Talk:Clint Eastwood/Archive 2

"Do you feel lucky, punk?" line his most quoted
'Do I feel lucky?' Well, do ya, punk? is the line that is most identified with Eastwood and most used by people (very notably Jim Carrey) to do impressions of him. A quick search found that ign.com listed it as #35 on their list of top film quotes (http://www.ign.com/top/movie-moments/35). Surely a source can be found citing this fact even though even though even my mother knows this.RoyBatty42 (talk) 22:44, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Why the pic of Oakland Tech HS if he didn't go there?
Why the image of Oakland Tech HS if the article says he went to Piedmont Jr HS and HS and doesn't say anything about Oakland Tech? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Phantom in ca (talk • contribs) 00:24, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

He did, but this mistakingly got cut out in the condensing process. He transferred to Oakland. ‡ Himalayan ‡ ΨMonastery 21:35, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism
This article had a considerable amount of vandalism done to it by someone from an anonymous IP address. Aren't biographies of living people supposed to be protected from such editing? Bardak (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:49, 10 February 2010 (UTC).

James Bond
This article http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/showbiz/celebrity-interviews/2010/02/10/clint-eastwood-on-his-favourite-movies-why-he-won-t-retire-and-how-he-turned-down-role-as-james-bond-86908-22032200/ says that he turned down the role of James Bond after Connery retired. Surely this deserves a mention? Also, his being named "America's favourite movie star"? 21:51, 12 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.46.172.25 (talk)

Article too large
As of this version, the article is over 155KB in length. I think the article has become too large in size and WP:SIZERULE suggests that articles over 100KB "Almost certainly should be divided". The main disandvantages of an article of this size are that a casual reader can easily lose interest past a certain point and that readers and editors using dial-up internet access are at a disandvantage when waiting for articles of this size to load. WP:SIZE describes other disandvantages as well.

The issue now is to decide what can be split into a separate article and what can be simply trimmed. One of the things that I think is quite excessive is the amount of detailed information for almost each individual film in his filmography. Often throughout this article this information seems better suited for the specific film article itself rather than the Eastwood article; sections on Pale Rider and Pink Cadillac contain more detail about the film than Eastwood's involvement. I think this type of information can easily be removed from the article without loss of benefit to the reader, so long as there exists at least a link to Clint Eastwood filmography. What do others think? Big Bird (talk • contribs) 17:20, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree that there is too much detail. Information about a specific film should mainly belong at the film's article.  I think it is best to reference a film if there is some milestone involved.  For example, his first acting role, his first direction, his break away from Westerns, etc.  I would recommend putting most of these film-related sections in the "Cast" section of each film's article. Erik (talk) 17:29, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

If you people would just quit moaning and allow the damn article to be written fully it can be condensed later. The article is already split into early life,. 1960s, I intend to split 1970s, 1980s, 1990s and 2000s when fully written too. I also have another biography book which I will use to even out the sources. If you split now it will not be as comprehensive as I intend it to be. I've nearly finished the 70s anyway, so that can be split and condensed ina few days etc. I'll also drastically reduce the earlier sections further.... ‡ Himalayan ‡ ΨMonastery 18:10, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Edits like this one really are more appropriate for The Gauntlet than this article. Why would you feel it adds more benefit to this article rather than the film's article? Big Bird (talk • contribs) 18:29, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

