others may see the length as appropriate.
• I still think the last bit, about the Communist North Vietnamese, should be moved to the "Politics" section. (This would also have the effect of shortening the section a bit.) I may move it later today, but I don't like to make quick edits during a discussion session as that tends to deny others the opportunity to object or offer alternatives (e.g. I'd also be fine with the idea of just leaving that part out; I think it's obvious from the "Politics" section what Wayne thought of the Vietnam War).
• Based on previous comments by Monkeyzpop, it may need some work to tighten up the context. (For example: should the factor of Wayne's apparently having been drunk at the time be mentioned?) I emphasize that I can't say that for sure, though, because I have not read the interview itself. Just a thought, and noted for completeness.

Anyway, that's where I am with this at the moment. Mark Shaw (talk) 17:15, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Sigh, I actually just want the interview mentioned in depth as it is one of Playboy's most well known interviews and definitely one of John Wayne's. It also needs to be in it's own section beacuse many people look for it, especially people who have heard about his open racism. The man was what he was and I'm not pushing any agenda, I'm just pushing a part of his history as an 'American Icon.' Many of you are just uncomfortable with how it looks just as many Robeson fans don't want the hugely negative Stalin Peace prize or Itzak Feffer incident included in his article but it is and by my own edit and I'm a huge Robeson fan, so how biased am I really if I'll turn around and show the perceived warts of my most cherished subject? When does a man's own words actually stop standing for who he was? When it does not fit the agenda of fans? Then does it become magically "misquoted" and "bias" due to ellipses? When it sounds really racist and makes him look like less of an icon? Oh well, that's fame. The Playboy interview according to a few of his biographers was hugely controversial at the time. Mentioning he was drinking is apt but it won't sanitize it, nothing could, but include it. The article is big enough for more detail.Catherine Huebscher (talk) 10:58, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Catherine, just a few discussion points:

• At this time I don't have any objections to this material appearing in its own section.
• Do you have any objections to shortening/condensing it a bit? Specifically:
  • Remove (or refer parenthetically to) the second quote of Wayne's views on the contemporary state of African-American affairs (the first is damaging enough, I think).
  • Move the last quote (on the Communist North Vietnamese) to the "Politics" section, or perhaps drop it entirely.
• It may be that the interview itself might be appropriate for a separate article, which would deal with it in its entirety rather than just the controversial bits. We could still have an excerpt of those here, somewhat like what we have at the moment. (That's just a bit of brainstorming, though; I'm not sure I really want to propose that at the moment.)
• Monkeyzpop, what do you think?

(By the way: Catherine, I've indented your previous comment (just above) to reflect the threading of this discussion. If you object to that for any reason, please feel free to restore it to its former unindented form.) Mark Shaw (talk) 19:35, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

That's a fine compromise. Do note that from my experience, when you omit the harsher facts of who a subject was, their perceived moral transgressions, their fallibility etc they end up being seen as far worse when people dig deeper. I think you should include the Vietnamese statement. At some point I think the interview deserves a separate article ideally one that includes Carter, Kissinger, Malcolm X and John and Yoko and all the big interviews. There needs to be a link to the entries interview(s) as an external if possible. Catherine Huebscher (talk) 6:41, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I have no problem with the "Playboy" article being referenced, however does it need to be so long? It is almost as long as the article relating to John Wayne's career, and it not really something he is remembered for anyway. If nobody has a problem I will begin condensing this section in due course —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.95.170.99 (talk) 14:06, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Film reviews in the article

Regarding this diff - it reads like a review. It's well-written and probably accurate, but I'm not sure it's appropriate for an encyclopedia. I was about to revert it with that explanation, but thought I ought to see what others think first.... Mark Shaw (talk) 12:57, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I tend to concur with you, Mark. It's well-written, but edging on POV and being verification-deficient ("most honored endings?" How is an ending honored, per se?) Also, the "signature contraposto" description of Wayne's gesture seems a bit confusing (not to mention misspelled). Contrapposto refers to the artistic positioning of a figure with the weight on one leg with the other leg relaxed, counterpoising the axis of the body. Wayne's weight is on one leg in that final scene, but he's rather solidly direct in his axis. This is nitpicking on my part, of course, but the real point is that there's nothing particularly "signature" about Wayne's standing that way, and, more importantly, it muddies the waters, since in that shot Wayne copies a signature stance by his idol, Harry Carey, and that stance has nothing to do with the placement of his weight, but rather his grasp of his arm with the opposing hand. That signature gesture is quite well known among film buffs and historians, and the use of the contrapposto term merely confuses (and seems a bit precious, in my personal opinion). And finally, I don't think Wayne puts his hands on his hips when he walks away, even momentarily. (From memory, that.) So while this may be overkill in responding to your query, I think that clarity and encyclopedic style would best be served either by eliminating this section (it's covered well in the Searchers article) or by rewriting it. My two cents. Monkeyzpop (talk) 05:23, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

There's been no further discussion for > 36 hours, so I went ahead and restored the version previous to it. Mark Shaw (talk) 21:09, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

"Scots-Irish"

Since when?

"Gotten"

I replaced the word "gotten" with "found" in the sentence: Tom Mix had gotten him a summer job....

because, gotten isn't a word.

Jim

03/06/09 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.59.163.198 (talk) 15:01, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes it is. It's a past participle of "got." From the Random House Dictionary: "In American English gotten is an alternative standard past participle in most senses, especially in the senses “to receive” or “to acquire”: I have gotten (or got) all that I ever hoped for." Monkeyzpop (talk) 17:52, 3 July 2009 (UTC). The word gotten also used by shakespeare "Jack cade hath gotten london bridge" ~ King Henry VI, part II

"Enraged conservatives"

Several editors have, for some reason, repeatedly undid efforts to change the language in the Politics section; specifically, " . . . enraged conservatives . . . " As Korossyl points out in the history, "enrages" just isn't supported by the two cited articles. The Time article discusses fierce conservative opposition to the Panama Canal Treaty, and mentions Wayne as a supporter of the treaty, but there's no indication that he himself (as opposed to other conservative treaty supporters like William F. Buckley) received specific anger. The Slate article merely mentions Wayne as a defender of the notion that Patty Hearst was brainwashed, and doesn't describe the notion in any way as a conservative-versus-liberal issue. (I pointed out the latter when making an edit but it was reverted by another editor; I should redo it.) YLee (talk) 17:57, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I removed the Patty Hearst mention completely. As noted the source article makes no mention of her guilt as a conservative-liberal issue. After removing the political angle, there's no good way I could come up with to mention Wayne's support for Hearst (even aside from the section being the wrong place to do so); it's just too random. YLee (talk) 05:13, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Pedo?

