Jump to content

Talk:Clint Eastwood/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

Note on a RfC about "military careers"

There is currently a discussion and a RfC on Mel Brooks's article about his so-called "military career," noted by an infobox module. Since his military service, similar to that of Don Rickles, was for a few years and before their actual careers began, inserting a massive module in the standard infobox, as in this article, seems both misleading and erroneous. For Eastwood, his "military career" module takes up about 25% of the infobox, while his notability and professon was mostly as an actor. And like the others, he never had a "military career."--Light show (talk) 02:09, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 47 external links on Clint Eastwood. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 15:14, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Inappropriate removal

Kas42 has removed Eastwood's Republican affiliation from the infobox, even though it is sourced in the article. I have asked Kas42 to restore it, but I get no cooperation. I don't want a 3RR violation, so I would appreciate it if someone would restore it. Sundayclose (talk) 02:22, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 20 external links on Clint Eastwood. 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:

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 11:01, 19 May 2017 (UTC)


Politics

The politics section is far too long. There isn't this much detail in John Wayne's article, and his political views were much more controversial than Eastwood's. (86.180.135.186 (talk) 12:31, 12 March 2017 (UTC))

So what? They are two completely different people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 51.9.118.17 (talk) 00:37, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Death?

A youtuber is claiming that Clint Eastwood died today. Is this just a rumor? John Alan Elson★ WF6I A.P.O.I. 02:32, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

No, it's a hoax - FlightTime (open channel) 02:41, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
Apparently there is a hoax edition of CNN International. Dr. K. 03:00, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

My suspicions shot up 10 fold when I found out that cnn-globalnews.com is owned by a Company in Singapore! https://whois.icann.org/en/lookup?name=cnn-globalnews.com John Alan Elson★ WF6I A.P.O.I. 03:05, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

A rather sophisticated prank, complete with official-looking celebrity tweets and CNN-like news banners. Dr. K. 03:09, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Not to mention that the youtuber uses the name ChemTrailsMN and yet there are people who posted comments less than an hour ago expressing their sense of loss as if they thought the story was legit! Of course I pointed out that it was still only 8 p.m. in CA and Clint might be up and reading the comments, laughing himself silly at how gullible those people are! John Alan Elson★ WF6I A.P.O.I. 03:15, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Yup. The chemtrails username alone should have set off alarm bells for anyone looking at that video. Dr. K. 03:24, 21 June 2017 (UTC)


The first thing I did was to come here and look at his page. When I saw no death notice, I knew something was wrong. Checked other sources ... nothing! John Alan Elson★ WF6I A.P.O.I. 04:21, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Early life

Edit is self-explanatory and sourced [1]. Opposing editors fail to articulate a reason not to include content [2], and demonstrate incompetence [3] as well as a complete lack of knowledge about the page they're editing [4]. This is a clear example of abusing privilege. In another revert, opposing editor puts inapplicable label in edit summary [5]. Source for content can be viewed directly here [6]. This shouldn't even be up for debate, but ze and ze have continuously reverted. Attempt to resolve matter on BLP Noticeboard has been ignored [7]. Kas42 (talk) 01:11, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

You messed up the sourcing though as well.♦ Dr. Blofeld 06:16, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Clint Eastwood. 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:

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 14:07, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Consensus to add picture of Eastwood as Dirty Harry

Since it is regarded in the article "as being arguably Eastwood's most memorable character" I feel it will be beneficial to the article to add a picture of Eastwood playing Dirty Harry from the movie,

File:Harry Callahan.JPG70.44.154.16 (talk) 22:56, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Support, for the reasons you outline -- but I think the caption should read "As the title character in Dirty Harry (1971)". — Hugh 23:31, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

It's copyrighted. I don't know why the current photo is an improvement on File:ClintEastwoodCannesMay08.jpg either, he looks like an old oompa lumpa in it!. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:55, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Its allowed to be used on this page for the reasons provided on Commons. 70.44.154.16 (talk) 20:38, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Personal Life section needs organization

Clint Eastwood is credited with relationships with a number of women and with siring a number of children; however, it is hard to see the forest for the trees. I added a topic paragraph to cover the wives. Paragraphing should clarify the major affairs and children into groups. There could be a paragraph which begins: "The major affairs reported include . . ." with a list of names and time periods. Eastwood had children by X women with a list of names of women and children with each. The article would be improved by a list of the women with whom Eastwood cohabited. There could be a paragraph on wives, a paragraph on cohabitation partners, and major affair women with whom he did not cohabit. Paragraphs should be of manageable length and sufficient focus. (PeacePeace (talk) 20:23, 31 October 2017 (UTC))