What part about what I said above did you not understand?? I told you let me finish writing each deacade first and then it can be copied into seperate article by decade and also can be inserted into the main film article. Tjen it can be condensed for his main article and remove anything which is not essential. Look I know what I'm doing, I do not have to spend time writing this. If you looked how shitty the article was before I started on it. Once it is written and condensed people will be thanking me, oh maybe not, you haven't so far. ‡ Himalayan ‡ ΨMonastery 18:57, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Hard to thank someone who has that attitude. Your contributions are appreciated, but why did you not provide the detail at each film's article and summarize some information in this person's article?  It's an unusual way to go about it. Erik (talk) 19:05, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Look do you think I'm Jack's nipple? i intend to add all the information about each film in the film articles too. ‡ Himalayan ‡ ΨMonastery 19:13, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * We can help you do that. What is the purpose of having the information at this article presently when it can belong at each film's article already?  The only reason I can see is a kind of sandbox approach, but we should not be doing that in the mainspace. Erik (talk) 19:19, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Right I guess it has to be done now so I'm about remove virtually all detail from this article. ‡ Himalayan ‡ ΨMonastery 19:13, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * If I may suggest something, I think Erik makes a good point about the mainspace article being used as a sandbox of sorts. If it makes it easier for you to add all of the newly found material into one location rather than each indivicual film, it may be a good idea to copy the article into your userspace and add the material there. Once it's all added, you can move the material to each individual film from the centralized location in your userspace and you can also enlist the help of the WP:FILMS participants to help you with it. You have created a tremendous amount of material since October and, yes, I do thank you for it. The problem is that information is only useful in proper context and a reader who comes to the Clint Eastwood article may find it to be an unwelcome disctraction when they find dozens of reviews about his co-stars' performances and cinematography information indirectly related to Eastwood himself. This same information, however, would be a much welcome addition to some other articles in need of expansion. It just doesn't belong here, especially if it's only temporary. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 19:47, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree, sorry I snapped at you but my attitude intitially was only because I've spent hours and huors working on this and planned on writing it my way but I guess givne that it has thousands of views per day it need condensing even as it is being written.. My method though it to add the flesh first and try to provide as much information as possible and then cut down afterwards leaving a refined well written article. It just takes so much time and in the meantime is reading as bloated to you guys. I've begun cutting it anyway. ‡ Himalayan ‡ ΨMonastery 20:12, 3 March 2010 (UTC) But 'd have to disagree with you about some of the cinematography/production information. It goes hand in hand with undersatnding Eastwood's career and films he worked on. ‡ Himalayan ‡ ΨMonastery 20:38, 3 March 2010 (UTC) Better so far? ‡ Himalayan ‡ ΨMonastery 20:49, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * From the discussion above, one suggestion that may be useful when undertaking a large revision is to place an tag(s), therefore ensuring that other editors will provide some respite while the major work is being done. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:18, 6 March 2010 (UTC).
 * Himalayan Explorer, I can understand what you mean about building the article up first and then trimming and redistributing the information.  That's pretty much the same approach I've used on a number of occasions, but always in a sandbox.  If you do most of the work in your sandbox, other editors won't see "a work in progress" and judge it negatively as "bloated" or whatever, and you can work at your own pace, without any pressure or urgency.  Otherwise, every time you hit 'save' you are handing a new version of the article back to anyone who may choose to edit it or comment on it.   I respect the work you've put into this article, and I wish you all the best with it, as it looks like it's going to be a huge improvement over previous versions, once you've finished.  Rossrs (talk) 14:43, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * My two cents. This article is indeed very thorough and well-written, but it also almost crashed my laptop. I understand there are plans for FAC, and I'm afraid the length might become a problem. Anna Wintour's article was such an example. The reviewers thought it's too heavy for an FA. - Artoasis (talk) 18:13, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Erm, this discussion was from a year ago when then article was too large see Clint Eastwood in the 1960s and Clint Eastwood in the 1970s for what was there originally... Is has since been considerably shortened and evened out. To cut length from it now would affect how comprehesnive it is. See List of Chinese inventions if you really think length or KB is a problem for FA. ♦ Dr. Blofeld  19:42, 23 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, I certainly hope it's not a problem, considering what a long and legendary career Eastwood has. And the article you mentioned? I had to close it while it's still loading. That's it. I need a new laptop. - Artoasis (talk) 05:25, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Its a 253 kb FA..♦ Dr. Blofeld  09:28, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Currently, I think the article is not too large. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 10:54, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Number of Awards
The article states that he has five Oscars, but it seems he only has four, according to IMDB. Also, he has a lifetime achievement award from the Screen Actors Guild but no regular awards, so I think that should be specified. If anyone wants to contend this, please do, but I'm going to go ahead and change it. Ann (talk) 19:10, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

He also won a Thalberg, which may account for the fifth Oscar, as it is awarded during the Academy Awards (but it is a bust of Thalberg and not the typical statuette.) PokeHomsar (talk) 16:41, 27 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Our Irving G. Thalberg Memorial Award article needs beefing up. It should explicitly state that these awards are counted as honorary "Oscars" just like the Jean Hersholt Humanitarian Award and the other honorary Oscars, whatever the shape of the actual physical object may be (which is not necessarily a statuette; sometimes it's a scroll, plaque, medal or certificate).  --   Jack of Oz    ... speak! ...   18:02, 10 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Done now. --   Jack of Oz   [your turn]  20:19, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Mayor of Carmel
For some reason, I cannot find any information on what party Eastwood represented as Mayor of Carmel, if any. This article does not supply that information, but neither does Google. He may have run as an independent, but I can't find any information to confirm his party. Does anyone know? PokeHomsar (talk) 16:39, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * After looking at http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/april/8/newsid_2523000/2523371.stm, http://www.clinteastwood.net/welcome/alt/, http://usconservatives.about.com/od/hollywoodconservatives/p/EastwoodBIO.htm, it looks to me that he did not run to represent a party, but purely to reduce the municipal bureaucracy and "make it easier to build or renovate properties". Not everything is party politics. --Andreclos (talk) 07:41, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

60s 70s 80s
The subarticles linked here are essentially copy and paste jobs of the sections in the main article. The sub articles should be deleted or the sections in the main article need to be summaries like they're supposed to be. As is is not the way to do this.  — Rlevse • Talk  • 00:41, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I plan to help out in trimming this down and making the section summaries (with related content remaining over on the subpages). I probably won't take a stab at it though until I start and finish an FAC candidate I'm working on. At the earliest, probably a month. If somebody wants to try now, I'll help out more later. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 01:16, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

French article
Why don't translate the French article which is a featured article ? Or, somebody can use the article references or only complete the actual english article. Regards Stef48 (talk) 15:31, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Top Ten Money Makers Poll
I think the following is worth mentioning, but I can't decide where to put it. Any ideas?

