Talk:John Ford/Archive 1

The Grapes of Wrath - (2002-02-25)
note: I made The Grapes of Wrath a subpage of the novel's, as it is likely to be considered in that context, but made The Informer a separate page with Ford's name in the title, as its plot is completely distinct from the movie of the same name by Michael Mann. I did the same thing for The Fugitive, as it has no relation to the 1993 film with Harrison Ford (though perhaps it should be a subpage of a page of that name dealing with the Graham Greene novel? How well is the novel known?) Similarly, I expect that Rio Grande should have a separate page that is not a subset of the actual river's page. I hope this is the correct approach. If not, by all means feel free to change it. :-) - 15:51, 25 February 2002 (UTC)


 * Sometimes the best first level way of disambiguating movies is by putting the year of production in brackets after the title. No one would ever think of looking for the movie under the director's name, if they know the name at all. Putting the year after the name on the list (though not as part of the link) also helps to give a better chronology of an artist's career --user:Eclecticology - 18:12, 27 February 2002 (UTC)

Article Quality - (2005-03-12)
This page is inaccurate and badly-written. - 21:43, 12 March 2005 (UTC)


 * (uh, poorly written) - 14:37, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

McBride's biography - (2005-09-28)
I'm going to chance my arm by updating and revising this article in light of Joseph McBride's excellent biography. Just letting you know.Fergananim 20:19, 28 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Please do. The quality of this page really should reflect the quality of his films. I'm studying him at the moment, so once you're done I may be able to add a few details. Not Josh 17:07, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Working at UCLA as a film teacher
I think it should mentioned that he taught at UCLA as a film teacher. Sorry I don't have any citations or references besides knowing that this was my film teachers teacher at UCLA in the 1960's. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.95.132.195 (talk) 09:18, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Relationship with Katharine Hepburn - (2006-03-06)
I don't know how to edit the page but there is no evidence that Katharine Hepburn actually had an affair with John Ford. They certainly had some sort of short term infatuation but there is no evidence that they actually had a physical relationship. - 12:07, 6 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Barbara Leaming’s bio, Katharine Hepburn, describes them as being deeply in love for several years but says the relationship was never consummated. Leaming claims that Ford could not leave his wife Mary because she threatened to cut him off from his daughter, and that Hepburn offered Mary $150,000 to grant him a divorce. I.Katie (talk) 07:05, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

"Presently headed by the decidedly well-off Lord Killanin" - (2006-05-29)
It says here "presently headed", but if you click the link you see that he is deceased (1999). Jim 00:46, 29 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Plus, the wording is rather POV, and sounds as if the writer does not think well of them. Michael was in fact a well-regarded man by all who knew him, so in keeping with wiki policy and for decency's sake I've revised the wording. Anyway, it doesn't understand or take into account the state of affairs between the Morris's and the people of Spiddal back then. Fergananim 01:46, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Politics - (2007-02-13)
Where in the hell did this passage come from:


 * "However, despite his liberalism (he would often needle John Wayne for his conservatism despite the fact that Wayne obtained an exemption from fighting in World War II), Ford eventually became a conservative Republican due to the events of the Vietnam War. Ford had always been a patriotic sort; he'd volunteered for the Navy in WWII despite being well past military age, and his leftist politics and criticism were always colored by his extreme love of country, as can be seen in Fort Apache, The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance, and Young Mr. Lincoln. Yet when Ford was converted to Wayne's politics by his late observations: he saw young leftists burning the American flag which he had fought to protect; he saw the some of America's youth treating the American military, whom Ford also loved deeply, as "murderers"; he saw his old friend Henry Fonda on the other side; and he saw Fonda's daughter becoming a leader of the left. Ford was horrified by his belief that being a liberal now meant spitting on the very things Ford held dear, and he registered Republican late in life."

It sticks out like a sour thumb and rambles on for too long. I deleted it until someone can give me an accurate source for it. User:155.138.32.19 - 17:29, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Also on Politics - (2007-03-26)
This section starts with: "Ford's politics were conventionally Democratic as his favorite presidents were Lincoln, FDR and JFK."