Under the "Early Life" section.

At the end of the first paragraph (birth/parents). the last sentance is; "This was all before he was raped by a dirty old pedo."

Where did that come from?

It doesn't make sense because it is not in the timeline,

Where did that come from?

The One and Only Worldwise Dave Shaver 06:45, 14 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaxdave (talk • contribs)

[Indent fixed - Mark Shaw]

Can this now be removed from the discussion section as well as its rather unnecessary to keep it here as the problem has been rectified? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.95.170.99 (talk) 14:13, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Removal of others' contributions to a talk page is typically frowned upon. I agree that it's become irrelevant, though. But we should probably just leave it; it'll get archived sooner or later. Mark Shaw (talk) 14:29, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Marion Michael Morrison

Every biography I have read on the Duke has identified him as Marion Michael Morrison, not Marion Mitchell Morison. He never carried the name Mitchell. Ya'll need to spend a little time cleaning this up and getting it right. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.231.6.69 (talk) 18:26, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

If you have a bio of Wayne stating that his middle name was "Michael," please cite it here. Mark Shaw (talk) 19:10, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

The middle name "Mitchell" is already well-cited and is, in fact, more accurate than the "common knowledge" that existed for years. At least two recent (and most rigorously cited) biographies correct the long-standing but erroneous information about Wayne's middle name (and birth name, too, for that matter). The matter has been well-cited and cleared up. Just because someone finds an old cite predating the well-researched recent ones is not sufficient reason for it to replace what's currently cited, methinks.Monkeyzpop (talk) 10:47, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay, since you people are either too stupid or too lazy to do a little research:

The Young Duke by Chris Enss and Howard Kazanjian The Films of John Wayne (1972) and every other book I have read on John Wayne

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/638123/John-Wayne

You claims that Mitchell is well-cited is A) flase and B) you have provide zero citations for the claim that Mitchell is "more accurate" than "common knolwedge" when there isn't a single citation supporting that he was ever named "Mitchell" yet there are many sources that cite his name as being "Michael". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.231.6.69 (talk) 22:13, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

First of all, editor with Minnesota ISP 163.231.6.69, the first rule of Wikipedia is civility and presumption of good faith, both aspects of which you violated in your post of 22:13, 22 January 2010. Secondly, the sources you mention are in error, and those errors are corrected in the single most thorough and accurate biography of John Wayne yet published, and the cited source for the Marion Mitchell Morrison information, to wit, John Wayne: American by Randy Roberts & James Olson. (If you care anything at all about Wayne, you owe it to yourself to read this book. It's also one of the best film star biographies ever written, in my opinion--and I've been researching and writing actors biographies--including Wayne--for decades.) The material is cited in the article, but I will quote nonetheless, since apparently you have reasons for not having researched this source yourself (I hope they're not the same reasons you blast us for in your post.): From page 8: When Molly [Wayne's mother] told him that his new brother had been named Robert after Grandpa Brown, Marion was confused. *He* was Marion Robert Morrison, and he knew that he had been named after both of his grandfathers--Marion Mitchell Morrison and Robert Emmett Brown. She had even taken to calling him "Bobby." But now Molly told him...his new name would be Marion Mitchell Morrison, the same name as his paternal grandfather. The substitution of Michael for Mitchell was a publicist's error years after the fact, and Wayne grew up as Marion Mitchell Morrison, not Marion Michael. The fact that scores of books have used the erroneous name Michael does not make them right. The book cited above draws its information from the Wayne family, from the Madison County U.S. census, John Wayne's private secretary Mary St. John, and, most importantly, Wayne himself in his unfinished autobiography My Kingdom, housed at the University of Texas manuscript collection. These sources are far more trustworthy than the ones you cite, by nature of who and what they are, and if you're not going to believe John Wayne's own words in his unfinished autobiography, I suppose nothing will convince you. The fact is, the world's libraries are full of books that have inaccurate information, even though those books drew from the best information available at the time. Newer, more accurate information will always turn up and be published in newer books, and no intelligent person would ever say, "I will ignore newly uncovered information because there are lots of older books that say something different." Dig around the Vatican library, you'll find lots of books that say the sun goes around the earth, too. Now please try harder to be civil on Wikipedia. Monkeyzpop (talk) 04:58, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

This is all very fascinating. I have no reason to doubt that the version we have at the moment is the correct one. But, given that the "received wisdom" for so long was that he was born "Marion Michael Morrison", maybe it would be best to have a footnote explaining that the Robert/Mitchell version is correct and explicitly debunking Michael. For the benefit of our Minnesota friend and any others who would read the current version and just not believe it, because they've had it in their heads all their lives that it was Marion Michael. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 05:14, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

You're reading my mind. I've just addressed the issue in the article (though not in a footnote, because I believe the point you raise is significant enough to make the apparent facts crystal clear in the article itself, this particular "common knowledge" being so widespread). Monkeyzpop (talk) 05:22, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

"Famous" quotes

Recent as well as past edits have included all sorts of quotations from Wayne films under the heading "Famous quotes," etc. I would argue that some of these are great lines but in no way are they famous. A famous line, to me, is something the average person conversant with such matters would know. "There's no place like home, there's no place like home" is a famous line. "You can't handle the truth!" is a famous line. "I'll make him an offer he can't refuse" is a famous line. I think that most of the recent additions to the Wayne quote list, while memorable to someone who knows the individual films pretty well, would not be considered famous by even the average John Wayne fan. The fanatic, perhaps, but not the average fan, and certainly not the average guy on the street. I'm not deleting any of them, but I'd be interested in discussion and, perhaps, a less scattergun definition of "famous." Monkeyzpop (talk) 09:04, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

What about simply changing the titles of the two sections in question to something like "notable quotes" or "selected quotes?" Mark Shaw (talk) 13:35, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Feo, Fuerte y Formal