Eastwood appeared in the Top Ten Money Makers Poll of films  from 1968 to 184, 1986, 1992 and 1993, topping the list in 1972, 1973, 1983, 1984 and 1993. With a total of 2 years on the list, Eastwood has more appearances than any other star except John Wayne(25). gramorak 14:24, 13 August 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gramorak (talk • contribs)

Non-smoker?
Not that I don't believe it, but it needs a cite. He is seen smoking in any number of his films. DavidOaks (talk) 17:35, 9 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Eastwood HATES smoking. Leone insisted that he have a cigar in his mouth in the films and when he found out that Eastwood hates smoking he made him have a cigar in his mouth in even more scenes to wind him up. Eastwood has always been a health freak. Dr.  Blofeld  19:42, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't doubt it. It still needs a cite. He smoked in Gran Torino too -- it was a key plot point in fact. Smoked in Coogan's Bluff (http://media.photobucket.com/image/Eastwood%20coogan%252527s/stefanmiklos/ClintEastwood/coogan-schifrin.jpg) In fact, there's a still of him smoking on the set of that movie while watching a girl being body-painted -- not sure if that was in character or during a break  DavidOaks (talk) 17:36, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

It has a cite. Dr.  Blofeld  17:44, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

It was also cited in the biography "Eastwood a Hollywood Loner".

Copy-editing notes
Hello. Taking a whack at this. I'll leave notes for things I've confused by, while I'm at it. Xavexgoem (talk) 07:14, 17 December 2010 (UTC) --Xavexgoem (talk) 07:39, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * 1950
 * "[he] played an ex-renegade in the Confederacy in Ambush at Cimarron Pass, his biggest screen role to date opposite Scott Brady" - his biggest role to date ever, or his biggest role to date opposite Scott Brady? As it is without the comma, it looks like the latter.
 * Is it necessary or beneficial to list all the films Eastwood tried out for?
 * Was the contract with Universal, with Lubin, with both, or are they the same? At one point, it says Eastwood is working with Lubin into the 60s, then says he's struggling without the Lubin contract. It can be inferred that they're the same, but the inconsistent wording makes this a bit confusing.
 * Bold removals
 * I removed the anecdote of Eastwood not talking to Lubin until 1992. The current structure of the article makes it very difficult to add naturally... this kind of worries me, since it looks like Lubin and Eastwood had a good relationship.

Dead links
There are quite a few dead links to deal with: http://toolserver.org/~dispenser/cgi-bin/webchecklinks.py?page=Clint_Eastwood. Regards, -- Diannaa (Talk) 23:02, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Clint's "partners"
Info-boxes are for the few pieces of information that one needs to compare similar subjects, in this case actors. Available info-box parameter are to be used only if appropriate. Former girlfriends and mistresses are not needed to compare actors so I removed it from the info-box. That information is mentioned in the body of the article for those that are interested.

Also, the use of the word "partner" in this context is iffy at best. Abbott and Costello were partners, as were Batman and Robin, but not in the same way. This relativity recent usage of this word is not widely accepted. It's meaning varies from one person to the next, one country to the next, one decade to the next. It's too vague and "PC" to be in an encyclopedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Micro2 (talk • contribs) 02:12, 21 February 2011 (UTC)


 * In Wikipedia infoboxes, partner means domestic partner, not business partner or sports partner. People whom the subject of a biography have cohabited with are routinely included on their biographies, when known. They are relevant to the subject's life; the infobox is not only for info that is about the subject's career. Jim Michael (talk) 08:02, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * If that parameter name was changed to "domestic partner" I think the ambiguity issue would be adequately resolved. "domestic partner" is a recent invention and isn't fully accepted. While many people have adopted it, it makes others squirm. I don't have a big problem with including such information the article and therefore haven't removed it, but there are policies regarding what gets included in the info-boxes and this info doesn't belong.Micro2 (talk) 16:56, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Which policy says not to include the subject's (former) cohabitees in infoboxes? They are routinely included there on thousands of Wikipedia biographies. Jim Michael (talk) 21:18, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Hello, why else do you think the "domesticpartner" (it appears as "partner" on the page) section even exists on wikipedia? Look at Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie's pages. He lived with Sondra Locke for 14 years. He lived with Frances Fisher for five and had a daughter with her.

You obviously aren't too smart to be calling her a "mistress." She was actually the one who was married, not him (well, in the beginning of the relationship he was still legally married, but legally separated). Locke is still married to her husband, Gordon Anderson (in name only, she says he is gay). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.201.96.193 (talk) 00:16, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It'd be better off discussing whether to use the parameter on the infobox's page. If it's deemed vague from the infobox documentation, then it should be clarified there so that other articles that may have similar situations can have clearer guidance. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 02:30, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Don't put any weight into the comment by the 76.* IP above. It's a banned user. Nymf hideliho! 11:22, 23 February 2011 (UTC)


 * What Mr. IP says is true actually. Locke all along was still married to Gordon Anderson who is gay. But she was living with Eastwood and was his mistress.♦ Dr. Blofeld  12:07, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Here are the basic parameters for people: name, image, caption, birth_date, birth_place, nationality, known_for, occupation. Here's the policy for including additional parameters: "Only use those parameters that convey essential or notable information about the subject". "Infobox templates contain facts and statistics that are common to related articles." Not all actors have unmarried cohabitees. The "partner" parameter was formerly named "domesticpartner". In the infobox documentation, "partner" refers to "life partner", which according to WP includes Abbott and Costello etc. I really think that all this nebulous terminology needs to go. I would agree that it is best done at wherever the source of that parameter is, however I don't know how to do that. Micro2 (talk) 04:51, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps the infobox parameter in question should be changed to domestic partner. The two long cohabitations concerned are relevant to his life and as such are notable information about the subject. Jim Michael (talk) 18:06, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Changing the name would be an improvement. After some digging I found that a couple of years ago the name was changed to domestic partner for the reasons we've been discussing. Later there was a merging of 2 templates and the change was lost. So we can try to get an admin to restore it, or even better, change it to something like cohabitee. Micro2 (talk) 19:02, 24 February 2011 (UTC)


