Talk:James Stewart/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Jimmy

I'm intrigued as to why the entry for "James Stewart" is redirected here. The man's name was James Stewart, and he appeared in films as James Stewart. Surely Jimmy Stewart is just a nickname, and that's where the redirect should be, not under the proper name. user:Deb

He's credited as James Stewart, but in my experience he's universally known as Jimmy Stewart. See the section "Use common names of persons" under Wikipedia:Naming conventions. --Brion VIBBER, Saturday, July 13, 2002

There was discussion about this and the decision was to house articles at the most popular name with redirects from legal names if necessary. For that reason, Bob Dylan is the article and Zimmerman the redirect; Bill Clinton the article and William Jefferson is not, etc. Koyaanis Qatsi

I see. I suppose it must be an American thing, then, because in Britain he's less often called "Jimmy" - it's definitely not "universal". Bob Dylan's stage name is Bob Dylan; Stewart's is James Stewart. However, my main problem with this way of doing it is that there are other people called "James Stewart" - for example, most of the King James-es of Scotland, and also the Old Pretender. I think "James Stewart" should be a disambiguation page rather than a redirect. user:Deb

Kings and Queens have their own naming conventions established by JHK and others to prevent problems with ambiguity--for instance King James I of England, King James II of Scotland, etc. You should talk to JHK to find out what those conventions are; I haven't been following them. Who is the Old Pretender? I've never heard of him. Koyaanis Qatsi

Does this mean you don't mind if I change the "James Stewart" page to a disambiguation page, then?" user:Deb

I'm not worried about it really, if the Old Pretender (whoever he is) is also named James Stewart, but I don't know about the kings--I'm not up on my history and so I've been letting the people who are take care of that. (Better for me not to meddle in it). Koyaanis Qatsi

I just went through and changed the links to [[James Stewart (actor)|James Stewart]] to [[Jimmy Stewart|James Stewart]] to bypass the new disambiguation page (there were no links to that page that weren't for the actor). --Brion VIBBER, Sunday, July 14, 2002

I just did that again (about 10 more had been made since July). All the new [[James Stewart (actor)|James Stewart]]'s were meant for [[Jimmy Stewart]]. -- Someone else 19:02 Mar 29, 2003 (UTC)

USAF

he served in the U.S. Air Force in World War II and was heavily decorated.

It was the U.S. Army Air Force (USAAF) back then. It became the USAF in 1947.

Question for the military buffs present: is it customary to refer to the U.S. Air Force by that name when referring to periods before it came into existence as such? --Brion VIBBER

Actually prior to it being the USAAF, it was the Army Air Corps. I think for any reader concerned about it, the evolution is common knowledge. Being ex-Navy, I tend to refer to Army Air Corps at any time it's apopriate (to remind the "zoomies" of their humble beginnings). my favorite gag to pull on a USAF veteran, is when they say "When I was in the military..." I will stop them and ask "Oh you were in the military? I thought you were just in the Air Force." --Woolhiser 12:37, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

From 1926 to June 1941 it was the United States Army Air Corps and from June 1941 to 1947 it was the United States Army Air Forces (not United States Army Air Force). In 1947 the United States Air Force was made into a separate service. Stewart was in the USAAC in March 1941, 3 months before it became the USAAF. During the USAAF period, most people continued to call it the "Air Corps", even though it wasn't the correct name. Does that answer your question? --rogerd 13:17, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Somebody listed his being promoted to Major General by Pres. Reagan and references Public Law 108-375 sec. 563. I am not aware of this happening, and the referenced law refers to Chuck Yeager, not Jimmy Stewart. http://www.dod.mil/dodgc/olc/docs/PL108-375.pdf I'm changing this until further reference can be made. The closest thing I know to this happening was an interview I saw with Jimmy Stewart where Ronald Reagan, in his presidency, was asked by a reporter about Brig. Gen. Stewart, whom he corrected as being Major Gen. Jimmy Stewart later told the Pres. that the reporter was correct, but didn't want to speak up at the moment because "it sounded so good." Shawn 06:14, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Did Stewart participate in the Dresden raid? 69.108.67.193 15:08, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Nothing I've been able to dig up suggests that Stewart's unit was part of the Dresden raid. Monkeyzpop 17:58, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Appearance in World at War

I remember his appearance in World at War and was the one who mentioned his being identified only as "James Stewart, Squadron Commander", but was the segment specifically about the October 17, 1943 Schweinfurt Raid? He hadn't even arrived in theater at the time. Lyle F. Padilla (lpadilla@voicenet.com) 209.158.189.60 15:40, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

help me name the film

which James Stewart western is it where at the end of the film rock of ages is sung in the church and Stewart's youngest son `blue` walks in on crutches? anyone remember. The film where most of his family are killed and buried next to his wife in the graveyard in the garden

Shenandoah (1965) [1]--Kevin Myers 02:01, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)

American Aviators

Jimmy Stewart should be included in the category American Aviators.

Anyone know why he went on that bombing run over North Vietnam?

Anyone know why he went on that bombing run over North Vietnam?

To help win the war.

