Talk:Mickey Rooney/Archive 1

Archive 1

sanity

I've heard that Mickey Rooney is "batshit crazy." Now don't get after me, I remember hearing this from somewhere. Just wondering about the validity of this pronouncement. --152.117.244.213 02:14, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

He's not. He just has a lot of years behind him. Sinclairindex (talk) 00:31, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Five years later, I think the {hRUMPH} 'Editors' of WP are quite likely as insane themselves for the number of unsubstantiated and unchallenged claims made in this article. No wonder Wikipedia is not considered a credible source of information. There are far too many instances where 'citation needed' actually applies for me to enumerate, AND I DIDN'T EVEN MAKE IT PAST THE INTRODUCTION! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.47.136.68 (talk) 03:36, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

I met Mickey Rooney in 1995 when he was in his mid 70s. He was very polite, level headed, and surprisingly energetic for his age. He was NOT "crazy." Joe Eggett (talk) 10:20, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Christian Science?

Is there some particular reason why he is listed under the Christian Science Category? ~2-4-06

There is this, which says he's a Christian Scientist. However I don't see much in the way of confirmation, not even at the IMDB, so I'll remove it for now.--T. Anthony 10:23, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Currently touring the unitked kingdom with his one man and one woman show appearing at the Shrewsbury musical hall on saturday.

Filmography

I noticed that "Andy Hardy Meets Debutante" isn't mentionned, but I wasn't sure about the year it was made. I went to check on imdb.com and looked at the HUUUUGE list of movies he has made. 305 movies! this is insane. We can't import that list here, and an incomplete list shouldn't be displayed.

That being said, I feel we should replace the current list with a link to http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0001682/. Lyverbe 16:52, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

The beginning of the article seems a little editorialized, I'm going to clean it up.--DavidFuzznut 10:14, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

I have no clue why the kid is attacking this article specifically, but perhaps we should consider locking it for a couple of weeks. The only changes that have been done recently are related to the vandalism. Lyverbe 12:08, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

April 16, 2007, the article continues to be vandalized.

Removal of "Other uses" section

I have been unable to find a single citation to support the contention that "Mickey Rooney" is an expression used to describe things of inferior quality. Either the editor who posted it is reporting an indiosyncratic usage, or has mistaken it for "Mickey Mouse". The section should not restored (or the claim be included elsewhere in the article) without a citation proving its general usage. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) 09:01, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I've never liked it anyway. I'm glad to see it gone. -- Lyverbe 12:48, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Best known...

"In the 1990s, he best known for his work as Henry Dailey on the Family Channel's, Adventures of the Black Stallion." - ...or Mickey Mcguire? ...or Andy Hardy? It's hard to say which role he was best known. I'd remove that information because I don't feel it's really true. It's more a personal opinion. -- Lyverbe 11:11, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Points West?

Given that he's appearing in Sunderland, why would he be on Points West, which serves an area hundreds of miles away? 86.132.140.178 (talk) 16:58, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Not needed

I do not think that a eighty-seven year old man works every day of his life, i think this "lyverbe" or something is reading to much ito his life. You seem to be obsessed with him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.194.141.157 (talk) 21:08, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Hey, you're talking! Finally... The only thing I have of Mickey Rooney is his "Life's too short" autobiography, nothing more. Well, I own a couple of movies, but that's because I was a Judy Garland fan and he appeared in lots of movies with her. I am SO far from being obsessed with him. The main reason I'm watching this article is to remove the frequent vandalism done to it, trying to keep it clean. -- Lyverbe (talk) 13:03, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Through 2008

What's the idea of using "through 2008" instead of "to this day"? Will you be the one editing "through 2008" each year to adapt it to the new year? -- Lyverbe (talk) 15:11, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Who cares if he doesn't work every day of his life - I don't either. I have weekends off, holidays, vacations, etc. Still, I've been working the last 15 years up "to this day". He is still working today as a stage actor. Reply to this here if you don't agree instead of this childish revert war you're putting us through. If you don't reply in the next 3 days, it will mean you agree and stop this selfish act. -- Lyverbe (talk) 22:18, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Your comments are logical but Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies)#Out-of-date material advocates the use of dates such as As of 2008 in preference to vague time frames that could become out of date without being recognised as out of date. Rossrs (talk) 07:52, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Then perhaps we could rephrase it. Instead of "whose career in entertainment began in 1922 relatively shortly after his birth and continues to this day", what if we used "who has been doing movies, television appearances and stage performances throughout his life"? -- Lyverbe (talk) 13:03, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

That would be much better. I'm not a fan of "as of 2008". It seems like a good compromise to me. Rossrs (talk) 13:29, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Fix One of the Boys link

{{editprotected}}

It should be One of the Boys (TV series) since One of the Boys is a disambiguation page. In spite of the wording from {{editprotected}}, this isn't urgent.... 67.100.124.23 (talk · contribs) 23:48, 22 February 2008 (UTC).

I've never been a fan of inserting dead links. I don't quite understand why Wikipedia accepts them either as they say it "highlights" pages that ought to be created. Clicking on a link that indirectly tells me "This page is not available" looks like a 404 to me. -- Lyverbe (talk) 02:31, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

 Not done As this page is only semi-protected, any logged-in user can make this change if they think it useful. {{editprotected}} is only to be used on fully-protected pages. Happy‑melon 13:21, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

As an aside, I have just created a stub at One of the Boys (TV series), so if it survives RCPatrol there should be no problems with linking to it. Happy‑melon 13:21, 23 February 2008 (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) 07:31, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

what discussion?

i have discussed this, and it is allways your way!!!!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Patkirkwoood (talk • contribs) 14:07, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

there are several warnings on your talk page. It would be helpful if you read them, as well as the policy pages they point to. Rossrs (talk) 14:15, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

No, it's not always my way. If you read carefully above, I've tried to discuss this issue so we can reach an agreement (an angreement doesn't make one win automatically). I had made a suggestion and, even though it was approved, I still waited 24 hours to see if there was any objection. I wouldn't have waited if I wanted to always have it my way. Wikipedia is a group effort and conflicts need to be discussed in the talk page, not through comments of article changes. One of my last reverts says "This was discussed and approved in the talk page. Please leave as is, or state your opinion in the talk page.", that means that the issue is still (and always) opened for changes, but it needs to be discussed. We'll all explain our opinion and end up with an agreement. -- Lyverbe (talk) 15:22, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

ok

Ok i will leave it alone, but just leave the began in "1922 and continues through 2008." If you agree to this then i will stop reverting the edits. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Patkirkwoood (talk • contribs) 19:20, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid you don't have the concept of how things work on Wikipedia. Editors don't tend to agree to even backhanded threats like this. No one has to agree to your version of something in order to make you stop tampering with material that has been determined through consensus to be unacceptable. In case you haven't caught on, no one appears to have accepted your version. Secondly, the image you are so persistent in trying to insert is a copyright violation that is not permitted on Wikipedia. Please go read the help page. Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:17, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Recent edits are not an improvement. You cannot say that someone who is still active has had an eighty-five year career, because it means that next year it will be out of date. Will you remember to come back next year and change it to 86? Also it is incorrect to use a capital "A" for "actor" or capital letters such as in "Eighty-Five". Perhaps these edits were in good faith, but they are incorrect just the same. Rossrs (talk) 22:11, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Lead paragraph revisited

Actually, I'm not totally in love with how the lead reads. ...actor and musician who has been doing movies, television appearances and stage performances throughout his life sounds kind of awkward. I'd suggest wording such as ...actor and entertainer whose film, television and stage appearances have spanned his lifetime. Rooney is more of a song and dance man-type entertainer and not really that much of a musician. "Who has been doing" is awkward. If a time element at all is necessary, "beginning while still a toddler" could be added. Just a suggestion. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:11, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm french, so it's indeed possible that the syntax of what I came up with isn't perfect :) Ok, we'll wait a bit to see if there are better suggestions. -- Lyverbe (talk) 00:25, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