 * If this info is listed in the info box for Sondra Locke, why not the same info for Clint Eastwood? Is there double a standard?  This info is significant to both of their lives and should be included. Tropiwikian (talk) 04:19, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Since each article is edited independently, inconsistencies can occur. You could always remove the info from the Sondra Locke article. For those that feel that the relationship is significant enough for the public to read up on, isn't it enough that it's in the article? There are guidelines for what information should be included in infoboxes. This info doesn't meet them. Something to keep in mind is that it's mainly the use of the word "partner" I object to.Micro2 (talk) 05:36, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

WHOA! Under 'Relationships' is this sentence regarding flight attendant Jacelyn Reeves: "They met at a pub in Carmel and conceived a son, Scott Reeves (born March 21, 1986), at the premiere of Pale Rider." Can we get a little clarification on that? American In Brazil (talk) 02:12, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Delete lazy quote box, Rawhide section
This quote, very prominent, early in the article...starts with "Lazy..." gives undue wt to this point of view. If one takes the time to read the section, which some people may not, it's more balanced "grueling" work hours vs "lazy". Reccommend deleting the quote. 15:14, 10 March 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mirboj (talk • contribs)

No it doesn't. Actually most directors said this about Eastwood in the 1950s and it is VERY relevant. PLus the article says thst despite him working gruelling hours for Rawhide they still perceived him as lazy because he put minimal effort into it. Many critics have even said he doesn't act, just stands there and hisses his lines and looking menacing..♦ Dr. Blofeld  17:11, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Section lengths
Hi

There is a little problem with section lengths. For example:


 * The 1970s section (2445 words) lists the "main article" as Clint Eastwood in the 1980s (2444 words)

Can someone maybe take a look at this little anomaly? The sections here are supposed to be a summary of the "main articles", not longer!

Chaosdruid (talk) 14:13, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * This will be resolved in the coming weeks when the article is condensed down after some further additions. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 00:10, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Sondra Locke book
Her memoir The Good, the Bad, and the Very Ugly includes a harrowing account of their years together in section Relationships isn't referenced here or at Personal life of Clint Eastwood or at Sondra Locke. No doubt it easily can be, but I suggest losing or rephrasing '"harrowing". Spicemix (talk) 22:48, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Mothers of Eastwood's children?
All seven children are mentioned in the infobox, but only 2 of the 5 mothers (the ones he was married to) are listed. Some of these children were products of adulterous affairs, but one of them is from a domestic partnership with Frances Fisher. Fisher can be listed as a domestic partner in the infobox. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.220.185 (talk) 01:14, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

(in 2011 dollars)
It appears that one editor just learned how inflation works. Can somebody who both knows more about how things work on this site, and who isn't sort of drunk go through and make it so every other line isn't a reference to inflation. I mean, when a movie comes out in 2008, it's not really that important to account for the very slight inflation that has happened in that time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.73.189.221 (talk) 02:49, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Who is Siegel?
this phrase is in the beginning of a sentence in the Dirty Harry section "It was Siegel's highest-grossing film" but there is no mention of who Siegel is or what his involvement was. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.207.72.249 (talk) 14:08, 18 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Don Siegel is mentioned several times. He is introduced in the 1960s section as "a Universal contract director who later became one of Eastwood's close friends, with the two forming a close partnership that would last for more than ten years over five films." Prayer for the wild at heart (talk) 15:08, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Clint Eastwood's mother
Margaret Ruth Runner was born Jan 18 1909 and died Feb 7 2006.69.15.219.71 (talk) 01:38, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Verifiability of 'monogamous' and 'happily'?
This statement is unverifiable and should be modified: "Although monogamous and happily married to his second wife since 1996..."

If Eastwood has *stated* that he is monogamous and happily married, that should be referenced and written as "Eastwood claims to be monogamous and happily married to his second wife..." or something along those lines.

As written, the statement is speculation put forth as fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.226.112.112 (talk) 18:07, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I made a small change to the sentence; cited sources don't say "monogamous"; Guardian reports "The couple, who live happily on a sprawling ranch..." Fat&#38;Happy (talk) 19:05, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

1980s
I added a new image to the section of the Clint Eastwood article Clint Eastwood's Grauman's Chinese Theatre cement photographed in Mid-2011 in the section 1980's since his cement was from 1984. The image was photographed by a Kodak Digital Camera in Mid 2011 and I hope everyone enjoys it and may any of you users or administrators tell me if there is anything wrong with the image and I will be willing to go back and fix that problem thank you. Other than that enjoy the imageIlovechoclate (talk) 15:53, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Playboy Refs
Refs 258 and 259 both appear to be dead. Jprw (talk) 06:37, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

The problem now seems to have been fixed by User Fat&Happy. Jprw (talk) 08:22, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

70s section
The film was pre-screened at the Sun Valley Center for the television and Humanities in Idaho during a six-day conference entitled Western Movies: Myths and Images''. Invited to the screening were a number of esteemed film critics, including Jay Cocks and Arthur Knight; directors such as King Vidor, William Wyler, and Howard Hawks; and a number of academics.'' Surely this is excessive detail? (by the way, lifted directly from The Outlaw Josey Wales article).