Lincoln was a Republican, obviously. Maybe just leave out any mention of his favorite presidents, or at least not use it as justification for his political leaning? 70.48.231.138 - 07:28, 26 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The Republican and Democrat parties of the 1850s was markedly different to the parties of the 1950s, or 2007. LamontCranston - 06:47, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

WikiCommons - (2007-03-23)
Can someone upload the image to commons? - 19:38, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Rear Admiral - (2007-03-25)
I'm confused John Ford with Rear Admiral John D. Ford (1840-1918). Are both of them U.S. Navy admirals? (upper or lower half? ) I can only find John D. Ford in category "United States Navy admirals". 59.115.161.7 - 03:56, 25 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Is John Ford rear admiral upper or lower half? I can't find John Ford nor John Martin Feeney in category "United States Navy admirals". - 07:28, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Monument Valley Image - (2007-10-27)
I have removed Image:John Ford's Point.jpg from the article. Although it is a Commons image it serves no real purpose. It would be more significant (in fact it would be very good indeed) if it showed a scene of during the film photography. But it doesn't - it shows a random section of Monument Valley. I understand it's meant to illustrate where Ford spent during the filming, but that's unnecessary. We could just as easily include images of the Hollywood Sign to illustrate the time he lived in Los Angeles, and no, I am not suggesting we do that. I don't think the image helps the article at all, and is purely decorative. It has nothing to do with Ford. Eachwiped 00:21, 27 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, the article could certainly do with something which reflects the importance of Monument Valley in Ford's work and, when that is added, this photo is as good an illustration of that as we've got. Viva-Verdi 01:07, 27 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Many people's first exposure to MV was via Ford's films, prior to 1939 most people did not know anything about MV. Ford to MV is like New Mexico to Georgia O'Keefe. Flat out, they made people want to check out either MV or NM after viewing their respective arts. Ford was like an Ansel Adams in exposing MV to viewers. Ford also changed the use of scenery as a character. He made it possible for scenery to be a stand apart portion of a motion picture. Prior to Ford, movies were shot purely for economical or geographical proximity reasons. He changed they way directors and producers thought about where to shot a film. Now some people have trouble with this, "setting purest", the other night West Texas native Tommy Lee Jones said on Charlie Rose, that he can't stand to watch The Searchers because the story is set west of the Pecos River, in the Llano Estacado of Northwest Texas, but was filmed in MV. I used to shake my head every time I watched Eastern Indian Territory (now Eastern Oklahoma) set, but filmed in Southwest Colorado, True Grit. But, as I have gotten older, I have separated the scenery from the telling of the movie, and appreciate it for itself. It becomes an independent element that can be enjoyed all on its own. Now it would be nice to shot films 100% of the time in the setting that the story was written, but, sometimes this is just not possible. Ford's use of MV flat out changed movie making, in a dramatic fashion, and from that point on. His impact on other producers and directors after Stagecoach and the use of MV was one of biggest events in the evolution of film making. Now the image needs to be tied to the importance of Ford to MV, interwoven in the article, tied to the accompanying text. MV is important to Ford, the article needs to make sure that is conveys this. IP4240207xx 02:12, 27 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Isn't having John Ford's Point in his article the same as having Nelson's Column in Trafalgar Square in Horatio Nelson's article, or the Lincoln Memorial in Abraham Lincoln's article, etc., etc. et al? WikiDon 05:05, 27 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I've reinstated the image of John Ford Point. The claim that "It has nothing to do with Ford" above is just ludicrous.  Not only was it named for Ford by the Navajo who live in the valley and who credit Ford for saving them from starvation once upon a time, it's absolutely a scene where several sequences from Ford films were shot.  Most notably, it's the spot Jeffrey Hunter is dropped from on his way sneaking into Scar's camp in The Searchers.  I've moved the image to the Awards section to suggest the fact that its name is in honor of Ford.  But claiming it is just "scenery" and has "nothing to do with Ford" is uninformed dilettantism. Monkeyzpop 10:51, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