New books coming out

I did, in fact, find the Michael Munn book on Amazon.com, and also found that it was published by (a) a non-notable author (almost no Google presence), on a (b) non-notable publisher, and (c) it's Amazon entry had no comments. Combined, those things point to a non-notable book which is not good source material. Just because something's been published doesn't make it true (look at the New York Post or any of the gossip mags). My guess, is the guy who added it is either the author of the book or a fan/friend/family of the author or book. Volatile 17:44, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

And that is not to mention the fact that when you search for "Michael Munn" and "James Stewart" in conjunction on Google, you get the James Stewart wiki page! Incredible, right? Unless government documents or a legitimate book (written by at least marginally known writer on a relatively established publisher) is written, please leave this kind of libelous stuff out. Thank you. Volatile 17:50, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

So, it sounds like Volatile has a personal POV issue here. Facts:

• the book exists
• it makes some new, interesting claims about Jimmie

What's wrong with adding them, marked simply as claims? Does it somehow offend you, Volatile? That is not a good enough reason to not allow it. Even if these claims later prove untrue, Wiki should cover recent developments. Beanbatch 18:56, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Gossip is not good material for an encyclopedia, no matter how you cut it. And unsubstantiated claims don't belong in an encyclopedia either (I'm guessing this is the argument you're making). Also, the book, to the best of my knowledge, is not anywhere near a "bestseller" and hasn't created much of a debate anywhere. While I think the claims of a popular, if false or unproven, book may fly; this is by no means a popular or notable book. Is Michael Munn a Hollywood historian, an aviation historian, or just a guy from New Jersey who put two and two together and got five, so he decided to write a libelous (once again, that word) book? I'm willing to put this matter up for comment, but please use your common sense. Unsubstantiated "claims" have no place in an encyclopedia. If I still see this up here in a few days, it's going for comment. Volatile 23:56, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

• unsubstantiated: your opinion
• libelous: your opinion

Why does only your opinion count? I guess someone will have to read the book, and let us know if Munn's sources are reliable. Volatile, have you read it? I am not trying to defend the author or his work, I do not know either of them. I am just trying to defend the right to add "new claims" because they are interesting, as long as such claims they are labeled as "claims". I see no harm there. Beanbatch 20:11, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

I have no connection to the Munn author. I found this little bio on him here: [2] This is not his first book on Hollywood. He has several. Beanbatch 20:24, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Avoided making (fiction) War movies

I think it's worth noting that (Brigadier General) James Stewart, (combat veteran), avoided making (fiction) War movies during most of his career. There were two notable exceptions: (1) "How the West Was Won (film)", where he is just a dead body on the operating table at the battle of Shiloh, Tennessee, (1862). (2) "Shenandoah (film)", where he is a man who wants to avoid taking sides in the American Civil War until fate forces him to get involved. He does not kill anyone in the movie,but, he goes through extreme hardship and grief. I do not regard "Strategic Air Command (film)" as war movie,it's more of an attempt to deter war. Considering all the fiction war movies that were made after WWII, it is significant that James Stewart did not appear in any of them.204.80.61.10 18:20, 18 May 2006 (UTC)Bennett Turk

He starred in a war film called The Mountain Road. And he had no problem making right-wing propaganda like The FBI Story. (HarveyCarter 09:51, 10 February 2007 (UTC))

I recently saw "The Mountain Road" (1960) on the Military Channel. It is an low budget, mostly forgotten, fictional WWII film about US Army soldiers blowing up bridges and mountain pass roads in China to stop the advance of the Japanese Army. It gets almost no airplay on tv. It is unique in that the Japanese are not shown, and the climatic battle is between the Americans and Chinese bandits. This might be because in 1960, Japan was an ally of the USA and Communist China an enemy. It is not a film with a happy ending because James Stewart falls in love with a Chinese woman and she leaves him, because he gives into instinct and kills the bandits instead of avoiding an unnessary battle. It is not a typical WWII movie from the early 1960's and it certainly does not glorify killing people even if they are bandits, or wearing the uniform of the enemy nation.204.80.61.110 18:39, 29 May 2007 (UTC)Bennett Turk

Most war movies in the early 1960s were anti-war anyway. It was only in the years after World War II that they were still gung ho. (InLikeErrol 17:31, 15 June 2007 (UTC))

Vietnam Bombing run untrue

The following appears to be unsubtantiated by every other cite discussing Jimmy Stewart's career. Also, Jimmy Stewart would have been 58 in 1959, which is much too old to be making a bombing run. I deleted it, and also deleted the reference to it later in the paragraph. His final mission for the Air Force was a B-52 Stratofortress bombing run during the Vietnam War —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Musical Socrates (talk • contribs) 23:06, May 19, 2006 (UTC)

It is absolutely true. It is mentioned in Jimmy Stewart, Bomber Pilot by Starr Smith, who served with Stewart in WWII and knew him in the postyear wars. Stewart flew along as an observer and didn't participate in the mission. The book even has a photo of Stewart in the pre-mission briefing and another standing next to the B-52 after the mission. I have my copy of the book open as I read this. If you want to see more about the book, check this out. --rogerd 03:42, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

According to IMDB: "In 1966, two years before his retirement from the US Air Force Reserve, he requested and was given permission to follow as a non-duty observer on a mission over North Vietnam in a B-52. This has often, specifically on the internet, been mistaken as his last mission as a pilot. He never flew B-52 as a pilot, nor did he fly any combat mission at all as a pilot in Vietnam!"