''The film proved a surprising success upon its release and became Eastwood's most commercially successful film at the time. Panned by critics, it ranked high among the box office successes of his career and was the second-highest grossing film of 1978'' This seems to contradict the lead. Which is correct? Jprw (talk) 07:31, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Actually not lifted, the film articles contains lifted info from this. Nehrams and I went through his films and added text from this article to bulk up production. Excessive, yes, probably, essential it is not. Every which way was commercially one of his most successfull films but was panned by critics. Where is the contradiction?♦ Dr. Blofeld  19:21, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

The contradiction is that in the lead it says the most not one of the most. Jprw (talk) 07:30, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Transcendental meditation
Can his advocacy of TM not be given greater coverage in the article? He talks about it and the positive role it has had in his life here. Jprw (talk) 08:37, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Well in that clip he basically says its a great tool for dealing with stress, which is stating the obvious.♦ Dr. Blofeld  19:24, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Confusion re: year
I wonder if someone can help me out:

''Eastwood directed and starred in White Hunter Black Heart (1990), an adaptation of Peter Viertel's roman à clef, about John Huston and the making of the classic film The African Queen. Shot on location in Zimbabwe in the summer of 1989, the film received some critical attention but with only a limited release earned just $8.4 million (US$14.9 million in 2012 dollars[25]). Later the same year Eastwood directed and co-starred with Charlie Sheen in The Rookie, a buddy cop action film''.

Later the same year

Is this referring to 1989, or 1990? The Rookie WP article doesn't help. Jprw (talk) 06:32, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Clint Eastwood and Hmong
Not sure how this would fit in, but... WhisperToMe (talk) 06:56, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Bee Vang said that many Hmong watched Clint Eastwood films in Ban Vinai.
 * Source: Schein, Louisa. "Hmong Actors Making History Part 2: Meet the Gran Torino Family." Hmong Today at ''New America Media. October 4, 2008.

Honorary Chairman NLEOM/NLEM
Why hasn't a section of information been added about his Honorary Chairman position in the National Law Enforcement Officer's Memorial and National Law Enforcement Museum? That is just as huge as his Doctor In Music honorary degree which is already listed, and of equal consideration of his lifelong achievements to be placed in this article as compared to it.

A reference for proof: http://www.nleomf.org/about/honorary-chairman/ - 75.45.5.252 (talk) 03:13, 1 May 2012 (UTC) - SugarD-x

WP:SYNC problem on political life coverage
Clint Eastwood and Political life of Clint Eastwood have a WP:SYNC problem. The more specific article split off in January 2011 and Clint Eastwood, which should be written in a summary style that defers to the main article, contains details that should be in Political life of.... As evidence, I temporarily reverted Clint Eastwood to its January 2011 version.

Since this article is well-watched and supposedly still has its WP:GOOD status, in spite of this problem, I don't have the patience to fix the article myself. Nevertheless, I thought I'd mention it. 67.101.5.62 (talk) 23:48, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

2012 RNC in the lead?
As it stands, the lead mentions his politics only in terms of his nonpartisan mayorship of Carmel. That implies he's a nonpartisan guy, which he's clearly not. He's long self-identified as a libertarian. This could deserve mention in that paragraph of the lead with a reference to his RNC appearance, perhaps. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:29, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * In general I agree that "nonpartisan" is not a good descriptor, but I don't think the RNC appearance should be in the lead, at least not for now. He is difficult to categorize politically (as are many libertarians). His narration of the Superbowl halftime commercial was criticized by conservatives; it's mentioned in the article, but little is said about it in the press now. The same may be true of his RNC appearance. Let's let the media hype settle down and then decide whether the RNC appearance is noteworthy enough for the lead. Cresix (talk) 22:24, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I added a characterization ("rambling") of Clintwood's monologue that was independently commented upon and reiterated in many major media outlets, and you've reverted it. Similarly, I included the NYT's quotes about the reception by Romney campaign staffers and Scott Walker's real time reaction to Clintwood's performance. These seem quite germane. They will certainly be remembered for a long time, given the prominence of his appearance and the viewership. His Superbowl halftime ad will also be remembered. The fact that it is rarely mentioned now, half a year after the Superbowl, does not indicate by any means that it has disappeared from American consciousness, no more than Anne Richards' "born with a silver foot in his mouth" characterization of George H.W. Bush at the Democratic Convention in 1988 or Janet Jackson's "nipslip" at the halftime at Superbowl XXXVIII in 2004 have been forgotten. By deleting references to this noteworthy episode, you seem to have appointed yourself the sole arbiter of what's important and what period of time must elapse to come to a judgment about it. I suggest you reconsider your deletion. Activist (talk) 19:54, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks to those of you who care to weigh in on this issue. Activist (talk) 19:54, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

If you want to use a subjective adjective like "rambling," you should cite a source from secondary literature. Wikipedia doesn't want to know editors' personal opinions. Lestrade (talk) 21:00, 9 October 2012 (UTC)Lestrade

only comedies
second paragraph includes:

"Eastwood's only comedies have been Every Which Way but Loose (1978) and its sequel Any Which Way You Can (1980), which are his two most commercially successful films after adjustment for inflation."