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Clint Eastwood. 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:

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 04:57, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

The Schikel citations are defective: no title for the book, no date

Whoever wrote the article should supply dates and titles for the Schikel citations. Present tense should not be used, especially based on a book published in the 1990s. If it were true to say back then that Eastwood flies a helicopter regularly, it is probably false by now and should be changed to past tense, like "in the year XXXX, Eastwood was flying a helicopter." (PeacePeace (talk) 14:11, 12 May 2018 (UTC))

The title and date of the book are in the biography: it is not "defective". – SchroCat (talk) 15:33, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Career, Relationships, and Politics sections needs more summary style

Since there are separate articles for each decade of Eastwood's career, his relationships, and his political life, it make sense that those articles should be devoted to the bulk of those specific topics. The sections about his career, relationships, and his politics in this article are unnecessarily redundant and verbose. Each decade of his professional career ought be be summarized in a paragraph here, as should his relationships and political activities. — btphelps (talk to me) (what I've done) 08:50, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

So you've added a "too detailed" tag on the article, while at the same time adding trivia to it? Seems an odd way to deal with trivial detail! As to trying to divide a biography by decade, that's a practice I've seen before, and it's the laziest and least useful approach. People's lives don't neatly break into decades, and splitting at decade end--during a 'phase' of a life--only confuses rather than assists. - SchroCat (talk) 12:14, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for input and interest. I agree, the article split by decades seems arbitrary. I split off the 50s because it fit the pattern of how the article is currently organized. As I've gotten more familiar with the content over the past few days, I am finding an incredible amount of overlap between the main article, the decade-specific articles, and even articles about the movies he's appeared in. For example, the article Clint Eastwood in the 1970s is comprised of excessive detail solely about the movies he made in that decade instead of focusing on Eastwood's part in each movie. In the article Clint Eastwood in the 1980s, there is a section titled Filmography, which also--although more succintly--describes his role in a number of movies. This Filmography is in addition to the article Clint Eastwood filmography. In Clint Eastwood in the 1990s, it too describes the various movies he made, but adds little to understanding him as a person or actor. There is an excessive amount of detail in many of the articles, padded by lengthy quotes from Eastwood and excerpts from bios and interviews.
I haven't studied the many articles thoroughly, but I see that most of the decade articles ('50s, '60s, '70s and '80s) rely significantly on a single source (McGilligan, Patrick (1999). Clint: The Life and Legend).
Generally, I see two big problems:
  • The excessive amount of almost fawning detail veers over into promotional fandom.
  • WP is not intended to replace a published biography. WP as a summary. I think the content could be considerably reduced.
My instinct is to delete most of the voluminous recitation of details about his many film projects. If there is some content that isn't currently found in the individual movie articles, move it there. However, I am not willing to commit to an overhaul of all of the several articles. As it currently stands, I don't believe the main article still qualifies for GA status. Maybe de-listing it would stimulate some added interest in improving it and the sub-articles. — btphelps (talk to me) (what I've done) 19:38, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Actor-politician

I found that this article is in the American actor-politicians category, despite the fact that in one of its parent categories, Clint Eastwood is specifically mentioned as an example of someone who is not an actor-politician. I'm removing the category for now. --ElKabong888 (talk) 06:08, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Possibly Incorrect Claim

It is stated "Letters from Iwo Jima was the first American film to depict a war issue completely from the view of an American enemy." All Quiet on the Western Front (1930) was American produced and from the point of view of the Germans. I suppose the the sentences claim hinges around it being completely from the point of view of the enemy, which is a bit subjective. 

--The Great Balto-Slav (talk) 17:22, 16 August 2019 (UTC) The Great Balto-Slav 16:25, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 September 2019

Clint Eastwood is not dead He's still alive your article says he's dead on 8 september 2019. It's incredible that you allow those hoaxes to spread without checking the facts. Shame on you. 87.15.33.221 (talk) 14:35, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Vandalism reverted. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇 15:08, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

odd grammar correction

Can this: "extension of the toll six-lane 26-kilometre (16 mi) freeway", be changed to something more like "extension of the six-lane 16 mile (26km) tolled freeway"?71.218.55.56 (talk) 07:10, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Korean war era Veteran

His war service is barely mentioned. No list of time no list of medals. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.104.95.120 (talk) 23:08, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Politics

"He won election as the nonpartisan mayor of Carmel-by-the-Sea, California in April 1986. [...] He served for two years and declined to run for a second term in 2001 ..."