I think this article should be changed, since now it gives an image that Stewart actually flew several missions during the Vietnam war. Latre 19:02, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

fixed. Night Gyr 01:19, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't think anybody should hold this against Stewart, because he was only following orders, and although he was a right-wing Republican he did not like violence.

Blacklisting

Removed the text in question from the article. First, the text is taken directly from IMDB.com - plagiarism. Then, the book sourced is of a dubious nature to begin with. With a little research, I've found that Michael Munn has published several "exposé" books/articles with little actual merit. On top of all of this, the book hasn't even been published yet. How can any statements on Wikipedia be sourced to this work if they can't be looked up and examined? The fact that "Barricade Books," the publisher, is a fairly new independent publisher who has published similar types of books ("The Real Law and Order," "The End of Food," ...) doesn't bode well for the authenticity of Munn's claims. Find a real source, preferably government documentation or a non-fiction book or article from an established author, and the statements would have some legitimacy. Volatile 06:09, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

The book has been published in the United Kingdom, and nobody has disputed it accuracy because they know Stewart was a right-wing act

Question about the First Film Unit association

I haven't changed the reference yet, but Starr Smith's biography "Jimmy Stewart : Bomber Pilot" does not support the statement that Stewart aligned himself with the First Film Unit in Hollywood. The only public appearances after he went into flight school were limited appearances scheduled by the air corps. "Stewart appeared several times on network radio with Edgar Bergen and Charlie McCarthy. Shortly after Pearl Harbor . he performed with Orson Welles, Edward G. Robinson, Walter Huston, and Lionel Barrymore in an all-network radio program called "We Hold These Truths," dedicated to the 150th anniversary of the Bill of Rights. But mostly, Stewart's days and nights were spent preparing for his upcoming flight tests, ground school, and academic examinations for his commission." (Page 31-32, softbound edition).

And, later, "Still, the war was moving on. For the thirty-six-year-old Stewart, combat duty seemed far away and unreachable, and he had no clear plans for the future. But then a rumor that Stewart would be taken off flying status and assigned to making training films or selling bonds called for his immediate and decisive action, because what he dreaded most was the hope-shattering spector of a dead end." (Page 49-50) So he appealed to his commander, a pre-war aviator, who understood, and reassigned him to a unit going overseas.

Doesn't sound like Jimmy had ANYTHING to do with the Hollywood unit...

Mark Sublette 04:07, 11 January 2007 (UTC)Mark SubletteMark Sublette 04:07, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Content out of place

Some of the content in the opening few paragraphs is listed twice, both in that opening section and in his biography section. This information, such as his birth location and his architecture interests, should only be present in the biography section. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fistful of Questions (talk • contribs) 02:01, 14 January 2007 (UTC).

Sexuality

When Jimmy arrived in Hollywood he had no girlfriend or interest in girls. It was such a worry to studio executives that he was forced to go to a brothel owned by Mayer and find a girl. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.212.41.196 (talk) 10:36, 17 January 2007 (UTC).

He probably was not gay or bi. Even if he was, there is no proof either way now that he is dead (aside from the fact he had a wife and children, which isn't necessarily conclusive). Volatile 00:40, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Since he "lived with Henry Fonda for years" that makes Fonda gay, too. Right? Arnold Schwarzenegger didn't marry until he was 39, so I guess that makes him gay? As for "Yes, it is believed he repressed his homosexuality for most of his life" (there seem to be a lot of unsigned comments in this section), I'd think that was a very droll and ironic comment except for the sinister "most." Nice way to imply there are skeletons in the closet. Perhaps he supressed his heterosexuality for part of his life? Gee, isn't this fun? And the less facts there are, the more fun we can have.--Paul 14:00, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, oh. Looks like he was part of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy!--Paul 21:25, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

It's a shame they don't make them like they used to.Isaac Crumm 12:28, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Military rank

A recent post indicated that there was a postumous promotion to Major-General. The Jimmy Stewart Museum which continues to keep up-to-date on any related events, has no knowledge of this. Bzuk 17:09, 3 March 2007 (UTC).

Alzheimer's disease

It is now known that the real reason Stewart became a recluse in 1994 was not so much because of his wife's death but also because Alzheimer's disease was oncoming. The article ought to mention this. (Gibsonism 16:51, 24 April 2007 (UTC))

Mention of Alzheimer's is already given. Bzuk 20:12, 24 April 2007 (UTC).