This is not a constructive suggestion, but it needs to be said. Anything would be better than the current abysmal version: "Mickey Rooney (born Joseph Yule, Jr. on 23 September 1920), Mickey's career has extended through many generations and in many different directions. Mickey Rooney: actor, survivor, inventor and Hollywood living legend." [sic]. -- JackofOz (talk) 00:35, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

It's abominable. I'd go with Wildhartlivie's suggestion. User:Patkirkwood, you need to stop right now. You have breached WP:3RR policy. It's only because I think you don't have a clue how things work around here, that I'll give you the benefit of the doubt for one last time. One more revert and I will definitely report you without hesitation. Read this page - Wikipedia:Three revert rule. Please do not make any further edits until you understand what it says. Also, don't be paranoid and think you are being discriminated against as this edit summary - "This version sums up the man's Life. You are only reverting the edits because the user patkirkwood is their somany times" suggests. It's not because it's you making the edit, it's because the edit is bad. You have actually been given more chances than most editors get, and despite the fact that your user talk page contains nothing but warnings, you seem to have made no effort to understand Wikipedia's guidelines and policies. Rossrs (talk) 00:57, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I have changed it to the example suggestion, however I am doing this only as it seems to be agreed that the previous version was not acceptable. I am not assuming that everyone will be happy with this, or that the discussion is closed, only that the previous version needed to be changed. Rossrs (talk) 01:10, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I returned the awards data to the lead paragraph so that it is more consistent with other articles. (I also fixed a badly mangled filmography table). Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:36, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Letter Of Complaint!

Everytime a make an edit, it is allways deleted or reverted. So, i decided "How am i going to stop this?". I have written an letter of complaint to wikipedia, because what i think what is happening i am being bullied out of Mickey Rooneys page. Just to let you no i have been a member of wikipedia since 2001, so i know perfectly well about the guidelines. This will be spoken in further discussion. As soon as YOU or any other user has seen this they will write something straight away, fine but it is all being tracked in a book and copied to wikipedia. I will not be making any more edits to HIS page, but will be tracking.!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.194.141.241 (talk) 00:23, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to respond positively to your post, and perhaps review some of your contributions and suggest some explanations as to why they've been reverted or deleted. But you don't identify yourself by username, and no edits to this article have been made from "90.194.141.241". To come on here and talk about the way you've been treated, without saying who you are so that we can address the issue rationally, is .. well, just a whinge, that will go nowhere. If you're serious, come to the party. -- JackofOz (talk) 00:35, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and about your use of "YOU": Are you referring to any particular user, or to Wikipedia as a whole? If the former, the user could not be expected to know they are being referred to, so there's no possibility of any response from them. If the latter, you must understand that once you make edits to Wikipedia articles, you become part of "US", and you're subject to all the rules, policies and guidelines that we all have to adhere to. You cannot be a part of this project and simultaneously see yourself as being separate from it. -- JackofOz (talk) 00:52, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

The biggest mistake you made was to impose your idea on the article without talking it here. If there's a conflict, it needs to be discussed in the talk page, but you never did. "i have discussed this, and it is allways your way!" - Using 1 line change comments is not having a discussion. That's not just a matter of guidelines, but also matter of respect and common sense. -- Lyverbe (talk) 12:47, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Who is this pat kirkwood, he is everywhere and ruining Mickey Rooney's page. Could someone block him? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.198.115.130 (talk) 21:40, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

family guy

haha does anyone remember on family guy they had Micky Rooney's Crazy Pills or whatever? you know, hes running around stealing peoples scabs and yelling at mice with his shirt off? its hilarious, trust me. Anyways, should that be mentioned in the article somewhere? 68.103.28.224 (talk) 07:27, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion, no. Programs such as Family Guy (and The Simpsons and South Park and Friends and..... many others) contain frequent references to celebrities and if you were to go through the scripts for all of those shows there would be literally thousands of references to numerous different people. If the reference is so strong that it in itself becomes a notable moment in popular culture, then yes, it should be mentioned. But if it's just an isolated gag that doesn't really have any lasting significance, then no. Rossrs (talk) 11:40, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree, Rossrs. Too often, articles get overburdened with what amounts very extraneous trivia, which has nothing in general of relevance to the career and accomplishments of the subject. Other shows that made and make reference to celebrities are Saturday Night Live, Mad TV, and In Living Color. It's parody, and while it is often funny, is ultimately irrelevant. Wildhartlivie (talk) 15:42, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Full House

Someone could add that he guest-starred on an episode of Full House called Arrest ye Merry Gentlemen from season 8. I don't know how to edit the table, but if you want somebody could include this. It aired in 1994. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mouseinthehouse (talk • contribs) 19:46, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

It's done, but I always wonder what should really go into those tables. We shouldn't try to reproduce IMDB. I always feel there's too much stuff. I mean, I believe we should put stuff in which he had a major role (ie. "The Mickey Rooney Show", "Mickey", "The Adventures of the Black Stallion") but not every little places he appeared. -- Lyverbe (talk) 11:57, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you, Lyverbe. I'm all for removing guest appearances on TV shows, unless there was something extraordinary about it, like an award or nomination. Wildhartlivie (talk) 16:17, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Should the same be done with the feature films? -- Lyverbe (talk) 13:03, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

That's ok, I just thought someone might like to know. Mouseinthehouse (talk) 18:28, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Addition to lead paragraph

I make an unsourced statement in the lead paragraph in which I state that Mickey Rooney is the only silent film actor still actively performing. I believe I can get away with saying that without source due to the fact that there is no indication of other individuals with silent-era credits still appearing in film (though contrary to some recent media reports following the death of a silent-era actress there are still several who are alive, not the least of which is Mickey himself). It's also possible there could be someone still appearing in film who was an infant in the "changeover" years of 1927-29 where both eras intersected. But I think even under the strict rules of WP:BLP that the comment I made is fair and accurate. The fact he's still active is evidenced by information given in the article body. Having said that, if someone can actually locate a source, please feel free to add it! 23skidoo (talk) 14:27, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, "I haven't seen any evidence to the contrary" is insufficient to support an assertion. Although your claim is fairly innocuous and even credible, if that were accepted, I can show you all kinds of netkooks who would post endless articles justifying theories with "it stands until someone proves otherwise". —Largo Plazo (talk) 14:33, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

diversion from Carolyn Mitchell?

The link kept going back to Mickey Rooney. Any reason for this? Samuelsenwd (talk) 03:43, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Mostly because she was married to him and no one wrote an article about her beyond that. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:49, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Dr Pepper?

I could have sworn that there was a Dr Pepper commercial with Mickey Rooney dancing in the streets (one of the "I'm a Pepper" ones). However, I've been unable to find any references to such an ad. Is this a false memory, or does anyone else have a similar recollection? Tx. Bongomatic 10:13, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Marriage with Marge

We've reached the WP:3RR with this debate. Guys, the "Undo" summary is not a way to have a discussion. The talk pages are made specifically for that.

Now, my point of view on this subject. If a reference is required/requested and not provided, the edit can be challenged and removed without notice per WP:GRAPEVINE. Writing "According to his official website..." is not enough per WP:OR which states "Information in an article must be verifiable in the references cited." and a link is required for readers to find because the reader cannot have the responsibility to go through the entire site looking for the authenticity of the edit. It's the responsibility of the author to directly specify where he/she got the information. -- Lyverbe (talk) 12:29, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Career lifespan

--> Rooney began performing at the age of 17 months hunh?