If he served for 2 years starting in 1986, wouldn't his reelection have been in 1988? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.95.43.253 (talk) 22:18, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

The Mule (2018)

The Mule (2018) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.79.177.247 (talk) 12:12, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Request for edit to bring units of measure in line with article's required usage of American English

In Section 4, "Politics", there is a sentence that mentions the length of a California freeway, carelessly (some might suggest callously, given that this is an American English-written article about an iconic American actor) stated primarily as a metric measurement, spelled with British English, with American Standard measurements identified only as a secondary conversion, given in miles. Relative to the instructions in the article's source to use American English, the sentence as currently written is incorrect for a few reasons. 1. As the measurement is for the length of a road in general terms, rather than in engineering terms, there is no need or justification to use international scientific (metric) units of measure in such a context. For this reason, American Standard units of measure (miles) should be the first mentioned, with the metric conversion given as a secondary conversion. 2. Furthermore, the cited reference to this sentence was from an article published by California State Park and Recreation Commission, which was presumably written in American English, using American Standard units of measure. This is also a reason to follow that citation with the same units of measure. 3. Also, since the article is required to be written in American English, any conversion of American Standard units of measure to metric units of measure (if such a conversion is even required in such an article) should properly use the American English spelling of kilometers, as opposed to the British English spelling of 'kilometres'. Please edit the article to indicate the distance of the freeway first in miles and only if necessary, in kilometers as the secondary conversion. Thanks. 71.112.241.91 (talk) 10:29, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

done -- FMSky (talk) 12:08, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Request for edit to bring units of measure in line with article's required usage of American English

In Section 4, "Politics", there is a sentence that mentions the length of a California freeway, carelessly (some might suggest callously, given that this is an American English-written article about an iconic American actor) stated primarily as a metric measurement, spelled with British English, with American Standard measurements identified only as a secondary conversion, given in miles. Relative to the instructions in the article's source to use American English, the sentence as currently written is incorrect for a few reasons. 1. As the measurement is for the length of a road in general terms, rather than in engineering terms, there is no need or justification to use international scientific (metric) units of measure in such a context. For this reason, American Standard units of measure (miles) should be the first mentioned, with the metric conversion given as a secondary conversion. 2. Furthermore, the cited reference to this sentence was from an article published by California State Park and Recreation Commission, which was presumably written in American English, using American Standard units of measure. This is also a reason to follow that citation with the same units of measure. 3. Also, since the article is required to be written in American English, any conversion of American Standard units of measure to metric units of measure (if such a conversion is even required in such an article) should properly use the American English spelling of kilometers, as opposed to the British English spelling of 'kilometres'. Please edit the article to indicate the distance of the freeway first in miles and only if necessary, in kilometers as the secondary conversion. Thanks. 71.112.241.91 (talk) 10:29, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

done -- FMSky (talk) 12:08, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Number, please

The lead says he earned 4 Academy Awards, yet the chart in the subsequent section indicates 13 in the "Wins" column; so... ?   2603:6081:1C00:1187:95EF:5B0F:E892:F7C4 (talk) 17:24, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 June 2021

In the lead section, first paragraph, please change accolades to reflect numbers in chart (which is linked); specifically:

 Not done: I believe that table may be slightly misleading - it appears to list the total nominations and wins for each movie, not specifically for Clint Eastwood. If you look at Unforgiven#Accolades, you'll see it correctly shows 9 nominations, with 4 wins. Two of those wins are Eastwood's, with one each to Gene Hackman and Joel Cox. We might need to annotate the chart so that this doesn't confuse readers.  A S U K I T E  21:53, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 July 2021

Under Section: 2.1 1950s, (change "lack to lacked") in the following sentence: By late 1963, Rawhide was beginning to decline in the ratings and lack freshness in the scripts; 71.231.50.191 (talk) 06:00, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

 Done, and thank you for the good catch! P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 08:06, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

TV Guide is a weekly publication, not monthly

It says under the section titled Other personal interests: "In the August 1959 edition of TV Guide, for example, Eastwood was photographed doing push-ups." That would be the Aug. 15, 1959 issue.

done ---FMSky (talk) 14:05, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Christian Jacob

Why is Christian Jacob (musician) listed in Eastwood infobox as an "Associated act"? 107.127.46.50 (talk) 04:25, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

I removed it. Eastwood's only mention in Jacob's article is a credit for Sully. It was an edit by the now blocked User:Springsteen1955. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇 05:00, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 December 2021

The famous Dirty Harry quote (…“Do I feel lucky?” Well, do you, punk?) is incorrectly attributed on this page to the movie “Dirty Harry”. This is a common misconception. The quote comes from “Magnum Force” the second movie in the Dirty Harry series.