I have no problem with the financial claim - but these are not Clint's only comedies. Pink Cadillac, City Heat and Bronco Billy would also meet the description. --Daisyabigael (talk) 16:04, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Republican Convention
Something should be added about his speech at the republican convention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frycookfrog (talk • contribs) 00:16, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Sometimes it's a good idea to actually read the article. It was added to the article immediately after it happened, about one month ago. Cresix (talk) 00:19, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Empty Chair Speech
 * "The speech was met with a huge response by the media with both praise and criticism." This ought to have some representative citations, as the huge response I recall was less of praise or criticism, and more of bewilderment. JohndanR (talk) 21:05, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Vegan
Eastwood is not a vegan.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/14/movies/14head.html?pagewanted=all — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.40.4.2 (talk) 01:23, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Clint Eastwood in the ...
The per-decade summaries of Eastwood's career are worth linking to directly in the corresponding films he has worked on. I just did so for most of the films mentioned in Clint Eastwood in the 1980s and encourage others to do so, particularly for the other decades. IMHO it is a film's production section where such a link is relevant. 68.165.77.47 (talk) 09:09, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * No, all of those links you added are WP:EGG violations, which is why I removed them. --- The Old Jacobite The '45  14:23, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Alison Eastwood quote

 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I would like input regarding | This edit. I have had a lengthy discussion with the editor, who has been very civil with me but we have yet to reach an agreement


 * | The US.com article where Dina Eastwood exclusively announced her marital separation states: Married since March 31, 1996, Dina and the Million Dollar Baby director have one daughter together, 16-year-old Morgan. Eastwood is also dad to seven other kids, though he has only been married once before.


 * | The Los Angeles Times states that Eastwood has 8 children: Clint has one child with Dina: 16-year-old Morgan. The "Gran Torino" director and actor has seven other children from various relationships


 * | USA Today also confirms that Eastwood has 8 children: The couple have one daughter, Morgan, 16. Eastwood has seven other children.


 * | As does EXTRA.com: The couple has one daughter together, 16-year-old Morgan. Eastwood, 83, has seven other children from various relationships


 * | People magazine's official website states: Clint has a total of eight children


 * | Alison Eastwood stated "My dad has eight children by six women" in an August 2011 interview with The Sunday Times.

These are all very reliable sources. The last is especially concrete &mdash; his own daughter confirms that he has eight kids by six women. The quote should be restored, because all evidence indicates that it's the truth. There are no legitimate news reports stating who the mystery 8th child is, but that should not prevent the statement and the quote stating how many children he has from being present in the article. 02:16, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't think even Eastwood truly knows how many kids he has. 7 or 8 have been made public but I remember his interview with Ellen in which he has said something like "7 that I know of" or "at least 7 yeah". I wouldn't be surprised if he has at least 10. He was very promiscuous in the 70s and 80s.♦ Dr. Blofeld  17:35, 30 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment This is by no means whatsoever the short, straightforward, neutrally worded statement that a request for comment is supposed to be. This editor already has gone around canvassing other editors and seems determined to add an unsubstantiated, gossip-mill rumor to this article.--Tenebrae (talk) 17:44, 30 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose User:Mystiques00's argument isn't even intellectually honest. The Extra and USA Today stories just repeat the Us Weekly story, yet he'd had you think they did independent reporting to verify the claim. Second, the Us Weekly wording clearly came from the Wikipedia article &mdash; which itself only ever gave cites for seven children, not eight. And finally, Alison Eastwood's quote is the only source of "8 children 6 women", and given all the massive documentation otherwise and the complete lack of documentation supporting her claim, it's not unlikely she's misspeaking or her math is off. In any event, the article does have her quote, in the footnote where this single unsubstantiated remark won't have undue weight. We cannot under WP:BLP have any contentious, unsubstantiated rumors about living people. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:44, 30 August 2013 (UTC)


 * What about | The Los Angeles Times and | People magazine articles that state Eastwood has 8 children, do you think they are just repeating Us Weekly? How many brand new, legitimate news sources confirming this fact do we need before it can be present in the article? How is the direct statement made by his daughter not considered reliable? I also don't see why Alison Eastwood's claim needs "documentation" - are you saying she is not credible? She is Clint's daughter! 01:20, 31 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Here's what People says: "Clint has a total of eight children, who have appeared on the show" Mrs. Eastwood & Compnay. So the alleged mystery love child appeared on the show. Really.


 * This is one more example of some unsubstantiated gossip-magazine rumor getting into Wikipedia and somebody copying it verbatim without checking. So, no, in this case, unless the alleged out-of-wedlock child appeared on the show, that source is wrong. Do you actually, genuinely believe that this person appeared on the show?