According to his autobiography "Life is too short", he was hiding on the stage where his parents were performing when he sneezed. His parents found him and took him from his hiding place. The crowd loved him and the 'manager' decided to keep him in the show for another $3 per show for a huge total of $25 per show! Woo! :) According to the book, that happened when he was 17 months old. Lyverbe 14:28, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

---

Wildhartlivie: The recent edit involves a change from "appearances span nearly his entire lifetime" to "career spans over 85 years". Don't forget to change it to "86 years" next year, and 87 the next, and 88 the next... you get my point :) Are you sure you want to keep this change? -- Lyverbe (talk) 10:36, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I see your point and I thought about that when I made the change. The phrasing "appearances span nearly his entire lifetime" just doesn't read very well. I made another minor change to the wording, trying to make it less awkward. It now says that his career has lasted over 85 years, which is equally true if it is 85, 86, or 90. Does that make better sense? Wildhartlivie (talk) 10:49, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

It's better, but personally, I like it more the way it was originally written because it didn't involve any specific time. You can leave it like that if you want to, I'm just giving my $0.02. -- Lyverbe (talk) 16:53, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

The year has been changed once again. Not that I want to be a pain in the butt, but I believe it was better without any specific time, don't you think? :) -- Lyverbe (talk) 22:58, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't care if you change it. I'm about to clean out my watchlist and I'm fairly certain I'm going to remove this from it, it just gets to be too much to watch. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:26, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Born-again Christian, homophobe?

I just read these quotes from Mickey Rooney on his IMDB page. Since that sort of stuff is usually mentioned in Wikipedia articles on celebs, I'm presenting the link here for someone to follow up on. Softlavender (talk) 06:44, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

There are a couple issues that presents. The first is that the majority of the material on that IMDB bio pages is user-submitted, with no verification required. Wikipedia does not consider it to be a reliable source for biographical, salary, trivia, etc., thus, it can't be used from there. The other issue is that, if it were a true quote, I would still have an issue with the assumption that the born-again Christian viewpoint of homosexuality equals homophobia. If the quote is correct, it is a mis-attribution, as offhand, I don't recall Jesus ever saying that, but also, I don't read hate or fear into his statement, or any other attributes normally associated with homophobia. Just a basic, more fundamental Christian viewpoint and interpretation. Wildhartlivie (talk) 09:25, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting using IMDB as a Wikipedia source, just that that is an interesting jumping-off point for further investigation, if those quotes are accurate. Here are the quotes in question:

• "If it's immorally wrong, it's not normal. Jesus Christ said the effeminate are an abomination to me. Are you aware of that? I don't watch the Ellen show. I wish her all kinds of luck. Except that I'm not a fan. But there are a lot of people who aren't fans of Mickey Rooney and you can't please everyone."
• "All the muddy waters of my life cleared up when I gave myself to Christ."

The first is textbook homophobia; perhaps you are not familiar with precisely what the term means; the second implies he became a born-again Christian at some point.

I'm a big Mickey Rooney fan — he's one of my favorite actors. That does not alter the fact that Wikipedia usually reports such things as a matter of being complete, so it's worth someone checking into and verifying and adding to the article, with reliable source citations, if accurate. Softlavender (talk) 08:11, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm quite familiar with what homophobia means and I'm also quite familiar with the term born-again Christian. If you'll note my first comment, I actually even used it. I looked at the huge laundry list of quotes on the IMDB page and I was fairly sure that those two quotes were what you were referring to. What I said was that I would have an issue with drawing the conclusion that he is homophobic based on those quotes, or more specifically, the assumption that the born-again Christian viewpoint of homosexuality equals homophobia. Homophobia is a bit more insidious and hate-based than the fundamental religious viewpoint on morality as it relates to homosexuality, pre-marital sex, drinking alcohol, gluttony, etc., and it is a stretch to extrapolate an attitude of hate, fear and overt discrimination from a statement such as that. Wildhartlivie (talk) 08:37, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I think it would be premature to define him as a homophobe by placing undue emphasis on one interview. The full transcript (which is dated 1998) is printed here. Mickey is also quoted as saying "I never knew anything about anyone being gay in Hollywood when I was working in the studios." I find that difficult to believe. If Mickey is being correctly quoted, the best I can say is that I disagree with his thought processes, on religion, poverty.....most of the interview. In fairness to him, he makes a reference to 1998 being "the last days of Sodom and Gomorrah", and it is at this moment that the interviewer throws Mickey his "What do you think of Ellen?" question. It's so deliberate and opportunistic, I have to assume the interviewer knew exactly what was coming next. And Mickey doesn't care for her, it would seem. Let's see if there are other examples, and let's also see if they are recent or if they go back. You see, it's not only Ellen he doesn't like. He doesn't like Jim Carrey. In fact, he doesn't seem to like much of anything at all these days. He's harking back to a past where everything was much simpler and he was top of the MGM ladder - he comes across as something of a bitter old man throughout the interview. Was he more tolerant years ago when he was less bitter? Who knows?

Also, Mickey's credibility as an interview subject, in my opinion, is not particularly great. I view him with scepticism. Here's a transcript from a Larry King interview in which Rooney is one of several Marilyn Monroe acquaintances speculating about the circumstances of her death. Mickey takes credit for naming Norma Jeane (all published sources credit Ben Lyon and Monroe herself with coming up with the name), later in the interview he's challenged, he sticks to his guns but he's not proving anything, and later again he makes a random statement about a film he's just made with his wife, in response to a question about Monroe. All I'm saying is don't believe everything that Mickey says, and even if you can prove he said it, find something to independently corroborate the statement. He seems to be someone who tends to "build up his own part". He's quite the Monroe expert considering she had a one line role in one of her early pre-fame films opposite Mickey, and according to the several Monroe biographies I have, they bumped into each once in a restaurant in 1952, and that was it. No friendship developed. 40+ years later, Mickey's on Larry King telling his Marilyn stories. I don't believe a word of it. The King interview is a rambling mess. Maybe the Montreal Mirror transcript in its raw form is also a mess. (there is also reference to him being born-again in that transcript). There must be other sources availabe to either support this or not. Rossrs (talk) 09:13, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) I have combined part of the first section following the lead, which was titled "Personal life", with the section added first titled "Born-again Christian". I removed the NNDB citation because it is not a reliable source. I have also commented out, using <!-- -->, the portion of the new section which regards the specific issue we are currently debating. I don't think it's good practice to go ahead and create the content, following the same reasoning that we are debating, and add it to article prior to the discussion being concluded. I have expressed my issue with how this material was first raised on the talk page, and I have issue with how it was presented in the article. You can't really conclude that he was being queried on gay rights and present the one quote as support of that. Rossrs and myself have both expressed concerns with the synthesis of this conclusion based on how the entire interview (thanks to Rossrs for the source) progressed. He wasn't asked about gay rights, he was asked about Ellen DeGeneres. He then said he didn't want to talk about it, he didn't become involved in the topic. He then said that being gay in Hollywood wasn't closeted during his years there, it was kept in a safe. The interviewer persisted, saying that gays can be more honest about who they are. His response doesn't reflect discrimination, hate or fear. His response misquotes the Bible, and again skirts becoming embroiled in a controversial discussion. As Rossrs said, "Let's see if there are other examples, and let's also see if they are recent or if they go back. You see, it's not only Ellen he doesn't like. He doesn't like Jim Carrey. In fact, he doesn't seem to like much of anything at all these days." I agree that at this point, this needs to wait to be included until other sources are found that would support the material's validity. I also agree that the interviewer deliberately and opportunistically set up the situation to create controversy. I'd have to extrapolate from that and say that the initial posting of only that one quote on IMDB had the same purpose. It really needs to be tabled until wider research is done. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:10, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Wildhartlivie's viewpoint. I've also been considering the relevance of the point. Mickey Rooney has lived a long life and undoubtedly holds viewpoints on a wide range of subjects, many of which he is probably far from expert. His area of expertise relates to his work as an entertainer, but it does not automatically follow that his celebrity status make him such an expert on the issue of homosexuality in general and specifically gays in Hollywood, that he should be quoted on that subject? He basically says he knew nothing about gay people in Hollywood during his years there, and yet after admitting his ignorance on the subject, he's still quotable on the subject? Also, the timing is significant. The interview took place in 1998, not long after Ellen came out, and at the time she attracted a lot of comment, some positive and much negative. 10 years later the fuss has died down. Is it fair then to make an issue of a remark made by Mickey Rooney 10 years ago, when the subject was being debated? Could his viewpoint have changed since then, as so many others obviously has? Is it being used solely because it conveys a negative viewpoint? I think, yes. If his reply had been "oh wow, I love Ellen DeGeneres and I can't wait to go to her lesbian wedding in 10 years time", would that also have been added to the article? I agree that the issue was placed in the interview to raise controversy, it reads as a complete set-up, and poor Mickey was cornered. IMDb has taken it out of context to do the same. The way it's been added here looks similar. This bothers me on a whole lot of different levels. I fail to see anything in the way of relevance. Who cares if one of the many viewpoints Mickey Rooney holds is that he's not exactly comfortable with homosexuality? He hasn't said anything stronger than that. If that's his opinion, he has a right to it, but it's just one of many viewpoints he undoubtedly holds, and it's not central to who he is, or what his notability is built upon. He may not like punks or goths or rap music or nudity in films or walking in the rain or Wikipedia. He doesn't like Jim Carrey. There's probably a bunch of stuff he doesn't approve of. It's an off-the-cuff, under-pressure opinion, and its use here is a hair's breadth from being trivial. Rossrs (talk) 00:47, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