Please change

“— Eastwood, in Dirty Harry”

to

“— Eastwood (as Dirty Harry), in Magnum Force” Javabourne9 (talk) 05:58, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: Not according to Rotten Tomatoes[1] Please provide a reliable source to support your claim. - FlightTime (open channel) 06:07, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Rotten Tomatoes
The quote is from the first Dirty Harry movie.. --FMSky (talk) 06:29, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 December 2021

In late 1963, Eastwood's Rawhide co-star Eric Fleming rejected an offer to star in an Italian-made western called A Fistful of Dollars (1964), filmed at Tabernas desert in Almería (Spain) by a relatively unknown director, Sergio Leone. 213.194.144.148 (talk) 23:14, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:02, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Portal bar

The documentation for Template:Portal bar specifically states: "This template does not belong in the "See also" section"

Template:Portal also says "there is no need to create a new section just to house this template"

I recommend removing it entirely but editors could choose instead to move the pointless Portal bar down with the Navboxes. -- 109.79.69.204 (talk) 21:35, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

I moved it to the bottom of the "Further reading" section. - FlightTime (open channel) 21:44, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Occupation of former spouse

Maggie is alleged to have modeled a bit, but she certainly never did any acting. Closer is wrong; the Maggie Johnson with an IMDb entry is not the same Maggie Johnson who was married to Eastwood. The first Mrs. Eastwood hailed from a wealthy family in the Chicago area and worked for Industria Americana. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Covetted (talk • contribs) 04:54, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 April 2022

{{subst:trim|1=


I would lile to eadit this page bc its my dads idol and i want to mkae it like he meet him


 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:09, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Gordon Anderson

Under "Personal Life," Sondra Locke's husband, Gordon Anderson is described as "an unemployed homosexual." The sources cited actually list his occupation as sculptor. The page should be updated to reflect Anderson's correct occupation. 24.245.5.143 (talk) 19:56, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Sacheen Littlefeather

The article should mention that Eastwood mocked her when she delivered Marlon Brando’s speech rejecting his Oscar award. 142.126.186.27 (talk) 00:27, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Bridges

Really enjoyed the movie thanks 2601:154:C300:7C80:1441:A4F1:CEBF:6E2F (talk) 08:14, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 January 2023

I suggest deleting the word "married" from the sentence "Eastwood and married actress-director Sondra Locke began living together" in the section about relations Elxandra (talk) 11:10, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. I seems to provide necessary context for the following part of the sentence, explaining the marriage of convenience. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:45, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 February 2023

I withdraw my previous suggestion, sorry, I misread Elxandra (talk) 08:22, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 February 2023

Please can an editor repair the damage that editor "Newtothisedit" caused on the 15th of January? 2A02:8388:27C2:3A80:FCCA:61D6:BC4E:27F9 (talk) 12:21, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

 Question: Why? Assuming you refer to this change to the layout, I'd say it looks like an improvement rather than "damage". Favonian (talk) 12:33, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
On a smartphone the change has shifted the heading of "Relationships and children" to vertical, whereas before it was obviously horizontal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8388:27C2:3A80:FCCA:61D6:BC4E:27F9 (talk) 12:39, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
I see what you mean. Let me restore the "clear" template and see if that helps. M.Bitton (talk) 15:25, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
 Done That seems to have solved the problem, although I'm not exactly sure why the "clear" template is needed in this instance. M.Bitton (talk) 15:30, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Oscars

It is not clear from the article if Clint Eastwood has ever received Oscar for his performance in a movie as an actor, not director. Please verify. She’s one of the best actors in the world. 49.190.251.159 (talk) 05:49, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 June 2023

Re “Heartbreak Ridge”, change “… Department of Defense who expressed contempt for the film…” to “…Depertment of Defense which expressed contempt for the film…” 2603:7080:6443:1F00:A147:5906:D68F:254C (talk) 13:30, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