It seems that there is a consensus that the IMAGE STAYS. Viva-Verdi 17:13, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

WP:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers priority assessment - (2008-02-29)
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) - 11:29, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Date of birth - (2008-04-14)
If the year 1895 at his tombstone was wrong his family would probably react. It acctually has been 35 years since his death. What proof are there for that 1895 should be wrong? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.230.193.22 (talk) - 05:29, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Because he is probably born by then? Why should the graves be wrong? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.230.193.22 (talk) - 14:48, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Ford "homosexuality" claim - (2008-04-26)
The unregistered editor using IP is the  sockpuppet, banned under 20 or 30 disguises and currently blocked from several articles where his agenda is to prove racism, homosexuality, intolerance, or some other form of behavior that he feels is repugnant. The "reference" he continually makes to the Maureen O'Hara autobiography is false. She does indeed state that she believes she saw Ford kissing a well-known actor at one point. She does NOT say she saw a more graphic homosexual act, and she makes no suggestion whatsoever as to who she was talking about. The 92.11.161.173 editor is falsifying the citation in order to further his agenda of hatred toward certain generally revered Hollywood figures. Asking for a better citation is insufficient to deal with his agenda. A request was made to protect the article, and several other articles were indeed protected as a result of his actions. But the Ford article request was denied, as he had not yet made many such edits here. I suspect he will remedy that situation soon and will then be blocked from this article as well. FYI. Monkeyzpop (talk) 12:31, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I have posted the following on IP 92.11.161.173's talk page:


 * Constant edit waring when you have been told to provide some reference to support your claim of Ford's homoseuality, casn lead you tgo being BANNED from Wikipedia.


 * Check the "Discussion" page by going to Talk:John Ford and you see that I have supported the revert, therefore 2 editors are disagreeing with your edits.


 * Be careful: This can become vandalism, and you will be banned.


 * Naturally, I support the revert by User talk:Redrocket. Viva-Verdi (talk) 16:18, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Edits from Banned User HC and IPs - (2008-05-05)
1) and all of his sockpuppets are EXPRESSLY banned for life.

2) Be on the look out for any edits from these IP addresses:
 * AOL NetRange: 92.8.0.0 - 92.225.255.255
 * AOL NetRange: 172.128.0.0 - 172.209.255.255
 * AOL NetRange: 195.93.0.0 - 195.93.255.255

I have nothing to add to the above discussion, but it might be worth mentioning that noted Ford scholar Tag Gallagher makes several references to Ford's ambigious sexuality in his book -- he cites one story in which a drunken Ford reportedly made a pass at his friend Frank Baker (who knocked him down the stairs for his trouble) and another on-set incident in which an assistant quit after Ford slapped him on the bum. Dunks (talk) 12:15, 20 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Did it ever occur to anyone that human sexuality is not "either/or", but a continuum? There are many bisexual men in this world, and a passing attraction of a nominally heterosexual man to another man is hardly unheard of. It should also be pointed out that heterosexual men with strong sex drives (which Ford apparently possessed) are more likely to experiment with homosexual behavior. Was John Ford homosexual? No. Might have he, on occasion, been sexually attracted to other men? It's possible. Why should anyone have a problem with this? WilliamSommerwerck (talk) 23:27, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Improvement Definitely Needed (2008-10-12)
This is a very scattershot entry on John Ford. For anyone interested in Ford the director, he/she wouldn't come away from this entry with a clearer sense of the man or his work. Huge chunks of the entry are devoted to marginalia (Ford's name change, Ford's time in the Navy). Yes, some of this info is required, but shouldn't the bulk of this entry be devoted to Ford's Hollywood career? This entry also reads as if there is little concern for transitions or the logical building of information. Thus, at one point, there is this sentence that out of the blue reads: "Feeney [Ford] attended Portland High School in Portland, where the auditorium is named after him." The very next sentence reads, "Many of his films contain direct and indirect references to his Irish and Gaelic heritage." Much of this entry reads like a collection of non-sequiturs.