"There's probably a bunch of stuff he doesn't approve of. It's an off-the-cuff, under-pressure opinion, and its use here is a hair's breadth from being trivial." That statement sums it all up. I read the interview (Mickey Rooney on America) and I have to conclude that Wildhartlivie is correct. Rooney wasn't asked about gay rights at all. To say that he was directly asked that question is taking his (wacky) quote out of context. If Rooney's comments had caused some controversy (à la Jerry Lewis) I could see including it, but seeing as no one talked about it, it seems more like adding the incorrect bible quote of a guy who probably thinks everything is an abomination at this point. Pinkadelica ^{Say it...} 04:25, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Considering he's lived for 88 years, most of it in the public eye, I think it needs more than the uttering of one sentence to condemn him as a homophobe. Rossrs (talk) 12:39, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Public eye or no: Just by living close to 90 years, you become... close to 90 years old. Even in total anonymity, anyone that old is likely to suffer (or, heck, maybe it's "enjoy"; what do we know?) from Alzheimer's or Alzheimer's-like symptoms. And one of those is just plain old-age curmudgeonness: Old people get to "dislike" a lot of stuff that wasn't common when they were young, stuff they just plain can't relate to. (Like, in this case, wide-spread out-in-the-open homosexuality.)--CRConrad (talk) 22:16, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

• I want to address just the Christian, not the homophobe, bit. It's interesting that in his biography on his own website he never says a word about being a born-again Christian [1]. I think this little tidbit should be marked as a claim or a possibility rather than a fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yopienso (talk • contribs) 00:41, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

It's reliably sourced. There are many facts that aren't included on his bio on his website, which is short and quite abbreviated. Just because he didn't include something there does not make it doubtful, nor untrue, nor just a claim or possibility. The website bio doesn't mention military service either. Should we doubt that? Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:34, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I see your point. Don't know why I didn't see it on my own. :P Thanks. Yopienso (talk) 06:39, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Home For Christmas 1990

A film seems to have been forgotten in the list of movies Mickey Rooney has starred in. I will provide a link from IMDb to confirm the source.

Home For Christmas Starring Mickey Rooney —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.86.62.218 (talk) 14:23, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Some interesting writing in this article

What a jumble of wtf:

When he was 14 months old, he crawled on stage unbeknownst to everybody with overalls and a little harmonica around his neck. He sneezed and his father, Joe Sr., grabbed him out of the stage, calling him Sonny Yule, where he felt the spotlight was on him. He felt like he was in his mother's womb. From that moment on, he felt like his home was his first stage. He felt at ease in his first performance that he rocked the house down, but afterwards, his father was disgusted at his son's scene stealing, until the theater manager paid him an additional $5 a month, while working for an act with the song and dance man, Sid Gold, within a month.

• No one wearing overalls was able to see him?
• The second sentence is quite remarkably bizarre.
• Well, the third one is pretty ridiculous too. Who felt he was in his mother's womb?
• Rocked the house down? That's awesomely hilarious and probably not intended to be.

So clearly this paragraph is not cited in the article. Before I copy edit it or something, is there someone watching the article who has anything to say about this passage? --Moni3 (talk) 12:57, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Personally, I can't say I'm 100% pleased with that huge addition of text. Some of it is wrong for sure (ie. he was discovered at 17 months old, not 14) and some other things can also be wrong because there's too much new text to validate. But it's still informative, so I didn't say anything.

Also, the amount of Wikilinks is just crazy. I think there's more blue text and black text. -- Lyverbe (talk)

Here's the addition of this material. I've never read or edited this article before today, so I don't know anything much about Rooney's life. But this is a BLP, and Wikipedia ostensibly exists to inform instead of amuse. But by this article it seems to be doing a lot of amusing. Unless someone who had read on Rooney's life can parse what in the world this passage is actually trying to express, I suggest removing it. A look at the contributor's talk page shows at best a user not too concerned with reliable sources and at worst a vandal. --Moni3 (talk) 17:00, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Sources

• Duke, Alan. "Mickey Rooney seeks career revival under new conservatorship." CNN. March 25, 2011.

WhisperToMe (talk) 21:24, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Rooney in song lyrics

I don't learn anything from "If you stomped on Mickey Rooney, he'd still turn round and smile". I find this to be useless information that doesn't need to be in the article. I haven't checked, but have ALL the articles regarding the celebrities named in this song been edited to say "Hey, The Kinks mentioned the name of the this person in a song!"? Billy Joel must mention about 40 names in his "We didn't start the fire" song and I doubt every article has been edited to mention that. Reason: It's useless to know. -- Lyverbe (talk) 02:04, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Barbara Ann Thomason

He tried to get divorced. It would be nice to add in his bio section that she was murdered together with her lover in Rooneys house.[2]--Stone (talk) 05:46, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

It's in the article. Search for the word "murder" -- Lyverbe (talk) 14:02, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Personal life

I've deleted some detail about Rooney's court case against his son-in-law as it was not supported by the source. It seems to have been added, along with some other unconstructive edits, in April this year by an editor who is no longer with us. Swanny18 (talk) 23:04, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Medals

I saw Mickey Rooney on TV recently. He was wearing a tuxedo with miniature medals attached to its left side. Can anyone out there please identify these medals and discuss why and when they were awarded to him? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.50.171.134 (talk) 08:34, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

He served in WWII. 50.202.81.2 (talk) 15:27, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Filmography, Part II

I was thinking that perhaps we should make a separate article for his extensive filmography, television included? KirkCliff2 (talk) 12:50, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

• Considering how prolific he was, I don't think that's a bad idea. The IMDb lists several films as in production in which he is apparently featured. Have these been confirmed? 68.146.70.124 (talk) 16:00, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

--- The FILMOGRAPHY section will certainly have to be date-checked. Not only is there no such movie listed as "Strike the Tent" but "A Christmas Too Many" (despite its ubiquitous listing as 2005) was released direct-to-video in late 2007. Not sure how so many sources show both 2005 direct-to-video *and* then the 2007 release date. 174.73.22.113 (talk) 23:09, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Stage Work

Show Boat revival 1983, not '74, not '78

It seems there were two revivals of Showboat in 1983 -- one in Washington, DC, at the Kennedy Center with Mickey Rooney as Cap'n Andy, and the other on Broadway at the Uris Theatre (now called the Gershwin) with Donald O'Conner in that role. I've found nothing about Show Boat revivals in 1974 or 1978.