Mexican epitaph?, hell, I didn't know there was a language called "Mexican". "Feo, Fuerte y Formal" translates from Spanish as "Ugly-looking, Strong and Reliable" ("Formal" also means Well-mannered, Courteous).Cornelius71 (talk) 18:47, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

There is a pair of excellent articles by Dick Cavett in the New York Times. They are Awesome, and Then Some and More Awesomeness, or John Wayne Part 2 and ought to be added to the outside references section. Asteriks (talk) 18:26, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Odds and Ends

Here's some more military slang that could be included in the article: the .45 caliber service pistol is referred to as a "John Wayne rifle" and the Army's Special Warfare School at Fort Bragg is called "John Wayne High School". Also, "Stagecoach" was the first film John Ford shot in Monument Valley (it's an Indian Reservation) and others soon began filming there also. I recall reading about the filming of "The Alamo", that the State of Texas put up a third of the money and that Wayne put a lot of his own money into the film, even using his cars and his wife's jewelry to finance it...also John Ford visited the set one day and started taking over the movie so Wayne had him go film some cattle crossing a river to get him off the set. I was at UCLA when Wayne died there and didn't visit him since I thought that would be an imposition but the impression I got was that "the Big C finally got me" from my visits to the medical center. A few actor words of advice Wayne gave were "Talk low, talk slow" and "Don't act, react". --Just some tidbits I thought might be interesting. Great article, guys, keep up the good work.63.192.101.142 (talk) 09:10, 16 May 2010 (UTC)Sgt. Rock

Killed in Movies?

I had always heard that Bruce Dern, in The Cowboys, is the only person ever to have killed Wayne on screen. But The Cowboys page says that's not true. So can anyone here tell me what other movie shows Wayne's character killed onscreen? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lafong (talk • contribs) 03:55, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

This forum is not for discussion of the subject but of the article itself. But the short list of films Wayne's character is killed in onscreen is this: Central Airport (1933), Reap the Wild Wind (1942), The Fighting Seabees (1944), Wake of the Red Witch (1948), Sands of Iwo Jima (1949), The Alamo (1960), The Cowboys (1972), The Shootist (1976). There's debate about whether he died at the end of The Sea Chase (1957), as the film is ambiguous in its ending. His character is dead at the beginning of The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance (1962), which is told in flashback. And he played a dead body in The Deceiver (1931). Monkeyzpop (talk) 04:49, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Military Service Controversy

I have changed this title to "1941 - 1945" to better encapsulate what John Wayne did during this time, it is also wrong to include military service within the title as he was not in the military.

Please add additional information to this section such as John Wayne's contribution towards the war effort namely raising money for war bonds and visiting troops etc.

The title does not refer to Wayne's military service, it refers to the controversy over his not having served in the military. I have reverted your change; discuss it here and obtain consensus before changing it back, please. And as far as the additions you request, please feel free to add them yourself - where appropriate and properly referenced, of course. Mark Shaw (talk) 12:50, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

[N.B. indentation fixed -Mark Shaw]

This title is a little unfair and it fails to recognise the contributions that John Wayne did make during WWII, it shouldn't be for you to dictate the title, what consenus did you get?

193.95.170.99, please sign your posts. You can use four tildes (~~~~) to make this easier. As far as fairness, I don't know that I agree. There is some controversy about Wayne's not having served, and this is an encyclopedia article - WP:NPOV demands that we stick to the facts and not show either favor or disfavor to the subject. Per consensus, the section has had this title for a good long time, so I believe the burden of obtaining consensus is on you. Mark Shaw (talk) 15:03, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Mark Shaw. This is not a section about "1941-1945" or "Wayne's contribution to the war effort" but rather an examination of a very real controversy that deserves an explanation in an encyclopedic article. Objectivity is the goal, and there's nothing subjective about there being a controversy on this matter, despite the subjectivity involved for many people in deciding what they want to believe about that controversy. Ask yourself if--had Wayne been a genuine war hero on the lines of Audie Murphy--would you now be objecting to a section entitled "Wayne's military heroism"? That would be no less an objective description of the topic of that section than the one under discussion is, yet I suspect you'd be much happier with the "fairness" of a subheading like that. (I don't mean to put words in your mouth, but it does seem that your input is more defensive of what you want the public to think of Wayne than purely objective.) I personally am a huge fan of Wayne's and even as a combat veteran I feel more sorrow for him than disdain, as this seems to have been (certainly in Wayne's own mind) a singular lapse in an otherwise fine man's life. But despite my deep admiration for him, I think it would be unfair to readers to suggest that this section is merely about "1941-1945." It might well use some more about his contributions to the war effort (though those were a little pale compared to some of his contemporaries), but those efforts are not exactly part of the very real controversy. Monkeyzpop (talk) 16:29, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree that 1941 - 1945 is a much better title or how about "Wayne and the War years"? I feel at present the post is article is not extensive enough.

John Wayne's Drinking

Wayne biographer Michael Munn writes of Wayne's love of alcohol.[10] According to Sam O'Steen's memoir, Cut to the Chase, studio directors knew to shoot Wayne's scenes before noon, because by afternoon Wayne "was a mean drunk."[45]

Who is Sam O'Steen and where is the evidence to support this statement? By various accounts there were only three occassion when John Wayne was drunk on a set namely "The Big Trail," "3 Godfathers" and "The Cowboys" and by various accounts from Patrick Wayne to John Agar, John Wayne could handle his drink and was very rarely drunk. I feel the above statement should be removed until or unless it can be better substantiated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.95.170.99 (talk) 08:06, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I'd suggest looking in your public library for the two works cited, and give us your analysis of their credibility. Also, you cite two sources to the contrary; we'll need to have chapter and verse for them as well. Mark Shaw (talk) 13:00, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Thats fair enough, I will bring this to your attention in due course. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.95.170.99 (talk) 14:07, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Ranch advert

A few weeks ago, a user attempted to add images and content that had multiple issues. They were eventually blocked, and told how to proceed with unblock requests and to discuss the changes on the talk page here - but they never pursued the advice given by multiple parties, so I'll start the discussion. The images had unclear copyright, and would require using the ticket system to resolve, but on the text ... they were adding:

Wayne owned a cattle ranch in Northern Arizona, named the 26 Bar Hereford. Wayne chose to raise purebred Hereford cattle. Wayne's ranch was tucked away in Eagar, Arizona, an area known as The White Mountains nestled among the Apache, Navajo & Hopi indian reservations and a long four-hour drive from both Phoenix and Albuquerque, which provided him with a private getaway where he enjoyed fraternizing with the local ranchers and native American indians. Wayne had a private pilot that would fly him to the 26 Bar Hereford between films. To view additional candid photos of Wayne at his ranch, see the External Link below.<ref>Baeza, Jo [http://www.wmicentral.com/opinion/editorials/mountain-life-duke-will-have-his-due/article_24048846-2d32-5dd5-a731-808556ab793e.html "Mountain Life - 'Duke' will have his due"], ''The White Mountain Independent'', December 1, 2006, accessed January 29, 2011.</ref>

This was later trimmed down to:

Wayne owned a cattle ranch in Northern Arizona, named the 26 Bar Hereford. He chose to raise purebred Hereford cattle on his ranch tucked away in Eagar, Arizona, which provided him with a private getaway.<ref>Baeza, Jo [http://www.wmicentral.com/opinion/editorials/mountain-life-duke-will-have-his-due/article_24048846-2d32-5dd5-a731-808556ab793e.html "Mountain Life - 'Duke' will have his due"], ''The White Mountain Independent'', December 1, 2006, accessed January 29, 2011.</ref>

However, even the trimmed version is little more than trivia content. First, we don't list property owned by celebrities unless that property can be established as meeting WP:N in its own right (in which case, the connection to a notable property would credit a mention). Secondly, it's minor trivia - and in this case, functions as an advert for the ranch which continues to function as a Bed & Breakfast. Lastly, the added material, even after trimming, still contained quite a bit of narrative content. At most, even if the trivia listing were appropriate, the material can be more concisely stated as:

Wayne owned a working [[Hereford (cattle)|Hereford]] cattle ranch in [[Eagar, Arizona]].<ref>Baeza, Jo [http://www.wmicentral.com/opinion/editorials/mountain-life-duke-will-have-his-due/article_24048846-2d32-5dd5-a731-808556ab793e.html "Mountain Life - 'Duke' will have his due"], ''The White Mountain Independent'', December 1, 2006, accessed January 29, 2011.</ref>

As the original user chose not to pursue this, I wanted to at least start the discussion. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 04:50, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Playboy Article

I have no problem with the "Playboy" article being referenced, however does it need to be so long? It is almost as long as the article relating to John Wayne's career, and it not really something he is remembered for anyway. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.95.170.99 (talk) 13:40, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

If nobody has a problem I will begin condensing this section in due course. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.95.170.99 (talk) 16:01, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Awards

Hi, I just recently read over this article and I had huge problems understanding the tables in the awards section, especially the one about Academy Oscars. Do we really need an explanation of what the Oscars are? Why is there no list/table that lists his wins and nominations? What about the Golden Globes? All I can see is that "Wayne won a competitive award and received the Cecil B. DeMille Award." for which role in which movie did he win these awards? Thanks for clarifying. --Darth NormaN ^(talk) 13:02, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

He won the Golden Globe for his performance in True Grit, I have updated this on the article. The Cecil B DeMille award was a lifetime recognition award but others may need to confirm this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.95.170.99 (talk) 08:46, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Movie Quotation

I have corrected John Wayne's quote from "True Grit" to "Fill your hands" rather than "Fill your hand" as it was previously, I have double checked this quote on YouTube. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.95.170.99 (talk) 10:19, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

No. I don't know how you "double checked" it, but see this clip. Mark Shaw (talk) 12:57, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Real birthplace?

Wondering if Wayne's birthplace controversy should be included in the article. After all, notable American presidential candidate Michelle Bachmann says he was born in Waterloo, so presumably we need to reflect the revised history: http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/inside-politics/2011/jun/27/the-wrong-john-wayne/ --Jajasoon (talk) 18:40, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

• That doesn't strike me as encyclopedic yet... though it is kind of funny/sad that there have already been edits to the article attempting to change his birthplace to Waterloo. Miraculouschaos (talk) 19:18, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

That's because sarcasm is often lost in print. When I first read Jajasoon's comment, I thought it likely that someone would soon take it seriously. Great. One more inaccurate "fact" that everyone "knows" to be true about this particular subject. Monkeyzpop (talk) 19:44, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry - I was aiming for sarcasm. Should have added a . --Jajasoon (talk) 23:59, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, I hope you are aware that this is not the place for sarcasm. Truthsort (talk) 00:07, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I think there's nothing wrong at all with sarcasm of the sort Jajasoon used. I was more lamenting the subtlety of it and the obvious failure of several editors to realize that he was being sarcastic and not actually advocating a change in Wayne's birthplace in the article. He certainly wasn't being mean to anyone, just adding a welcome bit of mild humor. Or did I just miss Truthsort's subtle sarcasm? :-) Monkeyzpop (talk) 00:17, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

But why exactly is section title for the early period of his life called "The Waterloo Years"?--Kmhkmh (talk) 02:46, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism, reverted, now semi-protected. Acroterion (talk) 02:54, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Alright that makes sense now, thanks for the quick fix.--Kmhkmh (talk) 03:01, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

This sentence would be appropriate: "His parents met in Waterloo, Iowa, where his father was interning as a pharmacist. They moved to Winterset before he was born." Reference: http://www.amazon.com/Duke-Life-Image-John-Wayne/dp/0806133295, page 15. —Novanglusva (talk • contribs) 13:25, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Maybe he was conceived in the back of a Buick off some backroad in Waterloo? Maybe Ms. Bachmann was there? Since an embryo, as evidenced in the John Quincy Adams article, is a real person, His real place of birth would be Waterloo? No?

अभय नातू (talk) 18:34, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Circular References

Original comment removed by User:LeeUSA after responses.

