Talk:Warren Beatty

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ] (If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
	This article is supported by the Politics and government work group.
	This article is supported by the Arts and Entertainment work group.

Contents 1 Pro-life stance 2 Names 3 Northwestern University 4 Stable version discussion 5 Bonnie & Clyde

[edit] Pro-life stance

I removed the following:

After having children Beatty told the Drudge Report, "Since having children, I am pro-life."

I also removed a link that was pointing to a Hilary Clinton website for some unknown reason.

The Drudge Report did report that Beatty is pro-life, but it seems very biased to have this be the only political view mentioned in the article. If anything, Beatty is known for his leftest leanings. I would have no objection to returning the comment to a paragraph that fairly talks about his political activism and ideology. Until then, I think it should be out. --Samuel Wantman 08:40, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Names

The article currently states that he was born "Henry Warren Beaty"; is this a typo, or was his last name originally spelled with only one "t"? It has two everywhere else in the article. --LostLeviathan 14:31, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

The latter. His birth name was in fact Beaty. See also slightly more information at the page for his sister Shirley MacLaine, also born Beaty — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 05:17, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Northwestern University

http://www.ugadm.northwestern.edu/alumni/facts/alumni.htm begins by saying:

The following is a list of just some of our successful graduates, organized by their field of achievement.

The emphasis is mine. The following entry can be found about 1/4 the way down the page:

Warren Beatty, actor, Academy Award-winning producer (Communication 59)

This looks like it means "Warren Beatty graduated from from Northwestern University in 1959 with a degree in communication studies." Does anybody have a source saying he dropped out? Is this an merely honorary degree? Or is he listed just for NU recruitment purposes without regard for accuracy? — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 17:10, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Stable version discussion

This article gets very few edits; it seems like it would be a acceptable candidate for a stable version. I recomend we use the current version as of now (revision 62845012). JesseW, the juggling janitor 20:19, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not an expert on the subject, but I don't see anything wrong with the current version. I've never edited the article myself; this presumably qualifies me as the "administrator who is largely uninvolved in the article otherwise" required by Wikipedia:Stable versions now. I support the creation of a stable version – Gurch 22:22, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm throwing in an oppose - see my comments on Wikipedia talk:Stable versions now. --SPUI (T - C) 08:06, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Do you have any specific issues with this actual article? JesseW, the juggling janitor 17:57, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure how relevant this should be, but I don't like having a questionable fair use image in the lead and the failure to cite sources on the article itself. Should problems like this prevent the article from having a stable version? --Spangineer^[es] (háblame) 17:53, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, I can easily fix the non-on-article-cited sources problem; as for the questionable fair use image, why don't we remove it from the stable version, and leave it in the development version, pending further review of it's fair use status? JesseW, the juggling janitor 17:57, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Sources now cited on-page, and the image removed. (For reference, it's code was: [[Image:WBeatty.jpg|thumb|250px|Warren Beatty]] ) JesseW, the juggling janitor 18:07, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

This is an excellent candidate. Strong support. -- Where 00:19, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

So we're talking about freezing revision 63081592, right? Any other objections to testing this? --Spangineer^es (háblame) 15:30, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Strong oppose, and not only because I oppose this process. This article, for starters, does not actually cite its sources. It has a reference area, but there's no context to any of it. Removing the image, IMO, was a mistake, and takes away from the article being anything stable, as articles should have at least one image. Many celebs/movie stars have infoboxes, none for this one? I could go on, but no. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:16, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean "no context to any of" the reference section? Did you even look at the detailed references, linked right from the bottom of the section? JesseW, the juggling janitor 20:06, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

This is the issue; how good do articles have to be to "deserve" a stable version, were we to implement this? --Spangineer^es (háblame) 19:15, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

At the very least, they should be of the quality where major changes would not have to occur to the article to improve it. By no means does it have to reach good or featured status, but, at the moment, you're looking at three major things that would definitely change the look and feel of this article without even getting into the style and prose. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:29, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Definitely oppose. There's no picture on this page. Are you saying I'd have to muster together a tribunal of judges or some such silliness if I wanted to add a fair-use pic of Mr. Beatty to the article? Or even to avoid a comma splice? Why aren't they looking to featured articles for this experiment, where there is already a version that was chosen as representing the best that Wikipedia has to offer? JDoorjam Talk 21:29, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Hardly - I only removed the image because Spangineer raised questions about it satisfying the fair use guidelines, and I didn't wish to get into an argument about them at this time. If you wish to add an image, please do so. In any case, after reading the talk page of the proposal, I prefer your idea of highlighting the revisions of articles that have already been featured, rather than using this proposal, so it's academic at this point. JesseW, the juggling janitor 20:06, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

"they should be of the quality where major changes would not have to occur to the article to improve it". In my experience, that's FA or near FA quality. This article could be improved by: expanding the biography section and splitting it up by periods, expanding the lead to comply with WP:LEAD, adding free images, adding critical review of his work, cutting the trivia section, further developing the politics section, combining paragraphs/improving prose, adding inline citations, etc. Once you've done all that, you're at the level of Katie Holmes or Henry Fonda (both FAs). All those changes could be considered "major". And if you go to either Katie Holmes or Henry Fonda, it wouldn't be too hard to find some comma splice or other minor grammatical/spelling problem. I guess my point is that if we're talking about avoiding "major changes", then only FAs should be considered (though there are some FAs that need serious work; i.e. Humphrey Bogart). That might be the best way to go, at least at first. --Spangineer^es (háblame) 13:29, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Sometimes, all an FAC needs is an expansion of different ideas, change in prose tone, better referencing, etc. Nothing like the massive overhaul this article needs to become "stable." --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:34, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Badlydrawnjeff - you seem to have entirely misunderstood the purpose of having a stable version. It does not represent a standard of quality, unlike GA or FA. It represents a version that does not contain obviously unacceptable content, which the most current version may, at any time. There is no level of "completeness" required for a stable version; if you want to add an infobox, please do so - if you add it to the development version, please suggest the stable version be incremented to include it. None of this is a problem, and making a stable version does not require a level of quality. JesseW, the juggling janitor 19:29, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

To fight the forest fire that's been started across nine different talk pages, I'd suggest this discussion continue back on the proposal talk page. JDoorjam Talk 20:41, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose due to the proposal not having anything like the support it needs to become operative. Cynical 20:33, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bonnie & Clyde

The section for Bonnie & Clyde is in dire need of revising and rewriting. The film was disaster when it opened and would have gone into the dustbin of history if Beatty had not fought for a re-release after getting some better reviews (in fact, I seem to recall that a well known critic actually changed their mind and gave it a rave after first panning it). Beatty had fights with Jack Warner over it and is one of the few filmmakers to ever get him to change his famously stubborn mind. All of this is recounted in Peter Biskind's book Easy Riders, Raging Bulls among others. RoyBatty42 02:08, 19 January 2007 (UTC)