Military rank in opening sentence

I think it is wrong to open the article with his military rank. His main notoriety is for his Hollywood work, not his military career. I think it should be mentioned in the opening, perhaps even in the opening paragraph, but not in the first sentence. There are two members of congress (Steve Buyer and Lindsey Graham) who are reserve Colonels in the military (one grade lower that Stewart's), but their rank is not mentioned in the first sentence. Consensus, everyone? --rogerd 01:53, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

• I agree, and made a change which I think made sense: eliminating the rank from the opening sentence, since Stewart is not BEST known for his Air Force career, and giving it an entire sentence later in the opening paragraph. However, it seems not to be enough for whomever first put it in the opening sentence, as it has now been put back in the opening sentence, in boldface now, with the subsequent remark about his promotion to the rank still (now redundantly) in the same paragraph. Maybe we should call him Brigadier General James Stewart every single time he's mentioned, hmmm? Monkeyzpop 17:57, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

General Stewart should be referred as such in the first sentence. It is the appropriate form of address for a military officer. It is not needed in the following references but as an introduction it is a show of respect that he earned. I agree that his notoriety is as an actor but his title is his title. I have not edited the article yet but would like to and correct the form of address. 166.217.40.213 01:28, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

You will not have consensus for that change. To the public, he was first an actor and that is how this article is written. FWIW Bzuk 01:34, 15 August 2007 (UTC).

Not sure this is an issue of concensus in a way. Compare this to the page on pope john paul II that page starts with the proper form of address. To me this is a standard writing style issue along the lines of proper use of punctuation. Whether the first paragraph is about acting vs. military service is a concensus issue, not using the correct form of address is just a writing mistake. (Though you are probably right that I won't get concensus) 166.217.40.213 01:44, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Well Mr. 166.217.40.213 (ever thought of getting a username?), the issue has been brought up before and consensus was to leave the introductory passage as is but include his military rank in the paragraph. The introduction statement was not put to a consensus request but it resulted from a number of reverted edits that established the accepted practice. FWIW Bzuk 02:17, 15 August 2007 (UTC).

How about precedence? Neither Ulysses S. Grant, nor George S. Patton, nor Erwin Rommel, nor George Washington, nor Robert E. Lee, nor Omar Bradley, nor Stonewall Jackson, nor Curtis LeMay, nor John J. Pershing have their ranks included in their names in the opening sentences of their Wikipedia entries. Why should Stewart be the exception to the list, especially when it is clear that the encyclopedic style is consistent throughout most encyclopedias of the world, and fairly consistent even in the anybody-can-contribute world of Wikipedia? He is no less honored for his military achievements in the first paragraph, in terms of their inclusion, than is George Washington. Would you also have Lee Marvin's entry read in the first paragraph "Private Lee Marvin was an Academy-Award-winning actor....?" Let's stick to encyclopedic form and a consistency of style, which is well established already. Monkeyzpop 03:27, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Tom Slick and the Yeti hand

Sumggled a Yeti hand for Tom Slick... in 1959? The link to Tom Slick says Slick wasn't even born until 1962.... something is not right there.... ?

That's dead in 1962, not born. {:0}) Bzuk 21:35, 10 June 2007 (UTC).

The Pangboche Hand story is quite well documented. It's no urban myth. --Scottandrewhutchins (talk) 22:17, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Tabloids vs. Encyclopedias

My question is why is the sexuality relevant? Why should we quess if he was gay or state that he father a child that was aborted by Marlene Dietrich. Neither of these items can be proved, they are items for the tabeloids - not for an encyclopedia. Lizvas 19:41, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with this assessment, and am going to remove the rumor section once again. --Paul 19:32, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

However, there is quite a bit of dispute between biographers whether the entire story was:

1. Fabricated by Dietrich
2. A true incident that showed Stewart in a good light
3. A concocted rumour denied by both Dietrich and Stewart

If a mention of the Dietrich pregnancy is made, there should be adequate citing of the various opinions. FWIW Bzuk 12:56, 20 July 2007 (UTC).

Dietrich barely includes Stewart in her Marlene Dietrich: My Life autobiography and makes no mention of a pregnancy. Donald Dewey does not include the "rumour" in his authoritative James Stewart: A Biography, neither does Jhan Robbins in A Biography of Jimmy Stewart (he only devotes two pages to her) nor does Roy Pickard in Jimmy Stewart: A Life in Film. FWIW Bzuk 18:04, 20 July 2007 (UTC).

Be sure to cite the source when you make the entry but be aware that other biographers do not support this view. FWIW Bzuk 19:55, 21 July 2007 (UTC).

Requested move

James Stewart (actor) → James Stewart — The legendary actor is the primary use of this name so (actor) isn't necessary. There are plenty of other James Stewarts, but most people searching for "James Stewart" would expect to see an article about the actor, there is already a disambiguation link to James Stewart (disambiguation) for anyone looking for any other people called James Stewart. —Saikokira 18:30, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

• Oppose. I think seven Kings of Scotland have prior claim to the name. -- Arwel (talk) 23:12, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment, The editor is not asking for "James Stewart" -> "Jimmy Stewart" he/she is asking for "James Stewart (actor)" -> "James Stewart" --Paul 00:16, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I misunderstood, still oppose as there needs to be some rationalization. James Stewart (actor) is the best compromise. FWIW Bzuk 04:40, 8 August 2007 (UTC).