A serious film scholar, or someone devoted to Ford, needs to step in here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.179.180.233 (talk) 18:18, 12 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not a "serious film scholar", but I guess I am devoted to Ford. I have Tag Gallagher's book and am currently working my way through it to beef up the woefully inadequate "Director" section. Hope ya like it. Any and all feedback gratefully accepted. - Dunks (talk) 12:05, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

RDML or RADM?
Is John Ford a RDML or RADM? How many stars does he have? CDChen (talk) 15:20, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The official U.S. Navy history states "He entered the United States Naval Reserve on 3 October 1934 in the rank of Lieutenant Commander and on 11 September 1941 reported for active duty. He was promoted to Commander, 7 October 1941, and to Captain on 17 August 1945 to rank from 10 June 1943. He was placed on the Honorary Retired List in the rank of Rear Admiral on 1 May 1951." It does not differentiate between RDML and RADM, but the photo accompanying the entry in the Navy history clearly shows a single star on Ford's sleeve, indicating RDML. Monkeyzpop (talk) 01:11, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I've found that photo. CDChen (talk) 19:02, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Seán Ó Finneadha
Just watching a TG4 documentary on The Quiet Man and it seems John Ford was born Seán Ó Finneadha, or "John Feeney" as the less culturally sophisticated would represent his name.78.16.156.240 (talk) 19:18, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Proposal to split article
I've completed the core work on the text of this article although it still needs more inline references, so if anybody can assist with that I'd be very grateful. The section on Ford's directing career has turned out fairly long, so I'd suggest that it be split off into a separate article e.g. "The Films of John Ford", or something to that effect.

Any objections or other suggestions? I'll leave this a week or so and if there are no objections I'll move that section into a new article and boil it down to a short summary for the existing page. Dunks (talk) 05:41, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

External link to a relevant library collection
I'm new to wikipedia, so please forgive the question. I added an external link to this article on John Ford. It was removed because it didn't comply to the guidelines for external links. The link went to the decription of the John Ford papers at the Lilly Library, Indiana University, Bloomington. I work there, so I am not a totally disinterested party, but it seems like this is relatively neutral information that would be very useful to someone interested in the director.

Wouild it be more appropriate to add it to the article somewhere, rather than as an external link? Or I am I totally off base?

Thanks. Erikad (talk) 17:24, 4 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi Erikad, and welcome to wikipedia.


 * You can see our guidelines on external links here. Generally speaking, we prefer to keep external links to a minimum, even those which are not overtly promotional or commercial in intent- guiding principle is, ext links should contain notable, substantial and reliable information relevant to the subject at hand, that is not otherwise accessible in the article or cannot readily be covered in the article. As you may imagine, wikipedia articles attract lots of edits adding external links, many of which do not add all that much to the article's info.


 * That said, I don't see any particular problem with the link added in this specific case. However, I think it would probably be best to have this information incorporated into the article text itself, at some relevant spot. Something like, a sentence or so mentioning that a collection of Ford's papers is held at that library. You could then provide the link as a citation for the fact (see WP:CITE and WP:REFB for ways to do this). That shld hopefully be satisfactory to all. Kind Regards, --cjllw ʘ  TALK 08:16, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

John Ford's cinematography
Several years ago, while watching Ford westerns on the late, great American Movie Classics, I noted that some scenes seemed to have been shot as if Ford was working in 3D. That is, there were obvious, clearly separated planes of grouped objects or characters. This isn't something one commonly sees.

Watching the magnificent Blu-ray of The Searchers really brought this home. Scenes, both interior and exterior, have two, three, or four planes, with those closest to or farthest from the camera in less-than-perfect focus. This is used to great effect in some of the Monument Valley scenes.