 * As for the LA Times, it, too, is just copying what Us Weekly said, quoting from that article directly, with attribution and a link. Us Weekly copies something unsubstantiated from Wikipedia, other outlets copy from Us, and soon people think a piece of salacious gossip is fact. Not a single one of those sources have ever named or documented an eighth child. And let's look at a source that also quotes Us but clearly did its own additional research, since it has details the others don't: this story at Newsday: "It was her first marriage and his second, though the film star has seven children with five women...." --Tenebrae (talk) 01:31, 31 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose I think that Tenebrae makes an important point about wikipedia's role in turning rumor into fact.  If one daughter who is one of many children from just as many mothers and one father, how could can she know with certainty that the number 8 is correct. It would make more sense if there was an 8th child claiming to Eastwoods was their father, but there is not.  There needs to be more than her statement to place this in the article as a true fact. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 23:45, 8 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment I was invited to comment by the RFC bot. I am a little confused. There are apparently 6 RS refs saying he's got 8 children. Are there conflicting RS saying otherwise? Is that the issue? Capitalismojo (talk) 01:25, 16 September 2013 (UTC)


 * None of those sources itemized the children; those that did realized there were only seven. The sources that did not itemize appear to have simply taken the number originally given, without citation, from this Wikipedia article. And at least one of those sources, the LA Times, retracted the "eight" and ran a correction saying "seven": http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/gossip/la-et-mg-clint-eastwood-dina-eastwood-split-legal-separation-20130911,0,3559463.story --Tenebrae (talk) 17:09, 16 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Weak oppose. I find it difficult to care very strongly about this matter, but, if forced to pick a side, I'd probably choose to simply avoid the issue altogether, as Tenebrae's arguments raise significant doubt in my mind that the gossipy information is reliable.  If it's reported, it should probably be stated as "Us Weekly reports that Eastwood has eight children.", in order to avoid giving implied legitimacy to challenged facts.  WP:BLP requires us to be very conservative when it comes to including information about living people.  There have been too many controversies and outright hoaxes to allow otherwise. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 11:08, 22 September 2013 (UTC)


 * CNN.com states verbatim: He's had eight children total by six women. This, combined with the Alison Eastwood letter she submitted to The Sunday Times, is enough to have the truth present in the article. Mystiques00 (talk) 00:48, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

There is no consensus to add anything. No WP:RS can name an 8th child. When a reliable source corroborates it, by name, then it might be considered encyclopedic. Until then, sources that simply take a number that's been in Wikipedia and on mirror sites and repeat it without actually attaching a person to it is simply repeating gossip and rumor. An encyclopedia only deals in unassailable fact, and I;m sure an admin would agree --Tenebrae (talk) 02:56, 25 October 2013 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it.  No further edits should be made to this discussion.

8 children by 6 women

 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


 * CNN.com states verbatim: He's had eight children total by six women.


 * | Alison Eastwood stated verbatim My dad has eight children by six women

The article incorrectly states "Eastwood has several children by five women." These concrete sources prove that is an erroneous statement. Whenever the truth has been placed in the body of the article, it has been reverted back to the erroneous statement. Mystiques00 (talk) 06:23, 26 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose - As I stated the last time this editor, who has been registered only since August and has consistently been disruptive and has violated WP:VERIFY and WP:BLP argumentatively in that time, his RfC statement above is by no means the short, straightforward, neutrally worded statement that a request for comment is supposed to be.

Alison Eastwood's quote is the only source of "8 children 6 women", and given all the massive documentation otherwise and the complete lack of documentation supporting her claim, it's not unlikely she's misspeaking or her math is off. In any event, the article does have her quote, in the footnote where this single unsubstantiated remark won't have undue weight. We cannot under WP:BLP have any contentious, unsubstantiated rumors about living people.

As for CNN or any other site clearly using the old, widespread, unfootnoted Wikipedia / Wikipedia-mirror claim of "8 children by 6 women" (including People, which used that number and claimed all 8 appeared on Dina Eastwood's reality show!), I ask this: Who is the alleged 8th? If we can't actually document and name someone, then there is no 8th. Wikipedia does not spread tabloid rumors, and unless we're documenting eight with WP:RS evidence and citation, we can't say eight. --Tenebrae (talk) 13:46, 26 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I would also note Mystiques00 unilaterally blanked part of this page to try to hide the previous discussion that went against this transparent attempt to tabloid-ize Wikipedia. I continue to be amazed and appalled by his actions. I restored that content. --Tenebrae (talk) 13:50, 26 October 2013 (UTC)