• Totally Oppose. Bearing this name are six Scottish kings, two English kings, a pretender, two Scottish dukes (including an archbishop), three earls, two congressmen, three MPs and the very first person ever to bear the name, named in honour of St James of Santiago de Compostela. The actor is nowhere near as important as any of these guys, but of course we're talking about usage. Don't think this actor is best known as James Stewart anyway, but Jimmy Stewart. I'd dispute too, and partly for that reason, that the actor is primary usage of this popular name. Page should go back to a dab page that it was before it was unilaterally moved some months ago, and if anything this page should be moved to Jimmy Stewart. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 05:11, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

Since this call for a consensus-driven move was launched months ago and hasn't picked up traffic, I would like to close the discussion now under the Wikipedia:Snowball clause (it hasn't got a snowball's chance in hell to succeed!). FWIW Bzuk 05:15, 15 October 2007 (UTC).

Someone went and moved it anyways. I guess consensus doesn't count. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 12:22, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Military Service

May I suggest that BG Stewart's military carear recieve its own seperate section from his acting carear. This it can recieve its own highlight without it being hidden or obscured by his other notible achievements.

I've rewritten the opening portion of the military section, because it consists of some excessively complex sentences, and because it was written in far too folksy a manner for an encyclopedia. WP style calls for simplicity and objectivity, something not served by saying "another Stewart would be in uniform" instead of "he served in the military." Yes, the latter is plain where the former is kind of colorful, but that isn't appropriate here. Stating that it was "inevitable" that Stewart would end up a military pilot is not objective, but colloquially subjective. I also don't see why the information about his being a trained pilot needs to be cluttered with the fact that he lost a civilian air race. I'm leaving it because the originating editor seems rather badly to want it and I don't think it's worth an edit war. But it's of no more pertinence to the point being made (that Stewart became a military aviator after having been a civilian one) than to list the destinations of his civilian flights or the type of planes he flew on those flights. It would fit VERY well in another section not devoted to his military career. But I'll leave that up to others. Monkeyzpop 07:34, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

It is not POV to write that due to his interest in flying was the reason for joining the USAAC, and that he was becoming proficient in flying. From Smith's biography, it is clear that Stewart devoted considerable time to becoming a pilot and rose to some prominence as an "expert" pilot, thereby the reason for his becoming a race pilot is now notable. He also went to considerable lengths to disguise his proficiency when he entered flight training, fearing that his background would inevitably be used against him. The prevailing notion at the time in the U.S. military was that accepting "celebrity" draftees and volunteers was a problem area. What if they were lost in battle? The loss of Carole Lombard on a war bonds tour even though she was not in the military caused a nation-wide grieving. Stewart believed that because of his skills as a pilot he would be kept in the United States as an instructor, far away from a combat zone, which was exactly what happened as one commanding officer after another, recognized that Stewart was a valuable commodity and was reluctant to send him off to war, with all the damaging press that would result if he would have been shot down or killed in action. BTW, I am a professional writer and editor by trade and I appreciate the backhanded compliments? in that you have characterized my editing as "colourful (note Canajan spelling)." Seriously, I have no issues about having my work edited; I only want to make the reader aware that Stewart had a passion for flying, became more than a proficient pilot and tried his best to live up to his family's record as soldiers who "took up the call". Whoops, there I go again, sorry, colourful language and idioms are hard to eliminate in a writer who makes his living from dolling up dross. [:¬∆ FWIW Bzuk 13:38, 7 November 2007 (UTC).

I didn't find the information POV, I found the expression of it subjective. The "wordsmithing" you've done allays every one of my concerns, and the section now reads perfectly in tune with encyclopedic style, IMNSHO :) Monkeyzpop 23:46, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Command Pilot

Is Mr. Stewart a command pilot?
What kind of pilot badge he wore? :D 59.121.169.196 14:06, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

External links, Life magazine

Can someone look at this user, Gregglbk, and the fact that he keeps adding a commercial link to this article? It is merely a link to sell back issues of Life magazine:

• Jimmy Stewart LIFE Magazine issues by OriginalLIFEmagazines.com

I have removed it once, but he has returned it. If you look at his user history, you will see all he does is add links to his commercial site on Wiki. Thanks. K72ndst (talk) 16:50, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Born on... ???

I always thought he had been born on May 20th, as the main text says. But lo and behold: the man featured on the photo within the article - one would naturally assume it's the same man who is the subject of the text - was born on August 5th, according to the caption. Unless James Stewart had an identical twin born three months after him - which should then be identified as such in the caption - I suggest the data to be corrected...

Oh and BTW, I don't think that statements such as "in an effort to make him lose his virginity in no time" (without any citation, to boot) really belong in an encylopaedia... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.61.80.196 (talk) 06:47, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Stewart's racism

All you need do is submit a clear citation with your information, and it will be allowed to stay. --Scottandrewhutchins (talk) 19:07, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Read lengthy discussion above where the issue was discussed and does not have a clear-cut consensus within the large body of historians/biographers. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 19:20, 14 December 2007 (UTC).