 Done Actualcpscm (talk) 16:09, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Dollars trilogy

How do you have not even one reference to The Good The Bad and The ugly in Clint Eastwoods wiki page.... 50.72.35.204 (talk) 05:12, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Occupations in the lead sentence

It's unreasonable to forbid the inclusion of "producer" in it. Eastwood won the Academy Award for Best Picture twice and was nominated for such thrice. Also, there're a lot of biographies (including several "good articles") which lead sentences include their subjects' notable occupations that aren't commonly described by reliable sources. Thedarkknightli (talk) 11:51, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Ignoring the WP:OTHERSTUFF, the lead sentence should stick to occupations the person is most notable for... as you point out producer could be mentioned, but he also won for best director. He's also a composer. I believe he's most notable for acting and directing. The other stuff can be mentioned later, I don't think any of the arguments are unreasonable, just differences in opinion. Nemov (talk) 13:50, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
Oh, forgive my poor wording then. But I wonder if an RfC on this is necessary. Thedarkknightli (talk) 14:27, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Early life

Sorry, I just wanted to know if any of you fans out there knew about an in incident he had while serving for the army. I just heard this crazy story about him getting in a plane (long story short) and almost dying multiples times before beginning his acting career. Wondered if it was true that’s why I came in here… ever heard of it? 2A01:CB1D:825D:7200:4117:2AD0:9A2A:888D (talk) 22:50, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

RfC on occupations in lead

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
There is no consensus to include the title "producer" in the lead sentence, but it may be inserted elsewhere in the lead, if relevant. (non-admin closure) Szmenderowiecki (talk) 15:34, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Should the lead sentence include "producer"? Thedarkknightli (talk) 23:52, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes

  1. (Brought here from WP:RFC/A) If you go to IMDB he has 54 producer credits, some of which are executive producer. So the logic that anybody gets a producer credit now a days(While true) I think we can discount. Also I understand IMDB is not RS but for this I'm using WP:COMMON Sense. I think he has produced enough to warrant inclusion in the lead. MaximusEditor (talk) 21:32, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
  2. 54 credits is a lot, he's clearly a prolific and well-known producer, even though he's more famous for other aspects of his career.--Ortizesp (talk) 20:40, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
  3. Eastwood has won the Best Picture Oscar twice (for Unforgiven and Million Dollar Baby). Since this is one of the most prestigious awards in filmmaking, and it's awarded to a film's producer(s) rather than its director, I think this makes Eastwood's status as a producer highly notable. Ghosts of Europa (talk) 18:52, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
  4. He has more credits as producer than director on IMDB. Many other major film industry figures known for roles other than producer have producer listed in their lead sentence eg. Matt Damon, Martin Scorsese, Steven Spielberg. Including the job seems to be standard practice. Timceharris (talk) 00:37, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

No

  1. Eastwood is an actor, director, composer, and producer, but he's mostly known as an actor and director. His work as a producer and composer can be noted later in the lead if it's sufficiently sourced, but the lead sentence should be reserved for his most notable occupations. Nemov (talk) 16:38, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
  2. In U.S. cinema nowadays, any given film will have many credited producers. At one time, there was only one producer: the person who raised the money and signed the cheques. The term has been extended to other people involved in the finance; nowadays, it seems that anybody who chips in a few bucks gets a producer credit. This is not to denigrate Eastwood, who has earned a huge amount over the last several decades; but the title of "producer" has become debased. Let's not describe somebody as a producer unless that was their primary role in filmmaking (e.g. Peter Rogers). --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:32, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
  3. (invited by the bot) Not in the first sentence of the lead. For him the current two are far more important and noteworthy than producer. "Producer" should be covered elsewhere, including later in the lead. North8000 (talk) 00:08, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
  4. Eastwood is also a politician, a real estate investor, and so on. However MOS:BIOFIRSTSENTENCE suggests the first sentence of a biography focus on The main reason the person is notable. In Eastwood's case there are indeed two main reasons he is notable, acting and directing. Reading the rest of the lead and the article itself makes this clear -- he or his production company is not mentioned as a producer outside of films he's acted in or directed, and indeed he has acted in or directed the vast majority of what he's produced. From what I see, I don't think this article even mentions a film that he produced but didn't act in or direct. —siroχo 08:59, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Discussion

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Sacheen Littlefeather and Clint Eastwood's remark at the 1973 Oscars