 * 8 is probably likely to be correct, and he probably has more which he isn't aware of.. But if you're going to say 8 children by 6 women you need more than one source really. I'd probably say he has at least 7 children by 5 women, 8 by 6 different women according to Allison Eastwood. All I know is that in an interview with Ellen he didn't say Ellen was wrong when she said 7 kids and he said something like "at least". So I think it likely he has even more than 8, so I wouldn't place too much weight on this and argue over it. ♦ Dr. Blofeld  14:22, 26 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose What exactly has changed here since the last RfC? Two new sources? I think almost any sources that don't actually count the children and the women (i.e. identify the 8th child) or have Clint Eastwood himself mentioning how many kids he has by how many women are likely to be contentious and possibly tainted by previous mis-identifications. Per WP:BLP, then, you have to wait for a source like that. 0x0077BE (talk) 16:08, 26 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment The Los Angeles Times reports he has 7 children and only mentions two different mothers, one of the children's mother is his last wife Dina and he had two children with his first wife.
 * IMDB (which I know is not a reliable source) reports 8 children by 6 different women:
 * * Kimber Eastwood (born 17 June 1964) with Roxanne Tunis
 * * Kyle Eastwood (born 19 May 1968) with Maggie Johnson (first wife)
 * * Alison Eastwood (born 22 May 1972) with Maggie Johnson
 * * Scott Eastwood (born 21 March 1986) with Jacelyn Reeves
 * * Kathryn Eastwood (born 2 February 1988) with Jacelyn Reeves
 * * Francesca Eastwood (born 7 August 1993) with Frances Fisher
 * * Morgan Eastwood (born 12 December 1996) with Dina Eastwood (second wife)
 * * and another child that has not been publicly identified (which is the difference between 7 and 8 children)
 * I think it is interesting that every one of the 7 named children has a profile on IMDb. I'd assume if any of them were not really his children, his representatives would have contacted IMDb to address this assumption of the Eastwood name. Liz  Read! Talk! 16:24, 26 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Indeed, here's what the Los Angeles Times says: "For the record, 2:35 p.m. Sept. 11: This post originally said Clint Eastwood had seven children in addition to Morgan. He has seven total, including Morgan." --Tenebrae (talk) 22:05, 28 October 2013 (UTC)


 * OPPOSE - WP:NOTTABLOID, give it a rest, find a more important article AND subject to research and update. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 16:32, 26 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I would prefer to include both the LAT correction (7 kids) and the sources which claim he has an 8th kid who has not been publicly identified, stating that there are e.g. "at least five mothers of his children" to remain neutral about the nonpublic kid. EllenCT (talk) 06:47, 8 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Since no reliable source that lists 8 kids can actually name 8 kids, it's clear they were simply taking the erroneous past Wikipedia content at its word. That makes such claims simply mirrors. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:45, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Elinruby (talk) 22:19, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Yawn who cares? I am mildly curious who is expending a bunch of energy on having the article say eight. If we have the man himself agreeing to seven then we should stick to seven. I am not certain whether he himself would consider the alleged 8th child contentious, but some people might, so yeah, it would require a pretty good source.


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it.  No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"Quote" about his religion
That long "quote" was cited to two places. The first, a religious self-published site, attributed it to the second, which was a gossip site called Showbiz Spy. It was bylined anonymously or pseudonymously to some calling himself the single name "Adam." Since this tabloid website clearly did not interview Eastwood directly, I looked for evidence of this "quote" elsewhere online and could find nothing. Maybe Eastwood said it in a book somewhere, in which case that's what we cite. But an encyclopedia CANNOT just claim some living person made an extremely personal comment about his religious beliefs without absolutely concrete citing from a respectable, reliable journalistic source &mdash; not some gossip cite where the hack won't even use his real or his full name. This is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid magazine. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:21, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Calm down, there's no need to speak in such a tone here. I agree that it's excessive given that Eastwood isn't even religious.♦ Dr. Blofeld  20:05, 10 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I apologize for any tone, Dr. Blofeld . I'm afraid this article attracts more than its share of tabloid-gossip fans, which is frustrating. Just today someone simply copy-pasted some salacious, poorly sourced claims or perhaps rumors directly from The National Enquirer. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:12, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Yeah I already have over a 1000 articles on my watchlist, admittedly I don't really fully monitor what it being added. I wrote most of the article a few years back with Nehrams. If you feel certain additions are trivial or that the sources are shoddy feel free to remove them. If anybody objects then bring it up here I think. Nehrams and i tried to use book sources as much as possible, I'm not a fan of tabloid fodder or crappy webs sources either. ♦ Dr. Blofeld  22:23, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Health and Exercise interests
Eastwood has never been known as a health and exercise enthusiast. This was much more true about Arnold Schwartzneggar. An article is cited from 1959, more than fifty years ago. Previous versions state his main interests are jazz and golf. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.209.135.200 (talk) 16:52, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Clint Eastwood
In the series Rawhide--- Eastwood's first name was listed as Gunt

Jim just sayingJim just saying (talk) 22:42, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Clint Eastwood. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120210183423/http://www.suntimes.com:80/news/roeper/10498087-452/republicans-reaction-to-chrysler-super-bowl-ad-beautiful-for-dems.html to http://www.suntimes.com/news/roeper/10498087-452/republicans-reaction-to-chrysler-super-bowl-ad-beautiful-for-dems.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II <sub style="margin-left:-14.9ex;color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS"> Talk to my owner :Online 00:35, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 one external links on Clint Eastwood. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120321182707/http://www.goldenglobes.org:80/miss_golden_globe/ to http://www.goldenglobes.org/miss_golden_globe/
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20140426232314/http://news.fredericksburg.com/newsdesk/2014/04/23/king-george-ex-seal-helping-keep-film-on-target/ to http://news.fredericksburg.com/newsdesk/2014/04/23/king-george-ex-seal-helping-keep-film-on-target/
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120904232745/http://www.clinteastwood.net:80/welcome/alt/ to http://www.clinteastwood.net/welcome/alt

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

Cheers.—<sup style="color:green;font-family:Courier">cyberbot II <sub style="margin-left:-14.9ex;color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS"> Talk to my owner :Online 11:29, 24 March 2016 (UTC)