Citations often include links within them to Wikipedia articles. That doesn't mean that Wikipedia is being cited. --Onorem♠Dil 06:01, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

You have misunderstood WP:CIRCULAR, LeeUSA. The article cited as support for this bit of information was written by Jim Beaver, who coincidentally happens to have his own article in WP. The link is not "circular," because it is not a link to a WP article which says the same thing as this WP article, and it is not a link that sends a reader in a fruitless circle trying without success to find the true source of a claim. It's merely notice to the reader that WP provides an article which will give him background on the author of this particular cite. The fact that this particular author has his own article in WP, far from being circular, is additional elucidation of the citation. It's no different than footnotes 31 and 35 at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_kissinger or footnotes 13 and 35 at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augusto_Pinochet . The only way this citation would be circular by WP standards is if the WP article on Jim Beaver were being presented as itself being the source of the information being cited in the John Wayne article. That is not the case. Thus the WP:CIRCULAR claim does not apply and is ill-advised. Monkeyzpop (talk) 09:25, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Real name

While the article implies John Wayne was only a screen name, his children have the last name of Wayne. Did he legally change his name to John Wayne? If so, when? Javacheezhed (talk) 00:08, 5 September 2011 (UTC)javacheezhed

Apparently Wayne did not legally change his name. And his children who go by the last name Wayne are all legally Morrisons. I don't have a WP-sanctioned source for this, but know several of his offspring personally. Monkeyzpop (talk) 06:43, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Suggestion for filmography subpages

I'm mentioning this here because there are 3 filmography subpages and so I thought it would get more coordinated attention here.

Someone wrote me this, and it sounded like a good idea, but I don't know if there has been a debate about this, so I just pass the idea along.

"is it possible to list the movies aka titles? eg. paradise canyon aka guns along the trail. i recently purchased a dvd online. it is a 6 disk set of john wayne movies. after ordering them i went to the john wayne filmogrophy site and none of the movies were listed. after i got the dvd i found out that all 6 movies were under their aka titles and i already had all 6 of them. an innocent man aka sagebrush trail, cold vengence aka dawn rider. etc"

It sounds awful that they are selling dvd's with misleading titles, and so possibly we should list the alternative titles to help people not make this error.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:25, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea to me. Just as a side comment: I'm not sure the alternate titles are necessarily misleading, though; studios used to do this quite a lot. Mark Shaw (talk) 23:41, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

How could the Congressional Gold Medal be "posthumous"

The Congressional Gold Medal was awarded on May 26, 1979 yet John Wayne died a few weeks later on June 11, 1979. The award was not give posthumously as stated in the Awards section of the entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.83.116.168 (talk) 17:56, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

You appear to be correct -- good catch! I've made the change. Happyme22 (talk) 01:52, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

The vote to award the medal was taken on May 26, 1979. By the time the actual medal itself had been designed, created, minted, and presented to the Wayne family, Wayne had passed away. Ejgreen77 (talk) 02:51, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Playboy

Removed, unfair to quote allegedly controversial statments without putting them into a proper context which John Wayne did, if this is going to be put back it needs to include John Wayne's entire response so viewers can make an informed decision. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.33.183.1 (talk) 11:53, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

While I agree the statements could use some context, I think they illustrate Wayne's character and staunch conservative attitude. He apparently believed in what he said in that interview so much that words from it are engraved on his tombstone. I'm going to restore the quote and allow you to add the context you think needs to be added. — btphelps ^{(talk to me) (what I've done)} 20:47, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Biggest Box Office Draw "Of All Time??" Really?

The opening paragraph states, "An Academy Award-winner, Wayne is the biggest box office draw of all time." However, the source (from 2003, no less) doesn't explicitly state this at all. In fact, nowhere in the link does it make such a claim. All the linked webpage states is the "biggest moneymaker for each year" not "all-time" and yet even then Mr. Wayne only tops the annual lists for a mere three years (while Bing Crosby topped the lists FIVE times, not just three, incidentally.)

This "biggest box office draw of all time" claim is at best highly dubious and deserves to be removed from this page unless more thoroughly substantiated, IMHO. Thanks123.222.211.170 (talk) 14:03, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps [this] would be a better link.Ejgreen77 (talk) 14:37, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I think it's safe to think, if not write, that Wayne sold more tickets than any other single actor across the decades; I doubt that even Harrison Ford (a very similar actor to Wayne in many ways) can match him despite dealing with a higher population (that's only considering theatrical ticket sales, other delivery systems might be another story). Practically everybody probably saw almost every Crosby picture in his heyday but that heyday wasn't nearly as long as Wayne's and Crosby was basically relegated to television in his last two or three decades while Wayne stayed more or less at or near the theatrical film top consistently from 1948 on. Clark Gable might give him a run on that one due to the numerous re-releases of Gone With the Wind, each one a smash hit, together with dominating the '30s to the extent that he did (except for Shirley Temple). Then of course, per capita, of course no one can begin to compete with Charles Chaplin for sheer world-wide impact. Jump Forward Immediately (talk) 15:34, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Dubious injury bodysurfing the Wedge

The article states that Wayne injured himself bodysurfing the Wedge and as a result had to drop out of football and out of college. This happened in the 1920s. But the Wedge came into existence in the 1930s with the construction of a jetty which greatly magnifified the size and power of the surf. Therefore, Wayne couldn't possibly have bodysurfed the Wedge in the 1920s. The story of this injury appears to be another example of magnification of Wayne's actual life and reality to create a heroic persona.Drwin808 (talk) 07:54, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

I have added a {{Citation needed}} to this statement so hopefully someone will provide a reference for this information. For what it's worth, I couldn't find any source that said this took place. Nikthestoned 11:56, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

--Thanks, but "citation needed" doesn't begin to solve the problem. The event as described is chronologically impossible. This is the problem with Wikipedia: patent nonsense, propaganda and outright fabrications are allowed to remain; in the case of the John Wayne page edits are blocked so that false information is unmodified. BTW the description below doesn't sound much like bodysurfing (catching and riding waves for some distance without a board), but what is often called "body whomping": catching the shorebreak in very shallow water. To avoid injury, one must either turn nearly parallel to the face of the wave, or execute a front flip to land on one's feet when the wave breaks. One also has to wonder about the injury ("probably breaking his collarbone and separating his right shoulder") sustained; as one who has been through fractures and separations, there is no "probably" about it and there should have been some sort of medical record. Instead, we have more heroic mythology: the "it's just my shoulder" bravado (which Wayne used in movies), the serious injury which inexplicably no one seems to have recognized and which the heroic Wayne concealed (for what reason, we are not told) while getting kicked off the team for poor performance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drwin808 (talk • contribs) 17:46, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

The following is taken directly from the book John Wayne, American by Randy Roberts and James S. Olson, on page 63-64:

Ever since he was a kid, Duke had loved the ocean, and on weekends during the summer of 1926, when he was not working at Fox, he frequently headed to the beaches south of Los Angeles. Duke and his friends would go in somebody's car or just hitchhike. Some days they would drive to Redondo Beach or Santa Monica; others, they headed southeast, sometimes sleeping overnight at a place called "Tin Can Beach," between Seal Beach and Huntington Beach. They loved to bodysurf, and the waves along much of the Southern California coast were ideal for it, curling and breaking relatively close to shore in four to five feet of water. But occasionally the waves were violent and unpredictable. One day, just a week before summer football workouts started at USC, Duke was showing off for some college coeds on the beach, and he caught a wave too late. Instead of gliding down its front, he was thrown around uncontrollably in the breaking foam and went crashing to the bottom, probably breaking his collarbone and separating his right shoulder. The next morning he could barely lift his arm.
For interior lineman, shoulder injuries are catastrophic. When summer drills started a week later, Duke tried to use his right shoulder, but the pain was excruciating. Coach Howard Jones noticed right away that Duke was hesitating on the blocking dummies and even avoiding use of the injured right shoulder by contorting himself to use his left. According to Eugene Clarke: "All hell broke loose. Jones accused the Duke of being yellow, of being afraid to block, and demoted him to the scrubs." Trainers tried to fit Duke with a shoulder harness, but it was no use. Duke recalled that he worked out all year "with a harness on my shoulder, but, Jesus, how it hurt." The shoulder needed months to heal, and his sophomore year as a football player was ruined.
The injury had other consequences. When Howard Jones dropped Duke from the regular team, he also lost training-table privileges—the one meal a day at which the team members ate their fill. "That was a disaster for the Duke," Clarke remembered. "Money was very tight for the Duke in those days." Clyde tried to help out, sending Duke five dollars a week whenever he could, but even that was not enough. Duke went to work nights at the telephone company for sixty cents an hour, plotting maps of existing telephone lines. He kept washing dishes, but over the course of the school year, he accumulated a good-sized debt for room, board, and dues at Sigma Chi. His fraternity brothers began pressuring him to clear the books, and he felt as he used to in Glendale when the landlords forced the Morrisons to move. The last thing he wanted was to live the way his parents had.

—John Wayne, American by Randy Roberts and James S. Olson

Ejgreen77 (talk) 01:35, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

John Wayne

John's daughter , Toni LaCava died a number of years ago . Tom Cherry formerly of Los Angeles and friend of the family — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.22.135.245 (talk) 20:24, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Backshooting folks.

Wayne must have forgotten about the campfire ambush scene in The Searchers when he claimed (when demanding the script changed in The Shootist) never to have backshot a man onscreen. In that sequence, his character, Ethan Edwards, is clearly shown shooting three men down, all shot while fleeing him. Even though two are backshot through the miracle of editing, Futterman, the first victim, is shot in-frame with Wayne and has clearly turned his back before Wayne fires and he falls from the rock he is standing atop. In fact, it is a minor plot point later in the film, specifically mentioned by Ward Bond's character as a matter needing to be cleared up, immediately prior to the climactic battle. RamblerReb (talk) 20:12, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

John Wayne was famous for shooting characters in the back and indeed was the first leading man to portray realistic western characters that had darker sides.

1. Paddy Samuels - 'McQ'. 2. Two Comancheros who ride up either side of the wagon during the final shootout in the movie 'Comancheros'.

3. A fleeing Indian in the movie 'Comancheros'. 

4. The three Futterman assassins in 'The Searchers'. 5. The kid during the big gunfight in "True Grit". 6. A fleeing deputy during the bridge shootout in "The Sons of Katie Elder". 7. The Indian that jumps on the stagecoach horses in the movie "Stagecoach". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.33.183.1 (talk) 16:54, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Shooting someone while they are fleeing dosen't count as a "backshot" kill, it counts as "putting down a coward" kill and no honour is lost on doing so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.160.45.95 (talk) 06:11, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

John Wayne’s military deferment WWII

Wayne cited his age of 34 as a condition for his exemption from service. This appears a disingenuous rationale considering the Selective Training and Service Act of 1940 (Burke-Wadsworth Act), set the upper limit at age 36, which was subsequently amended to age 37 in November 1942. These Congressional laws verify that Wayne was not too old too serve in the military.

Other Hollywood stars did take a hiatus from their lucrative film careers to serve in WWII. Clark Gable, who enlisted in August of 1942, was 41 years old at the time. Jimmy Stewart, who was inducted on March 23, 1944, was 33 years old. The studios were not pleased with “loosing” some of their top box office attractions but accommodated themselves to the patriotism of their stars.

Fat&Happy has been vigilantly patrolling the issue of Wayne’s draft status during WWII, consistently deleting the pertinent inline citation referencing the selective service law (s) in place at the time Wayne maintained he was to old to serve his country in uniform. Betempte (talk) 20:08, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps Betempte should become acquainted with concepts such as reliable sources, original research, and synthesis before continuing this particular avenue of POV-pushing. Fat&Happy (talk) 20:16, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Fat&Happy, your response totally evades the issue at hand. Your comment contradicts itself and in no way addresses the topic under discussion. The fact is that Wayne was within draft age and did not serve in the military. How can this be contested? Expanding understanding of a topic by supplying verifiable information aids the reader in contemplating a variety of material and arriving at their own conclusions. This is called “analytical” thinking… or to put it simply…freedom of thought…NOT POV. It is POV when an editor insistently censors material due to their own bias. Betempte (talk) 20:53, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

My response addresses the only issue at hand. If you had a minimal understanding of reliable sources and the difference between an encyclopedia and your personal blog, you would realize that. Fat&Happy (talk) 21:23, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

You should "realize" that again you repeat yourself and obscure the issue. The inline citation, which has been repeatedly deleted, is reliable source material. Check Wikipedia itself, Selective Training and Service Act of 1940 for additional confirmation— or are you, therefore, contesting the information provided in this corroborating Wiki entry? I can only infer from your multiple deletions that you refute not the reference material but its implications on the "character" of John Wayne. I recognize your loyalty to a personal belief system, uneasy with assimilating contradiction. However, this in no way conforms to encyclopedic standards or convention. Betempte (talk) 22:59, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

No question that Wayne opted not to serve in WW2 but the interesting question is why that was. Garry Wills (John Wayne's America) thinks it was so that he could drive up his career while most of the top leading men were in the service. It's fascinating to speculate about but of course we'll never know the real answer for sure, assuming there even was a real primary answer. In any case, he did eventually wind up as arguably America's foremost movie actor, and deservedly so given his performances in The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance and The Searchers. His sheer screen power in those two films, particularly Liberty Valance, evokes the likes of Lon Chaney, Sr. and Wallace Beery (Wayne's Oscar-winning performance in True Grit was actually an imitation of Beery, for that matter). Jump Forward Immediately (talk) 15:49, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Re: John Wayne's Legacy Section

I must be missing something in his biography.