See WP:POV --Scottandrewhutchins (talk) 19:40, 14 December 2007 (UTC).

Also see the comments and discussion earlier; there is considerable doubt... Bzuk (talk) 14:34, 15 December 2007 (UTC).

There is no need to comment in that fashion to your fellow editors, please be civil. There isn't any consensus among historians that Stewart was a racist. To add such content requires verifiable non trivial sources and a consensus to add same.--Sandahl 21:20, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Please present non trivial references for that but it's still he said/she said unless it's reliable.----Sandahl 03:38, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

See considerable commentary in earlier discussions. Most of Stewart's biographers do not put much credence to inneundo and rumours. Strode disavowed the popular misconception of Stewart's racism. Ford poked fun at Stewart's staid and conservative views but did not consider him a racist. Gershe merely recalls, "Stewart was unbcomfortable with black people." These are not statements that can be classified as describing extreme racism. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 21:48, 16 December 2007 (UTC).

This is a question that has been addressed previously and no consensus was reached as various sources are in contradiction. Scottandrewhutchins, Sandahl have made valid points. A very contentious issue such as this needs to have clear-cut, verifiable and authoritative sources along with a consensus-driven decision. Forcing WP:Point and WP:Fork submissions are involved. FWIW, Wikipedia does not work well as a "soapbox" forum, the project was developed with an encyclopedic focus.

Please note the following:

This article has been a frequent source of heated debate. Please try to keep a cool head when commenting here.

I will move these tags to the talk page headers afterwards. Bzuk (talk) 22:19, 16 December 2007 (UTC).

The remarks by 172.159.24.203 are the third set of efforts in as many days to insert inflammatory material into this and other articles. His previous attempts by means of altering his IP address have been blocked, as have a chain of attempts under various Usernames stretching back over a couple of years. The wording (exact in many cases) and tenacious targeting of specific articles suggests, extremely strongly, that this is the HarveyCarter sockpuppet, whose various aliases have been blocked at least 28 times. (See Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/HarveyCarter (6th).) Reasoned discussion and suggestions for how to make his submissions acceptable are lost on him, as he appears to be both a troll and a fanatic. I suggest that blocking, not discussion, is the only means of dealing with him which will have any positive effect. Many, myself included, have attempted to discuss calmly these issues, and many, myself included, have been vilified by him as a result. Monkeyzpop (talk) 22:47, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Since the new section on racism is already tagged twice as unsupported by authoritative references and pushing a POV, my suggestion is to remove it entirely. Comments? Bzuk (talk) 15:00, 22 December 2007 (UTC).

Agreed, and done. -- Arwel (talk) 00:16, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I hope this is the end, but in case this rears its head again, I support it being removed and staying removed. Stewart was not "notably" racist and the level of detail it was given in the article suggested that WP is being used as a soapbox, (not acceptable) and which also placed undue emphasis on one element of Stewart's character. That it is an allegation rather than an absolute fact makes it even more insidious. Considering that Stewart was born and raised and lived most of his life in a society that segregated and mistreated people from various ethnic backgrounds, unless it can be demonstrated that his behaviour was somehow significant or influential within that society, it does not require inclusion. Rossrs (talk) 03:25, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I am the one who tagged the section as NPOV, so obviously, I agree with the removal. It was not only skewed, it was sensationalized and comprised mostly of unsourced quotes. Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:29, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Submissions from banned, sock/meat puppets of banned editors are summarily dismissed. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 16:36, 27 December 2007 (UTC).

Disruptive submissions from banned, sock/meat puppets of banned editors are summarily dismissed. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 16:36, 27 December 2007 (UTC).

If every biography you've read states that he was a racist, then Wikipedia can also state it, and you should have no difficulty providing multiple references. If, on the other hand, every biography you've read describes behaviour that you interpret as racist, Wikipedia can also describe that behaviour, but taking that extra step to label it racist is your own synthesis of the facts and is not acceptable since it constitutes Original Research. "Accustations of racism"? Accusations by who? --Rlandmann (talk) 19:56, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Semi-protection

My suggestion is to use Semi-protection if there is continued vandalism from anonymous users. (I have an account :D ) Comments? 59.115.167.250 (talk) 16:10, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd support semi-protecting this page for a while -- at least long enough to get this sockpuppeter to get bored. Ashdog137 (talk) 21:36, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Time to look at a wide range of film/celebrity articles for additional attacks. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 21:38, 28 December 2007 (UTC).

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) 07:35, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Gallery

The use of a gallery as well as a link to the Wiki Commons gallery is redundant as well as looking awful on this page. If other editors do not object, I am about to dump the gallery. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 12:34, 5 April 2008 (UTC).

I see some revision has taken place, why not put all the images into the Commons gallery? Gallery sections are not the usual practice in a bibliography. Bzuk (talk) 12:55, 5 April 2008 (UTC).