Shouldn't the controversy around the incident at the 1973 Oscars where Eastwood commented about Sacheen Littlefeather's speech be included in this article? I'm not an activist and I'm not an expert on Clint Eastwood. I am a user and I came to this article to find out what Clint Eastwood may have said about the incident. I believe the incident, and his involvement in it, is important enough that their not being mentioned here makes the article seem incomplete. Elora-1981 (talk) 19:54, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

You can read about it in Sacheen Littlefeather. I don't think its a particularly important part of Eastwood's life; basically one smartass remark. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇 02:14, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
It is mentioned in the John Wayne article under political beliefs. And this is despite the fact John Wayne's supposed actions may not have occurred and were not caught on camera (which I only know because of the wikipedia article). Even if there was just a sentence saying Eastwood has not commented on the incident (if he hasn't) or that he has (if he has) would be important. That 'smart ass' remark is going to be a huge part of his legacy so it should be addressed.
I say this as an Eastwood fan. I'd like to know if he commented on this critical moment since he's definitely going to get flack for it. Elora-1981 (talk) 16:29, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
That it's in John Wayne's article isn't particularly relevant, but if it needs a mention for Clint Eastwood, it would belong in Political life of Clint Eastwood. (There isn't such an article for John Wayne, probably because politics were never a major part of his career; never ran for office, etc.) I think his stupid conversation with an empty chair at the GOP convention will be remembered far more than his off-the-cuff remark at the Oscar ceremony -- which is why it's mentioned in the lede of that article. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇 18:15, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
If he hasn't commented on it, that's pretty much the textbook definition of something not noteworthy; we don't mention everything everyone HASN'T said. If he has commented on it and you can find a source for it, sure, put it in. 2601:283:4E80:5530:D46A:1B8:4D9A:16A6 (talk) 11:31, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 November 2023

In the Spiritual beliefs and meditation subsection, please link Transcendental Meditation. 136.54.106.120 (talk) 01:35, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

 Done Cannolis (talk) 02:28, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 November 2023

Clint Eastwood is also a singer. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Foi0so2CHPM&ab_channel=ClintEastwood-Topic Wolfmanmos (talk) 18:47, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. YouTube is not a reliable source. Lightoil (talk) 19:53, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Discussion on Infobox Image for Clint Eastwood Page

Hello,

I recently updated the infobox image on Clint Eastwood's page to a 1961 publicity photo from 'Rawhide.' I believe this image is iconic and more representative of Eastwood's early career and notable work in the entertainment industry. However, this edit was reverted by User:FMSky, with the reason being to use a more recent picture. The current image, however, is 13 years old and not a recent representation. The decision to keep that image in the infobox is illogical to me.

I'd like to discuss this matter to reach a consensus on which image best represents Clint Eastwood on his Wikipedia page. Please share your thoughts and reasoning, so we can decide together in accordance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

Thank you, Sleeplessmason (talk) 23:42, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

A waste of time. We tend to have more recent photos, unless they are dead. Only then a classic 60s or 70s image of Clint prime might be more suitable. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:14, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Reconsidering the Infobox Image for Clint Eastwood

Hello fellow editors,

I'd like to revisit the discussion regarding the infobox image on Clint Eastwood's Wikipedia page. The current decision to use a recent image of Mr. Eastwood seems to overlook the trend of using iconic, younger images for notable figures, even those who are still living.

Precedent on Wikipedia: It is not uncommon to see younger images in the infoboxes of notable individuals. For example:

These pages use images that capture the individuals at the peak of their public recognition, highlighting the period when their impact was most significant.

Iconic Representation: The 1961 publicity photo from 'Rawhide' represents a pivotal moment in Clint Eastwood's career. This period is not only iconic but also foundational in establishing his legacy in the entertainment industry.

Public Recognition and Legacy: The public's association with Eastwood is strongly linked to his earlier roles. These roles have become a part of cultural history and are what many people first recall when they think of him.

Quality of the Current Image: Additionally, the quality and visual appeal of an image are important. The current image may not best capture the iconic status and cultural impact associated with Clint Eastwood. In comparison, the 1961 publicity photo offers a more recognizable and historically significant portrayal of his career.

In light of these points, I propose that we reconsider the choice of the infobox image. This proposal aligns with Wikipedia's guidelines on the use of images, ensuring that the choice reflects Eastwood's most recognized and impactful period.