• http://ibdb.com/production.php?id=4219
• http://www.broadwaymusicalhome.com/shows/showboat.htm
• http://floatingtheatre.org/showboat/

John Sinclair (talk) 23:44, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

---

Semi-protected edit request on 7 April 2014

In Mickey Rooney's Early life section there is a french term "née" that should be translated with "born": and his mother, Nellie W. (born Carter) Unter62 (talk) 12:49, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

 Not done Née is a very standard term, commonly used in encyclopedias - if someone doesn't know what it means - they can easily look up née - Arjayay (talk) 14:03, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

• Agreed. I fact, the term nee is pretty much universally used and not just in encyclopedias. It's used in journalism too. 68.146.70.124 (talk) 16:01, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

The original posting is valid. Despite it being commonly used, many people have no idea what "nee" means. Using the term with a wiki-link is a good solution. I will add one in. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:31, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. That's what I'd thought when I saw post initally too. Connormah (talk) 04:51, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Residual income battle

I think an absolute necessity to be added should be his long battle with some studios trying to get a residual income from his work before 1960(?) but the studios amazingly denied! The studios could freely keep making money from him without paying him for it! A residual income is what every person should be taught to have, because that is theft, corporations stealing from individuals. That's crazy. Hillmon7500 (talk) 05:54, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Rooney was not unique in this; studio contracts routinely had nothing to do with residuals because at the time things like TV broadcasts, home video, etc simply did not exist or were not considered actual revenue generators. Many (most?) stars of 1960s-era TV series have never seen a penny from reruns. Unless Rooney was involved in a particularly public battle, or if a legal decision setting precedent occurred due to his efforts, I don't actually see it as notable on the surface because the same argument could apply to virtually everyone except the relatively small number of actors who changed the system, or who took a fresh approach such as arranging for box office percentage in lieu of straight pay. But contract players rarely had that luxury. 68.146.70.124 (talk) 16:08, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree with what was said above by User 68.146. However, if there was an indeed a notable battle (in court, perhaps) between Rooney and the studios – as suggested by User Hillmon7500 above – that content is appropriate to add into this article. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:54, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Breakfast at Tiffany's?

Hello, this is my first post here. I checked this page upon finding about Mr. Rooney's death and I was surprised about the conspicuos lack of mention of his most infamous role - the portrayal of Mr. Yunioshi. Considering the fact that the role takes up a whole section on the page about the movie AND has a full wikipedia page devoted to it, I can't help but find its omission to be deliberate. How else can you explain no mention of the role in the text when there are sentences like this: "In the 1960s, Rooney returned to theatrical entertainment. He still accepted film roles in undistinguished films, but occasionally would appear in better works, such as Requiem for a Heavyweight (1962), It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World (1963), and The Black Stallion (1979)." Breakfast at Tiffany's (1963) was about as distinguished a film as you can get. Certainly moreso than The Black Stallion(?) which I'm sure is a fine move, I's just that I've never heard about it (I first thought it was a blacksploitation remake of Rocky). I'm aware that the role is in his filmography, but the portrayal is such a watershed moment in unintentional (?) movie racism towards Asian people, it deserves at least a token mention. Without mentioning that role, and with the 'Legacy' section containing nothing but praise, this page seems like something out of a fan-made website, not an encyclopedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Apolita (talk • contribs) 17:43, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

True, that should be mentioned. There is actually a separate article on the character, I.Y. Yunioshi. Coretheapple (talk) 17:58, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

I added a comment about this in the "See also" section. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:04, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Good. You know, there's so much material out there on Rooney, there's no reason this can't be built up to Good Article and then Feature Article status. The writing needs to be improved. I notice that there's no real reference to how Sugar Babies really was a comeback for him. I mean, honestly, C-class! It's a shame.Coretheapple (talk) 19:14, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

It seems like a lot to have on Yunioshi at this stage (a whole subsection) but let's leave it at that for now. I think the entire article, once built up to its appropriate length, will definitely warrant such attention to that role. Actually I think right now the really crying need is to build up about Sugar Babies, as it totally gave his career a lift. Coretheapple (talk) 19:20, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Removed the section devoted to a so-called "controversy" with soapish commentary against guidelines. --Light show (talk) 19:26, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Well it's a genuine controversy, all right. It has an entire spinoff article. When this article is at a greater length it will certainly warrant a section. Rooney himself wrote at least two volumes of autobiography; there is plenty of material out there to raise this to GA status for starters. Coretheapple (talk) 19:31, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

I believe that to warrant being called a "controversy," it would need to shown that his role was controversial or even offensive at the time, not 50 years later. His character in the film was total comedy, seen as comedy, and among the lighter aspects of the story. The fact that some of today's audiences are more or overly sensitive to such older film characterizations would not turn a former comedy act into a modern-day "controversy." --Light show (talk) 20:32, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Whether it was a controversy 50 years ago or today in 2014 is irrelevant. It is a controversy and it is a notable one. As long as there are reliable sources, it does not matter whether the controversy occurred 50 years ago, or whether the controversy erupted 50 years later. The "controversy" section was lifted entirely from another Wikipedia article via copy-and-paste. How is that against guidelines? Why can the same exact info appear in Wikipedia on one page but not another? Please let me know. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:09, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

OK, we can cross that bridge when we come to it. Right now it's probably too much text on that issue, no matter how we phrase it. Coretheapple (talk) 20:36, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

It's a notable controversy. It's a notable aspect of Rooney's life. So much so that he directly addressed it. And so much so that it was incorporated into the DVD commentary of the film. So much so that he regretted the role. So much so that the higher-ups regretted the casting. Perhaps it can be trimmed. There is no reason to remove it entirely. This is a notable component of his bio. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:11, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

I think you're right that it's a notable controversy that belongs in this article, because it erupted during his lifetime and he personally commented on it. I agree that the fact that it erupted years after the movie came out is sort of beside the point. The question is how much text should be devoted to it at this time, since other significant aspects of his life also need to be expanded. Coretheapple (talk) 22:33, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. In this article, I added a cut-and-paste copy, verbatim, of the same exact info that appears in the article for the film (Breakfast at Tiffany's (film)) (under the sub-heading of the "portrayal of Mr. Yunioshi"). I think that was of adequate size, basically. Perhaps it could be trimmed down a bit, but not much. That's my opinion. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 23:07, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

It's hardly a "controversy," even though another Wikipedia article says so. There is already a bloated statement about the stereotype part, which was briefly noted in a few NY Times articles cited, and for which Rooney said he regretted playing. Another footnote already there is simply an essay by a 2nd year liberal arts student at Dartmouth, hardly a decent source, and in fact only referred to the part in their own footnoted opinion, in effect citing themselves. Her essay was simply an attempt to turn all film character acting into a type of stereotyping, and as explained by the student, "The West creates representations of the East as exotic, highly sexualized and barbaric in order to justify colonization of the East." She relies on movie musicals like Rogers and Hammerstein’s The King and I to prove the point, and effectively implies that Rooney playing an Oriental in jest is really just a way for the West to take over Asia. In any case, there is no cited support that it is now or ever was a "controversy." --Light show (talk) 23:21, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

To Light show: I am not sure what your issue is. Are you concerned with the events being called a "controversy", yet you still think that the events do warrant mention in this article? Or do you think the events (whatever they are called, "controversy" or something else) do not warrant any mention in this article? I am not sure what you have an issue with. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 23:40, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

There is already a statement about the stereotype role in the article, along with three cites, none of which mentions his part as controversial. In fact, all three cites barely mention Rooney's part, and pretty much minimize it. --Light show (talk) 23:52, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, but that doesn't answer my question. Once again, what is your concern? Are you concerned with the events being called a "controversy", yet you still think that the events do warrant mention in this article? Or do you think the events (whatever they are called, "controversy" or something else) do not warrant any mention in this article? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:10, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