It states that he died on June 11, 1979, but in the Legacy Section, it also states that he was posthumously awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom by Jimmy Carter on June 9 1980, and that he appeared at the Inaugural Ball.

So, if he died on June 11 1979, how come he was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom, and appeared at the Inaugural Ball on June 9 1980?

Thank You Caribman161 (talk) 03:17, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

The Inaugural Ball wasn't in 1980. Wayne attended that before he died. He was awarded the medal after his death. --Onorem (talk) 03:39, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

posthumously awarded. Cryellow (talk) 04:40, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

is that REALLY the best picture of john wayne that we can have for his wikipedia page??? I say we change it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.71.3.82 (talk) 05:08, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

link to John Wayne Movies

Hi, I added a link to several movies with John Wayne that are in the public domain. Much care has been taken on that site to insure that no films that have current copyright holders. Many of them are vetted via archive.org, and the scanned copyright office documents for the proper years are searched, along with the copyright office public catalog: http://cocatalog.loc.gov/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?DB=local&PAGE=First

I would appreciate any advice on proper methods and/or etiquette in this matter - I don't want to be misleading or out of order.

Jimbo Berkey Jimbo-Berkey (talk) 20:04, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi Jimbo. I did search your site for any copyright info but couldn't find anything. Is there a note somewhere saying that the hosted films are in the public domain? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:42, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

How is the links I inserted not better?

Bede735 reverted my edit because he thinks the links I inserted are not better. How are they not better? The link should be visible as "Palmdale", "California" and not "Palmdale, California". The only reason it is divided with a comma is because there are several localities with that name. The first type of links are more useful. For example, if you look at Usain Bolt's profile, you will se that it's better to write it as Kingston, Jamaica instead of Kingston, Jamaica.

The same thing with John Wayne's birtplace. Winterset, Iowa are better than Winterset, Iowa. --IRISZOOM (talk) 00:51, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

See WP:OVERLINK: "... the following are not usually linked ... the names of major geographic features and locations ..." Iowa is a "major geographic feature" and does not need to be linked. It is not immediately relevant to the subject of the article. Winterset, Iowa, however, links to the town of the subject's birth—relevant. Bede735 (talk) 01:16, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

That is your interpretation. I can't see that that refers to this type of links. I've seen many articles use the type of links I am using. However, after this discussion, I am not sure which is right so I will wait for others input. --IRISZOOM (talk) 01:35, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

His middle name?

"Actor John Wayne was born Marion Robert Morrison on May 26, 1907, in Winterset, Iowa. (Some sources also list him as Marion Michael Morrison and Marion Mitchell Morrison.)" Source.

I always thought his middle name was Michael, not Mitchell or Robert. Can his real middle name be verified–or, if it was Robert but later changed to Michael or Mitchell, can any of that be verified? 108.246.205.134 (talk) 19:44, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

It's Michael. I'm watching a documentary on UK television BBC2 right now in which he refers to himself as "Marion Michael Morrison" more than once, very clearly. The main page should be changed. - just found this quote from him to back this up, he says he was supposed to be called Mitchell but it ended up being Robert, so it later got changed to Michael. That's where 'Mitchell' came from - also looks like Michael was never officially his middle name - https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=nTyk9HIDeKIC&pg=PA7&lpg=PA7&dq=%22john+wayne%22+mitchell+or+michael&source=bl&ots=bK3nHqWRJ0&sig=k8mpkrR3DuTi7TlOUerjlkaGSqE&hl=en&sa=X&ei=UqemVN21No7naoeEgPAF&ved=0CDMQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=%22john%20wayne%22%20mitchell%20or%20michael&f=false

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.30.232 (talk) 14:05, 2 January 2015 (UTC) 

• The verification is included with the article at present. There are several citations noting the details of the facts regarding Wayne's original names. The citations note several sources which contain this information, notably the biography by Randy Roberts and James Olson. Along with Wayne's own unpublished autobiography (also cited), this seems quite sufficient as verification. Monkeyzpop (talk) 06:31, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

I think the controversy, based on at least one biography I've read (was it Garry Wills' splendid John Wayne's America, practically the one one really worth reading?) is based on Wayne's middle name being "Robert" on his birth certificate. Perhaps very shortly thereafter (who knows?) someone in the family decided that it should've been "Michael" instead, and that was the version that Wayne always gave when asked about it. Jump Forward Immediately (talk) 15:19, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Wayne and TV

• In Comedy cameos:

In The Lucy Show Lucille Ball gets so caught up with seeing barroom brawl with Wayne that she konks Wayne with a real bottle! http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0637454/ In The Beverly hillbillies when Milton Drysdale hires Hollywood Stuntmen to pose as fake "indians" to attack the Clampet Mansion Wayne has a cameo at the end to meet Granny who askes why John Wasnt there when they needed him! http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0522644/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.49.242.65 (talk) 15:03, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

John Wayne's last public appearance

 I've looked through the whole John Wayne article and I see no mention of his final public appearance.  I believe the article would benefit from the addition of a sentence indicating when and where it occurred.  I was thinking of adding something like:  "Wayne's last public appearance was on April 9, 1979 at the Academy Awards ceremony." I do have what I consider to be reliable sources to support this proposed addition:

• Duke, We're Glad We Knew You: John Wayne's Friends and Colleagues Remember His Remarkable life   by Herb Fagen page 230
• Easy Riders Raging Bulls: How the Sex-Drugs-And Rock 'N Roll Generation Saved Hollywood    by Peter Biskind page 372
• Los Angeles Times June 12, 1979