I look forward to a constructive discussion and hope we can reach a consensus that best represents Clint Eastwood's legacy and adheres to Wikipedia's standards.

Thank you, Sleeplessmason (talk) 19:27, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Why have you started a new thread? I told you that we generally use photos of people in old age until they die. All the people you cited are dead!! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:30, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
Agree, nothing wrong with the current image. - FlightTime (open channel) 20:38, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
Based on the comments given, then using that thesis, this should be the Infobox image Clint Eastwood#/media/File:ClintEastwoodGolfing (cropped B).jpg since it is the most current image of Clint Eastwood on the page. I am therefore proposing this be switched out for the current one.
Sleeplessmason (talk) 21:47, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
The most current SUITABLE image should be used, the golf on isnt it -- FMSky (talk) 21:49, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
Is there some reason an older film festival image is more suitable than a more current golf image?
Can you point me to the policy you are citing? I cannot find it.
Help:Infobox/picture makes no reference to what you are referring to. Is this merely your own opinion? I am genuinely trying to understand. Please point me to the policy page you are using as the basis for this decision. Sleeplessmason (talk) 21:59, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
"appropriate representation of the topic", see MOS:LEADIMAGE, hes not a golfer --FMSky (talk) 22:09, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
Thank you for sharing. I read what you shared and still cannot agree with you. As I read the link, the most recent image is in no way going to confuse a person and the 2015 golfing image will not cause any trouble.
The age of the image I proposed was brought up and at this point, there are three editors weighing in about this but Wikipedia is a big place with lots of editors and pages look a variety of ways.
For example, Bill Clinton is alive and his page has a 1993 infobox image.
There are a plethora of recent images for Barack Obama, yet his page has a 2012 image.
So I found that opinion confusing. Then I suggest a more recent image, then we cannot agree because you feel it is not relevant because Eastwood is not "a golfer" and I found that confusing since the page you sent me to makes no issue about candid situations.
I do not feel the lead image is in any way notable and my recommendation is to remove the lead image altogether.
"Lead images are not required" per policy. Sleeplessmason (talk) 22:43, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
My best advice is drop the stick. - FlightTime (open channel) 22:57, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
I appreciate your point of view. Considering the editing disagreement exists among a small number of editors and in light of the clear notability of the subject, I was following what I believe is required prior to 3O or RfC. I will huddle with a few others and consider your tip. Thanks. Sleeplessmason (talk) 23:22, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
Right now the policy is community consensus which trumps any guideline. - FlightTime (open channel) 22:03, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
Just to confirm.
We did not come to consensus about using an older image.
I proposed using a newer image and are you now also disagreeing that the 2015 image would be more suitable? A film festival in the distant past does not seem more suitable to me than a 2015 golfing image.
My understanding is that RfC and 3O are also means to resolve editing disputes. Are we at an impasse on this specific decision? I am now focused entirely on the use of the 2015 image versus the older image from 2010. Sleeplessmason (talk) 22:14, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
Disagree, the current image is just fine. - FlightTime (open channel) 21:50, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 January 2024

The word "unclear" should be changed to "indeterminate" in the last sentence of the opening paragraph of the Personal Life section. The quote from Mr. Patrick McGilligan is "We don't know how many children Clint has had with how many women. We don't know exactly. One was when he was still in high school."

Indeterminate is a more precise, fitting word with no loss in understanding or context. Gladiatorial (talk) 02:37, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

 Done Geardona (talk to me?) 22:27, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Yojimbo, Sanjuro & the Man with No Name

The discussion of Eastwood's feature breakthrough should mention Leone's use of Kurosawa's YOJIMBO and Mifune's character, Sanjuro. 68.96.91.232 (talk) 00:37, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Question? Why would we need this here? The lead in the For a Fistful of Dollars already states The film has been identified as an unofficial remake of the Akira Kurosawa film, Yojimbo (1961), which resulted in a successful lawsuit by Toho, Yojimbo's production company. The matter is covered further at A Fistful of Dollars#Legal dispute. Peaceray (talk) 08:31, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

1993 filmography missing In The Line of Fire


  • What I think should be changed:
  • Why it should be changed:
  • References supporting the possible change (format using the "cite" button):

140.177.118.171 (talk) 17:36, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

References

 Done, although you should have made the request at Talk:Clint Eastwood filmography. Peaceray (talk) 18:10, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Clint_Eastwood/Archive_3&oldid=1244215769"