The current mention in the article is fine. I removed the term "controversy" since it wasn't cited as being one. --Light show (talk) 00:14, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

I took out the last reference, as indeed it seemed like a student project. I also tweaked the language, as I am quite certain, it's my personal memory, that criticism of his performance goes way back. I do think we can leaven it by including some reference to the reviews he received at the time. Coretheapple (talk) 00:39, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

I added a reference to his statement in 2008, from a WSJ article yesterday. It talks about criticism taking place over "many years," which would seem to indicate that indeed it didn't just spring up after 50 years. I think that even with the article in its current shabby state, two sentences isn't too much. Coretheapple (talk) 00:47, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

While better than nothing, the current mention in the article is NOT fine. It erroneously states that the portrayal was criticized 50 years after the fact - the article on I.Y. Yunioshi links two newspaper articles from 1990 and 1993, respectively, as well as a movie about Bruce Lee, also from 1993. Breakfast at Tiffany's was released in 1961, so whoever wrote that got the count wrong by some 20 years. Not to mention the fact putting a hard date in a case of "criticizing" something as racist and/or offensive is misguided. I would imagine that black people got offended plenty the first time they saw minstrel shows in the 19th century. Just because the (white) majority does not consider something to be offensive does not mean that it isn't offensive to "some" - the some being the offended minority. While not a reliable source, the Bruce Lee movie at least suggests that Asian people were offended by the character even in the sixties. Also, I'm pretty sure the character is discussed at length in the documentary The Slanted Screen (2006).

I believe that the edit should avoid dates, but rather use a present perfect construction such as "it has come to be regarded as a racist caricature," etc. I think the most important piece of info is that DVD release of the movie now includes a featurette on the character. That is as definitive a statement that there is something wrong with the portrayal as you can get. And I would certainly drop the "some". It seems clear that: a) the way he dresses b) the accent d) his interractions with others c) the fact that he has comical buck-teeth - are all aspects of the character that are stereotypical/racist/caricaturing and the fact that it's a white person in yellowface only makes it worse. Just because not every person has stated as much does not mean that it is an opinion shared only by "some". I doubt you could find a source from the past 15-20 years that mentions the character and DOESN'T consider it racist/stereotypical. Sorry that I'm commenting out of turn, but I've yet to learn how to navigate the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Apolita (talk • contribs) 01:24, 10 April 2014 (UTC) --Apolita (talk) 01:30, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Don't apologize. You made some very valid points. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:48, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Actually I've already removed the reference to 50 years and the word "some." It has been criticized for a very long time. I recall reading criticism of it back in the eighties and earlier. However, we want to be careful not to give undue emphasis to this one performance, given the extreme length of his career and the relatively short size of this article. Please feel free to pitch in on lengthening the article in general. Coretheapple (talk) 01:38, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

• Comment I'm not sure what you mean. The character and it's subsequent controversy was and still is mentioned in the article. In addition, See Also sections are for links that do not already exist in the article. It's not a repository for restating links. That's why is called See ALSO and not See AGAIN. JOJ ^Hutton 23:19, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

• • Comment I was the lead writer for the article I.Y. Yunioshi back in 2011, and studied the extensive sources about the controversy at that time, and it is a genuine, ongoing controversy in my judgment, Light show. This issue goes back at least to 1990, so has been around for nearly a quarter century. I think that the matter should be mentioned briefly in the Rooney biography and in the article about the film, with wikilinks to the article about the character. It would give undue weight to this issue to devote too much attention in those two articles, since Rooney's career and that quirky, wonderful film are far bigger than this strange performance, and since we already have an article dedicated to this specific issue. I think the three sentence coverage in the biography is probably about right, but I consider the coverage in Breakfast at Tiffany's (film) to be a bit excessive. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:04, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Lead improvement

The lead doesn't seem to be a good summary of the article and could use a major overhaul. --Light show (talk) 23:38, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, it should be at least three times as long and summarize his career and personal life in all its aspects. Actually the entire article can use a major overhaul. Coretheapple (talk) 23:58, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't help that he had a 90-year acting career with 200 movies alone. Tricky to compress down, but the current lead is very flimsy. --Light show (talk) 00:03, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Look at the list of categories. I just added one I didn't know about: novelist. He got a decent review too from Publishers Weekly, according to Amazon, though it was a no-name publisher. Coretheapple (talk) 00:12, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

OK, I'll expand the lead to encompass more of the bio, but anyone can feel free to edit and fix as needed. --Light show (talk) 04:02, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, much improved now. We need to monitor the news in the next few days, as his family is fighting over the body. Sad. A court hearing is scheduled for Friday. Coretheapple (talk) 12:46, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Oscar claim

The article states (in the lead): At age eighteen he became the first teenager to be nominated for an Oscar for his leading role in Boys Town (1938). This is not correct. He was not nominated for an Oscar in that film, although he was nominated in later films. He did receive an Honorary Oscar at age 18, though not for any specific film. Can someone re-word or fix this error? See List of oldest and youngest Academy Award winners and nominees. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:13, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

The above claim would be corrected by saying "age 19" (not 18) and the film Babes in Arms (not Boys Town). Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:24, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Also, in terms of semantics: when one receives an Honorary Academy Award, he would not be considered a "nominee". There is no "nomination" for the Honorary Oscars; they are simply bestowed upon the recipient (even "winner" would be an incorrect word in this context). Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:20, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Feel free to rephrase or expand the lead for accuracy. A Huffington Post article stated, "Rooney was the first teenager to be nominated for an Oscar in a leading role and received a special juvenile Academy Award in 1938 after appearing in "Boys Town" with Spencer Tracy. He would earn four additional Oscar nominations for his work in "Babes In Arms," "The Human Comedy," "The Bold and the Brave" and "The Black Stallion," and receive an Academy Honorary Award "in recognition of his 50 years of versatility" in film." --Light show (talk) 19:35, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't have time to do a good write-up at the moment. Hence, my above post asking for another editor to fix this. In the Huffington Post article that you cite, it states: "Rooney was the first teenager to be nominated for an Oscar in a leading role. Yes, that is true. But, that statement is referring to the film Babes in Arms when he was at the age of 19. It has nothing to do with Boys Town at the age of 18. He did receive an Honorary Oscar at age 18, but he was not "nominated" for that; and I don't even think he was the first teen to receive an Honorary Juvenile Oscar. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:48, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Silent film actors

This article previously mentioned that Rooney was one of the last of the List of surviving silent film actors. Why was this removed? Or is it still in there, moved somewhere? I think it's important enough to keep in the article. Thoughts? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:30, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

An article in the Boston Globe states, "He was the last living star to have appeared in silent films and he holds the record for the longest film career of anyone in the medium’s history." While there are other living actors, the article uses the word "star," which may or may not be significant. I think it probably is. In any case, however it's phrased, I think a source would be needed with a claim of such significance. A link to the actor list may not be enough. --Light show (talk) 19:49, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand? You actually just gave the source with your mention of The Boston Globe. Being a "star" is a narrow subset of being in the general category called "actor". Hence, if "he was the last living star to have appeared in silent films", then – by definition – he would also be one of the last surviving silent film actors. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:55, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

He was, and that should go back in. Actually he was not only one of the last surviving silent film actors, and probably the last silent film star, but also one of the last surviving big stars of the 1930s. Offhand the only surviving star of his era who comes to mind is Olivia deHavilland. Is there anyone else? I can't think of anyone. Coretheapple (talk) 20:02, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, should he be described as having been the "last living star" or "one of the last living actors" of the silent era? I think one sentence for the lead is plenty. BTW, Luise Rainer is still around.--Light show (talk) 20:28, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Have we all forgotten Luise Rainer, winner of the Best Actress Oscar in 1936 and 1937? The first to win 2 Best Actress awards, the first to win 2 consecutive awards and the only one to win both of them outright (Katharine Hepburn won in 1967 and 1968, but the latter was shared with Barbra Streisand). Luise Rainer is still very much alive, and aged 104. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:44, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Oh yes. So I guess it would be her, de Havilland and....? Coretheapple (talk) 20:54, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

As to the wording, I think "one of the last living silent film actors and last living silent film star" would be an accurate summary of reliable sources on the subject. Coretheapple (talk)

NOT the last star from the silent film era

In the opening paragraph, it says that Rooney was the last star from the silent film era. The article that stated that is incorrect. Diana Serra Carey (aka "Baby Peggy") and Carla Laemmle are two silent film stars who are still alive.