The way the article is currently structured, I don't see any named section where it would be appropriate to add the sentence; so I'm proposing placing it at the end of the lede.
 Before I make any changes to the article itself, I would appreciate input from other editors.  If you follow this article, or even if you just stumbled onto this posting, I would very much appreciate your opinion and suggestions.
Richard27182 (talk) 09:47, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

There have been no comments or suggestions, so I went ahead and made the proposed addition to the article.  If anyone disagrees with the edit, please discuss it here on the talk page.
Richard27182 (talk) 10:27, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Discrepancy

The article says Wayne went on to star in 142 pictures, but it also says he was relegated to small roles, so how many of those 142 roles were starring roles. Just saying Eurocus47 (talk) 18:44, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

"Legal problems with Duke University"

There's gotta be some better way of wording this, as the current title implies that he had problems with Duke as when he was alive. Does "posthumous legal problems..." sound better?.--Prisencolin (talk) 08:15, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Hate mail

Surely he must have received hate mail after "The Green Berets"? (81.159.6.240 (talk) 13:46, 15 March 2016 (UTC))

Was John Wayne gay

It just seems to me that he was, and then I stumbled on this too: http://ianundercover.com/2009/02/13/iuc-exclusive-the-duke-was-the-queen-of-hollywood/

Sure we cannot believe everything we read on the i'net but this seems credible.

After watching Liberty Valance I don’t think it’s just Poisoning the Well (that I believed that the Duke was a cross swordsman before examining his acting in the movie) – Wayne’s movements are just so circular and un he-man like in Valance, as compared to say, the straight (as in not circular) stiff movements of James Stewart, that it just seems obvious to me that Wayne was gay or at least bi. Definitely some sucre in that tank! Cryellow (talk) 04:38, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

This is VERY frustrating about all this Gay & Slanderous Bull Shit about a Great Man & Patriot. I met John Wayne when I was 16 years old at the Washoe Valley 7-11, between Reno Nevada & Carson city Nevada. My friend & I were on horse back as we were working Cattle at my Dads Ranch, so we cut and run for the 7-11 for some snacks, The Duke was there with the same Idea as he was filing "The Shootist" at Washoe lake. He was with Ron Howard. We all ate and talked for better than an hour. John Wayne was VERY nice and very intelligent. He speaks his mind, and is NOT afraid to defend the USA & the u.S. Constitution. He taught all his children the Preamble and the Constitution. From all indications the Duke was NOT a Nazi Nor was he Gay, and he is NOT a Racist. You can make up anything you want and twist it and trick it to frame him, and YOU who do this are just Jealous & your also cowards. As we finished our snacks, we mounted our Horses, John Wayne got into a Film Production Truck and waved as he drove away. My partner & I decided to see if we could catch him again so we raced to the south end of the Valley where they were filming. The Park Ranger saw us coming as all the dust we were raising. He asked what we were in such a hurry, and we told him we were trying to catch John Wayne, he said to late, they finishes filming, and went back to Carson City. I will never forget that day, when I met a Childhood Hero. I also met Clint Eastwood but that is another story, but with the attitude on here they probably think he is GAY to ! Retards!RSMP — Preceding unsigned comment added by SakeSama (talk • contribs)

Names?

I see three names being used on this page. Which one(s) is/are accurate?

Marion Mitchell Morrison and Marion Robert Morrison are in the first paragraph, and Marion Michael Morrison is under the photo.

Did he have all three middle names, or has there been a mistake in reporting? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.123.144.34 (talk) 18:33, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

The book Duke: The Life and Times of John Wayne, by Shepherd & Slatzer, reproduces a page from Wayne's 1925 Glendale High School yearbook (after p. 148), which shows his full name as Marion Mitchell Morrison ("Duke"). So that would appear to be the accurate name, unless the yearbook people got it wrong. I'm aware that the middle name on his birth certificate is "Robert", but my understanding is that he changed it at some point. I can't believe this hasn't been discussed before, but I don't have time at the moment to search through the archives. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 22:42, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on John Wayne. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110606022557/http://www.genealogy.com/famousfolks/john-wayne/d0/i0000094.htm to http://www.genealogy.com/famousfolks/john-wayne/d0/i0000094.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120501221905/http://glendalehigh.com/ghshistory.html to http://www.glendalehigh.com/ghshistory.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120403155326/http://www.apex.net.au/~mhumphry/wayne.html to http://www.apex.net.au/~mhumphry/wayne.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110724051935/http://www.portofpa.com/marinas/john-wayne-marina.html to http://www.portofpa.com/marinas/john-wayne-marina.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101108015633/http://www.jwcf.org/news/2006.html to http://www.jwcf.org/news/2006.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140508062041/http://johnwayne.org/mission/ to http://johnwayne.org/mission/
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.newsobserver.com/2014/10/01/4199413/john-waynes-heirs-lose-duke-legal.html?sp=%2F99%2F100%2F&ihp=1
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121006100228/http://www.goldenglobes.org/cecil60/ to http://www.goldenglobes.org/cecil60/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:14, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on John Wayne. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120505034704/http://www.seeing-stars.com/Buried2/PacificView.shtml to http://www.seeing-stars.com/buried2/pacificview.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:22, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

6.2 Cultural Image as an American icon

John Wayne's America in discussing the character his films created, Gary Wills wrote: "The Roman Empire constantly dreamed of John Wayne." Prologue, p. 23, John Wayne's America, Gary Wills, Simon & Schuster, 1998. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:6000:ED40:EA00:4E:1995:7B33:4076 (talk) 15:26, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

John Wayne and Birch Society

This article repeats a frequent error by claiming that Wayne was once a member of the John Birch Society. He was not!

Apparently, this rumor began because he may have made some comments about the Birch Society which were interpreted as meaning that he was a member -- but he never actually joined. Ernie1241 (talk) 02:57, 9 October 2017 (UTC)ernie1241Ernie1241 (talk) 02:57, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Marion Michael Morrison

There are several middle names used in this article. John Wayne's birth name was Marion Michael Morrison. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.59.252.141 (talk) 15:47, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on John Wayne. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120210030155/http://www.usc.edu/uscnews/stories/15465.html to http://www.usc.edu/uscnews/stories/15465.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111006041651/http://www.calcatholic.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?id=9e13fe4d-3aac-4aec-abab-032cc267b317 to http://www.calcatholic.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?id=9e13fe4d-3aac-4aec-abab-032cc267b317

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:32, 29 November 2017 (UTC)