Page Protection re Allegations of Racism

I see this topic has arisen again. I've protected the article, having removed an unsourced allegation. Per WP:NPOV & WP:RS this requires careful handling. If a reliable source can go be found, it can be cited. Meanwhile, it must stay out. I leave it to the editors of this page to achieve consensus here, failing which, WP:DR is the place to go. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 20:05, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

It's an interesting dilemma. This is obviously the HarveyCarter sockpuppet, banned in his many, many guises. His wording is virtually identical in every attempt on each article he "contributes" to, and his agenda is unchanging, unyielding, and aggressive: that most of the heroic male figures in Hollywood history were homophobic, racist, cowardly, or combinations of all three. (He recently made similar remarks about Charlton Heston's "racism" and "homophobia," probably the single most laughably wrong-headed additions he has ever made to WP.) So what do we do about an agenda/POV-driven contributor who occasionally digs up a citation, even if that citation has agenda problems of its own? He's obviously learning that he will be consistently banned when identified as a sock, and still manages to edit. And he's learned that he has to cite, even if the cites are sometimes dubious. Is it possible to permanently protect a page against IP-only editors? That seems a bit extreme, yet a look at the history of the articles on Randolph Scott, John Wayne, Cary Grant, James Stewart, Charlton Heston, and many others suggests that there is a real problem here. WP users must attend to a combination of aggressively argumentative and POV edits and the rare useful one, and must attend so with enormous frequency and expenditure of time and energy. I'm exhausted by it, personally, in the sense that I sometimes think I'll give up the vigilance. But when we do that, WP becomes the graveyard of fact and a "reliable" source of information edited only by people with dubious axes to grind. Monkeyzpop (talk) 22:52, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I concur, and even more importantly, due to a younger generation being highly susceptible to accepting sources such as Wikipedia (IMDb, others), there is already a growing perception that all these celebrities had personal demons. There needs to be a means of protecting the main pages while allowing the IP editor to extend a hand through the talk pages. If there are legitimate contributions, an established editor can take those on the talk page. This has become a dilemna even beyond the film project group as I have exxperienced the same type of revisionist attacks on Amelia Earhart, Charles Lindbergh, Abraham Lincoln and a host of other "hot button" articles such as Barack Obama. This may be one of the growing pains that Wikipedia may have to address. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 23:03, 13 April 2008 (UTC).

AFI 100 Years... series

This section seems out of place in the body of the article, as a matter of fact, it doesn't belong in the article at all as it is a list of trivia. Can we restrict the plaudits, to actual awards presented to Stewart and not those endowed to the films in retrospect? EraserGirl (talk) 12:42, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

On Golden Pond

I've deleted the uncited reference to Stewart being offered the role of the father in On Golden Pond before Henry Fonda. Without a citation, it's hard to go against the extremely well-publicized statements of Jane Fonda, the film's producer, that she bought the rights to the film in order to act in it with her father. She talked about that in practically every interview she gave around the time of the film's release. (Note WP's own article on the film and this reference: "Barbarella comes of age", The Age, 14 May 2005. "If Barbarella was an act of rebellion, On Golden Pond (1981) was a more mature rapprochement: Fonda bought the rights to Ernest Thompson's play to offer the role to her father.") Monkeyzpop (talk) 08:24, 25 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

Edit-Warring

...it's unhelpful. For some reason this page had become protected although it doesn't show in the protection log. There's no apparent reason for protection, and I have removed it. Since all editors can now strive for consensus here, there is no need to edit-war via edit summaries, particularly provocative ones. I'm not going to involve myself in a content dispute, but I will offer my opinion, FWIW. "Politics" - Stewart's support of Nixon & Regan is reliably and verifiably sourced; the NYTimes is regarded as trustworthy. "Referred to as Jimmy" - maybe true, but is unsourced and I don't see how it can be unless this is documented somewhere. "Fired a black actor" - is this really part of his "personal life"? I doubt it, and wonder why it is sought to be included. If it's to show that Stewart was racist, then it's flimsy, even if that conclusion can safely be drawn from the source, which I am unable to check peersonally. If it were me, I'd cite WP:UNDUE and say it's a WP:POINTy addition of little relevance anywhere. The criticism itself should preferably be cited, and if available, Stewart's response. Further edit-warring may result in sanctions, but please try and reach consensus first. --Rodhullandemu 16:41, 6 June 2008 (UTC) I apologise if this is the wrong place to raise this question. Presumably someone will delete it if it is. I suspect the page was locked because it was subjected to particularly silly vandalism at one point, with a claim that Stewart was bald and a lot of detail about this. I assume there was no truth whatever in this but having read it once it stuck in my mind. I can't find a record of it being removed. Given the importance Wikipedia now has as the first place people look for information, should there be a sort of locked area in which a record is kept is definitively false statements which have appeared on site and been removed? It might make it a bit harder for peopl;e like HarveyCarter to spread falsities.

Sense?

I think this statement is very confusing: "It was Stewart's fifth film of the year and that rare film shot in the story's sequence; it was completed in only 27 days." What does the second "it" refer to? The film? The film shot? The semi-colon is used incorrectly, too. I suggest removing the line completely - Thoughts? -CaptainJae (talk) 17:36, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Appropriate illustration

There has recently been a "slow" edit war over the illustration of James Stewart in the infobox. Since it is the "lead" photograph, there has been considerable controversy over the choice as to what is apt. Please make your cases here rather than engaging in a revert conflab. Read WP:BRD in order to structure the description. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 15:03, 17 August 2008 (UTC).