Nicolejerelen (talk) 20:44, 12 April 2014 (UTC)Nicole; 4/12/14

Thanks, very much. Fixed. Coretheapple (talk) 21:15, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

1997 arrest

Someone removed the bit about Rooney's arrest for wife beating on 9th February 1997. It is notable as there were later further allegations by his stepson. (92.11.200.243 (talk) 17:49, 19 May 2014 (UTC))

It's worth mentioning in that context. Coretheapple (talk) 18:12, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Agree, especially being only an allegation, never tried with charges dropped. --Light show (talk) 19:58, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

"Charges were later dropped" is not correct (according to the source). Charges were never filed. So, if charges were never filed, then it's a non-issue, and should not be mentioned. --Musdan77 (talk) 21:12, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

I changed the text to reflect that charges were not filed against him. I think a brief mention is warranted, if for no other reason than to balance out the discussion of his relations with his relatives, which at the moment is overwhelmingly favorable to him and unfavorable to everyone else. I think NPOV demands that. I took out the exact date that somebody put back in. In such situations we need only give the month and year. Coretheapple (talk) 23:00, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Rooney's height in infobox

We've had Rooney's height (five foot two) in the infobox for as long as I can remember. I think we need to keep it there, because his shortness was one of the notable aspects of his career, one that he himself often mentioned in a self-deprecating way. The title of his autobiography was "Life is Too Short." So while in most instances we'd omit, I think we should keep. Coretheapple (talk) 20:39, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree. When I saw it was removed, I thought "What's the harm?" - Lyverbe (talk) 22:51, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Career

Says the intro "Rooney's career spanned nearly nine decades and continued until shortly after his death". Please don't let the Australian Liberal-National Coalition read this we don't want them cluing into the fact that they can keep people working even after they're dead. Jimp 11:48, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, I've fixed. Thanks. Coretheapple (talk) 13:06, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Jan Rooney

See discussion at Talk:Jan Rooney. Coretheapple (talk) 16:18, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Daily Mail and contentious BLP claims

Softlavender has repeatedly reinserted contentious claims about drug addiction, financial problems and a 1970s conversion to Born Again Christianity, cited to a very negative story in the Daily Mail, a newspaper which has repeatedly been sued successfully for libel. I oppose use of this source for any contentious claim. What is the relevance of Rooney's son's religion to this biography? The editor claims this has been discussed here on this talk page. In which section? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:37, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi, all of this material – fine-tuned by, and with the oversight of, various editors (as discussed above at Talk:Mickey Rooney#Born-again_Christian.2C_homophobe.3F) – was added to the article back in November 2008. It stayed there until the article was vandalised on April 5, 2012 [3] by User:Pressedfortime, who went on to further vandalize the article five more times: Special:Contributions/Pressedfortime. I guess nobody noticed that first vandalism because it wasn't tagged. There is nothing contentious about someone's religious affiliation, and this is a very important part of Rooney's life and therefore very relevant to the article. The Daily Mail is not a banned reference on Wikipedia, and the article is an in-person interview with Rooney, not a scandal story. Rooney recounts the same story in his 1991 autobiography Life Is Too Short and his 1985 appearance on PTL Club [4]. His problems at the time (which the Daily Mail got slightly wrong -- the date of his conversion was actually ca. 1967) are on public record and confirmed by Rooney (in his autobiography and in various interviews) as being the deaths of his wife and mother, his bankruptcy, and his alcoholism/addictions. If you'd rather have a different citation, I have found over a dozen, and would be happy to use a different one. As for children, children and their activities are relevant to any celebrity's article, especially those children who show parental influence or share a similar life path or major life event such as career similarity or religious conversion. Softlavender (talk) 02:57, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

"Fine tuned"? "Oversight by many editors"? Are we reading the same 2008-2009 conversation that was mostly about homophobia and Rooney's tendency to shoot his mouth off? Where was there discussion of the reliability of the Daily Mail, a newspaper which has been convicted six times for libel in recent years? That story is jam packed with negative innuendo attacking Rooney. So they say the 1970s, you say 1967, and maybe he did shoot his mouth off once or twice about a conversion to Christianity, as he has on countless topics. But where are the reliable sources over the past 40 or 45 years that talk about "Born Again Christianity" as a significant factor of his life story? One line in a British tabloid plus one appearance on the talk show of a discredited televangelist doesn't constitute the kind of scrupulously high quality sourcing required for contentious claims in a biography of a living person. I do not agree, and won't unless much higher quality sources are provided, that prove that this content is "important" and "relevant". Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:57, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

You can view the fine-tuning and oversight of the material from November 6, 2008 through December 3, 2008: [5]. Softlavender (talk) 07:03, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

A review of the edits performed by Pressedfortime shows that your characterization of them as vandalism is false, as these were clearly good faith efforts trying to improve the encyclopedia. Edits by a newbie adding new content about a famous actor are not vandalism, even if not referenced properly, nor are edits changing mention of a person from their first name to their surname, as this complies fully with the Manual of style. Most certainly, edits removing poorly sourced contentious material is not vandalism as it is in full compliance with BLP policy. So yes, please improve the sourcing of these contentious claims ASAP, or remove them. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:11, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Unexplained and repeated removal of cited text is disruptive editing at best. I'm not personally sure what you find contentious about the material in question, but as I mentioned before an improvement in sources is definitely doable, as the information is a matter of wide public record. Softlavender (talk) 07:03, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Not vandalism. Not disruptive in the slightest. Clearly good faith efforts by a newbie. You made no efforts to engage the newbie in discussion, and eventually, they went away. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:55, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

As for Rooney's autobiography, he admits in this interview in The Guardian (a far more reliable source than the Daily Mail) that the book is filled with falsehoods. Accordingly, that book should not be considered a reliable source for any factual claim, but only for Rooney's opinions at a point in time. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:48, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm not exactly sure what parts of the Wikipedia paragraph you object to. The Guardian article you posted confirms the addictions and bankruptcy and religious conversion. It doesn't say his autobiography is filled with falsehoods; it says he didn't date Norma Shearer and that there were things in the book that were not true (Rooney, like Tony Curtis, evidently fictionalized relationships to some degree). You are the first editor to object to cited material which had been vetted and in the article for 3-1/2 years before its unexplained and unnoticed removal. I can, however, understand why my having replaced it might appear to be material out of the blue (I hadn't looked closely at the article since June 2011 so I hadn't noticed till now it was missing) if one wasn't familiar with the insertion and editing that was originally involved. Softlavender (talk) 07:03, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Where's the vetting? I don't see any vetting of the Daily Mail hit piece. The basis of my objection is the poor quality of the sourcing. According to WP:BLP, we are obligated to be "firm about the use of high quality sources" and that "contentious material" such as claims of drug addiction and bankruptcy that is "poorly sourced" should be "removed immediately". I saw that it was poorly sourced, I removed it, you restored it, and now we are discussing it. I don't know what's true about 1967 versus 1970s, pills versus addiction, Christianity versus "born again" Christianity, bad investments versus bankruptcy, and on and on. It seems likely to me that Rooney's life has been pretty much a rolling train wreck for many decades, but I insist that any such claims in this article be cited to "high quality sources" or removed. The fact that no one has objected to any of this before now is irrelevant since he's in his 90s and not getting the attention that Justin Bieber is. But now I've noticed, the article is on my watch list now, and I am not going away. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:27, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the link to the 2008 edits. Am I correct that you were the editor who tried back then to use the sensationalistic NNDB as a source for this section? Well, five years has passed, and I hope that your standards of reliable sourcing are higher these days. But that is not indicative of high quality "vetting" of sources. I also see a lot of edits back then by prolific sockpuppeteer Billy Hawthorn. That doesn't inspire confidence in the vetting. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:43, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

• The edits and sourcing were vetted, as can be seen in the edit history and the discussion on this page, by User:Wildhartlivie, an excellent editor who sadly left Wikipedia in August 2010 after the death of a close family member, and by Rossrs. Just a reminder: editors cannot "insist" on anything, as Wikipedia is a collaborative process; that said, if you would like to request that a different source to be used, even though I don't hear you saying now that any of the material is contentious, that's a request I for one am willing to fulfill. Cheers, Softlavender (talk) 10:38, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

I fail to see the relevance of the statement "...the Daily Mail, a newspaper which has repeatedly been sued successfully for libel..." other than to discredit this particular story without the need to offer any proof that the story is untrue. Though the Daily Mail has often been sued for and lost libel cases, it has also won same. You also need to bear in mind that Libel laws are totally different in the UK, and strongly favour the complainant as opposed to the US where the defendant is favoured. Personally, I think it is a terrible newspaper but to refute the story solely because they have lost libel cases previously is not an objective standard fitting an encyclopedia.46.7.85.68 (talk) 14:09, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Stage appearances as a tot

Bios, including his own, indicate that he appeared on stage since infanthood. The newly published Life and Times of Mickey Rooney states that he became part of a comedy act at the age of three. So I think that 1923 is a safe bet for a beginning date, perhaps earlier. We can even say "circa 1922-1923." Generally I think his very early appearances are worth more in the article. Coretheapple (talk) 16:37, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

For what it's worth, he didn't get any newspaper attention back then, if Newspapers.com's papers are any guide.

Re the edit warring on tagging - I suggest "fact" tagging rather than a tag at the top of the page, as the latter does not provide sufficient guidance as to the problematic passages. Coretheapple (talk) 16:59, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Cause of death

This parameter is problematic for several reasons. First, it is not clearly defined as per the template documentation. Second, it is not a key fact about the subject per MOS. Previous discussions of this type of use of the parameter have opposed it. We don't include every possible fact that can be sourced. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:02, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

This should probably be addressed in the infobox template's talk. If the parameter isn't considered defining, the template developer should be encouraged to remove it. For now, since readers go to an infobox for a quick overview, and for the sake of consistency between articles, there is no damage from presenting it. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 16:05, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

"Natural causes" is vague and frankly I see no point in putting it in the infobox. I agree that it is not clearly defined and could mean anything from stroke to cancer. Per WP:EDITCONSENSUS, given that the cause of death has been in the infobox for some time, I'd suggest discussing it here and forming a consensus before removing. Coretheapple (talk) 18:04, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Agreed about "vague". Stevie, if you look at the template documentation, you'll see that it states the parameter should be included only when it is clearly defined - there are possible values that would meet that standard, this one does not. There is no argument for "consistency between articles" here - the parameters in use are decided on an article-by-article basis, and there's no requirement for all articles to use all available parameters (in fact, that would be against the guidance of MOS). Nikkimaria (talk) 01:21, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

OK, thanks for pointing that out. I think "natural causes" is clearly defined as opposed to let's say "unknown", but both of you insist that we make the reader skip to the prose to find out, even though doing this makes it inconsistent with other articles. And I do stand by the consistency argument. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 01:55, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

In addition to being incompatible with most of the guidance we have around infoboxes, the "consistency" argument doesn't appear to support inclusion. There are 238,166 instances of {{infobox person}}, no more than 7% of those use this parameter at all, and less than 1% of those have "natural causes" listed. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:46, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081007103339/http://www.seeing-stars.com/schools/hps.shtml to http://www.seeing-stars.com/Schools/HPS.shtml
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121013165655/http://www.palmspringswalkofstars.com/web-storage/Stars/Stars%20dedicated%20by%20date.pdf to http://www.palmspringswalkofstars.com/web-storage/Stars/Stars%20dedicated%20by%20date.pdf

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:17, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060514143336/http://philsilversshow.homestead.com/MickeyRooney.html to http://philsilversshow.homestead.com/MickeyRooney.html

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:22, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

indicating 'psychopathy'?

I quote from the article: 'He is notable for having married eight times, indicating psychopathy.'

I have a real problem with this. I think that the term 'psychopathy' is associated with antisocial, criminal, and violent behavior. And even in that context, the pure-case psychopath is, I think, relatively rare. But Mickey Rooney was a functional, indeed a successful individual. He appeared as himself in 'The Muppets'. I'm not saying that he's actually funny in 'Breakfast at Tiffany's', but really? Psychopathy? I think somebody is trolling wiki. If it is relevant, I think that Elizabeth Taylor also married eight times.DanLanglois (talk) 10:14, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Removed. That bit was added by a troll who is now banned. Binksternet (talk) 07:26, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Mickey Rooney's Talent Town

There is no mention of his establishing this business in 1978 (?) in California, and opening a studio in Woodbridge NJ in 1982 under the management of Rae O'Dea. The business was a performing arts center, more than a dancing school (as well). The students performed at the Tabis Hotel in PA, co-owned by Rooney, and on Broadway (and 36th St) at the Macy's Thanksgiving Day parade.

During 1982's run of Sugar Babies, on a Saturday morning, he appeared at the Woodbridge Public Library, where he performed stories for a group of children and then was interviewed by Ed Beckerman, Library Director. I directed and filmed the beginning of the show, as Rooney led the children into the library. The footage was later incorporated into a show taped by Suburban Cable.

William Spangler — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.115.160.53 (talk) 21:39, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Legacy Section

The Legacy portion of this article just repeats the same information provided earlier, including quotations and other word-for-word redundancies. The entire section either needs to be rewritten or removed. 2600:1702:1860:53D0:FCA6:32AE:61CA:82BC (talk) 14:32, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

name origin

It appears that Mickey Mouse was named after 'Mickey McGuire'. Rooney said just that on The Late Late Show a few weeks ago. -- Kwekubo 16:11, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

It's not actually true; it's an urban legend started by Rooney himself. Walt Disney's wife Lillian Disney was the one who named the mouse. --b. Touch 15:58, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

---

If he had his name legally changed, this article should refer to him as "Mickey Rooney, born Joseph Yule, Jr." Changing this. —Home Row Keysplurge 17:44, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Did I miss something here? There were once a few lines about how "Joseph Yule, Jr." became "Mickey Rooney." There was even a lawsuit about it. Isn't the acquisition of his stage (and adopted legal) name worthy of comment (with citation, of course)? American In Brazil (talk) 14:11, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

---

Is it possible he got his name from James Joyce's Ulysses? In chapter 11; "But for example the chap that wallops the big drum. His vocation: Mickey Rooney’s band. Wonder how it first struck him." Point of Presencetalk 12:15, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Animals with the Tollkeeper

There is currently a discussion on 'Articles for Deletion' regarding this film that Rooney appears in. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Animals with the Tollkeeper. DonaldD23 talk to me 15:33, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Interred

Mickey Rooney is not "buried," he is interred above ground. 74.196.122.198 (talk) 22:31, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

“Teddy” (child) link points to a “Yellow Pages” article

Incorrect hyperlink in the biographical details snapshot box at the beginning of the article. Where Rooney’s spouses and children are listed, the hyperlink for son, Teddy, is pointing to the wrong article. I’m not sure how to fix it, and will leave it for someone with more experience editing these articles. libreechange (talk) 19:37, 14 November 2022 (UTC)