• "Jimmy Stewart.jpg" is a face in profile. Stewart hadn't started his film career then in "Jimmy Stewart.jpg".
• Movie stills of John Wayne, Henry Fonda, Cary Grant, Clark Gable, Gary Cooper, Gregory Peck....are also used as "lead" photographs. It's irrational to insist using photo in "real life" only.
• 90.198.115.94 is sockpuppet of indefinitely banned user Patkirkwoood (see the revision history of the talk page), who have committed many image-related vandalisms. As per wikipedia policy, any edits made in defiance of a ban may be reverted to enforce the ban, regardless of the merits of the edits themselves. CDChen (talk) 16:50, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Though not a party to the reverts, I am in complete agreement with CDChen as to the merits of the film still over the Van Vechten photo. Encyclopedias, even online encyclopedias, in part exist in order to provide rapid and easily understood information on a subject. It is much easier to recognize and identify the Stewart film still than it is the Van Vechten photograph, which appears to be from a period prior to Stewart's greatest fame and is a terrible choice for the primary identifying photograph of the subject. I only wish someone would come up with a good WP-approved film still of Peter O'Toole to replace the "real-life" photo desecrating O'Toole's article. Monkeyzpop (talk) 07:16, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

• Somewhat strangely, 90.198.115.94, whom I have now blocked for six months, claims to be Swedish, yet did not respond to my request- in Swedish- for an explanation of her edits. Nuff said. --Rodhullandemu 23:20, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Woody Strode remarks

This is NOT vandalism, but the supposed remarks actor Woody Strode made in Michael Munn's biography of John Wayne should not be mentioned in the article, because while he praises Stewart in that book, he is also quoted as saying that Stewart was a racist in Munn's biography of Stewart. Munn's tabloid-style books are comprised of alleged interviews with celebrities who have been dead for many years, I don't believe they should be considered proper sources. (92.11.111.133 (talk) 08:28, 18 November 2008 (UTC))

I agree that Munn's work is not up to the level of scholarship expected of references in this article. I see the cite as serving Munn rather than shedding light on James Stewart. I will be taking the Strode comments out until we find another source. Binksternet (talk) 19:20, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I concur. It seems the only editor keen on adding this material is the community-banned User:HarveyCarter, whom I have just blocked (again) as an IP. His edits are revertable on sight but it is also fine for editors to form consensus that Munn is not a reliable source. --Rodhullandemu 19:33, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Regardless of whether Stewart was a racist or not, I don't think any of Munn's books should be used on this site. It doesn't make sense that he would quote Strode as saying that Stewart wasn't a racist in one book, and then quote him as saying that the star was racist in another book. (92.12.122.32 (talk) 14:10, 27 November 2008 (UTC))

The word 'propaganda'

Stewart's film Winning Your Wings is definitely propaganda. The film does not rely completely on an intellectual representation of facts in order to convince young men to take up flying in the military--it includes a fictional scene in which a man who joins the US Army Air Force is able to sweep a female companion away from another guy who is in uniform but doesn't have the aviator pin or 'wings'. It shows how much a fictional family and "girl next door" would be impressed by a guy wearing wings. This is classic propaganda methodology.

The article List of Allied propaganda films of World War II includes Winning Your Wings. The article Winning Your Wings describes it as propaganda.

The article Propaganda describes its subject as "...the dissemination of information aimed at influencing the opinions or behaviors of large numbers of people. ... Propaganda often presents facts selectively (thus lying by omission) to encourage a particular synthesis, or gives loaded messages in order to produce an emotional rather than rational response to the information presented. The desired result is a change of the cognitive narrative of the subject in the target audience to further a political agenda." The film Winning Your Wings is aimed at influencing behaviors of large numbers of people, it presents facts selectively and offers a loaded message in order to produce an emotional response. The agenda of the film is most certainly political. Binksternet (talk) 05:28, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Check it out yourselves:

• Winning Your Wings complete 17:33 short film on Google

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:James Stewart/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Needs citing ....(Complain)(Let us to it pell-mell) 06:28, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Last edited at 13:39, 21 June 2010 (UTC). Substituted at 20:34, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

heart attack

"Stewart died of a heart attack caused by the embolism at the age of 89,[354]"

As a doctor, this sentence seems implausible. Heart attacks are caused by coronary artery disease. Pulmonary emboli don't cause coronary artery disease. Instead they are thrombi in the pulmonary arteries. They can cause cardiac arrest and subsequent death if the pulmonary embolus is large enough.

Per Merriam Webster "Definition of heart attack

an acute episode of coronary heart disease marked by the death or damage of heart muscle due to insufficient blood supply to the heart usually as a result of a coronary artery becoming blocked by a blood clot formed in response to a ruptured or torn fatty arterial deposit"

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:B530:5090:E9F6:42E2:F15:DB3F (talk) 02:51, 25 December 2021 (UTC)