I assume this was all quite intentional. Is there an expert on Ford who might discuss this in the article? WilliamSommerwerck (talk) 23:38, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

First off, John Ford was not a cinematographer, unlike his brother, director Francis Ford, who had operated a camera in his time. That said, Ford like his contemporary William Wyler were known for creating three planes -- front, middle, and rear. This is more apparent in Wyler's films, like JEZEBEL & THE LITTLE FOXES. They both used Gregg Toland as a lighting cameraman. Interestingly, Tag Gallagher, who is extensively quoted in this article, says in his Senses of Cinema article "Brother Feeney" about Francis Ford (whom John said he learned everything from), "Also anticipating John, Frank often organises shots in three planes of depth, with characters in the middle."Shemp Howard, Jr. (talk) 21:37, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Disney was well aware of multiple planes when he developed the multi-plane camera. Cinematographers use different planes through "selective focus".  63.192.100.202 (talk) 21:41, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Automate archiving?
Does anyone object to me setting up automatic archiving for this page using MizaBot? Unless otherwise agreed, I would set it to archive threads that have been inactive for 60 days.--Oneiros (talk) 22:42, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅--Oneiros (talk) 18:40, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

World's foremost movie directors in 1940?
I'm currently translatin this article into Finnish (great job, by the way, - and with sources :) ), but the statement "by 1940 he was acknowledged as one of the world's foremost movie directors" struck me as odd. I always thought John Ford's real rise to fame came with the Auteur theory in the late 50s and early 60s. Please correct me if I'm wrong.--Nedergard (talk) 09:40, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

At one point, THE INFORMER was considered the greatest sound film ever made. Hard to believe now. Ford won his first Academy Award for THE INFORMER, and then his 2nd and 3rd in 1941 & '42 (for THE GRAPES OF WRATH & HOW GREEN WAS MY VALLEY). So, he was pretty much established as the foremost American director other than Frank Capra (who had segued into his own hybrid of comedic films by 1940), who racked up three Oscars by 1940. Shemp Howard, Jr. (talk) 21:50, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree that a reference will help to support this view - can anyone assist? - but I think the point is pretty much borne out by the article -- by the early '40s his films had won a slew of major awards including numerous Oscars, and he was one of the highest-paid paid directors in the world - in fact (as I note) he was earning more than the US President. Dunks (talk) 11:57, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

John Ford's silent movies
20110130 by Pandion: I just viewed "Upstream" a 1927 silent film directed by John Ford at the NY premiere at the Museum of the Moving Image, Astoria, NY of the restored print found in the New Zealand Film Archives. The handout for the screening said that John Ford directed over 60 silent titles and only about dozen films survive. I would like to add this to the opening sentence of this article if no objects. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pandion (talk • contribs) 02:53, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Silent movies were made on cellulose nitrate (basically gunpowder) until safety film was invented in 1951, and I've read reports that 50% of all films made before 1950 were lost or destroyed. 63.192.100.202 (talk) 21:45, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

"The Searchers" Medal
In "The Searchers" the medal that John Wayne gives to Debbie at the beginning of the movie is the Order of St. Sava medal, a Serbian decoration established in 1883. The scene in the movie takes place in 1868 and the medal is supposed to be from John Wayne's time in Mexico after the Civil War. Why would John Ford, who was an Admiral in the Navy, use the wrong medal? Does the medal have a symbolic significance? The medal is light blue and white, like Aunt Martha's costume, does this signify that Natalie Wood is actually John Wayne's daughter in the movie? Where is the medal nowadays? 63.192.100.202 (talk) 21:54, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 15:07, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

File:John Ford c1920.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion
As he was a practising Catholic,[5][not in citation given] the Ford marriage lasted until his death, although he had many extramarital relationships.[6]

'sexual preferences'
I was sceptical of the O'Hara cite, so I checked it on Amazon's preview. It is there in black and white! Whether it is true, or some misunderstanding or vindictiveness on O'Hara's part is irrelevant (for the purpose of inclusion). I don't know if reliable sources have commented on her claim. If they have, they can also be included, but as things stand I see no reason for this entry to be (repeatedly) removed in its entirity. The Gallagear cite is more oblique, and especially when combined with O'Hara, might fall foul of WP:SYNTH. Some rephrasing or trimming might be in order, but the O'Hara claim stands. RashersTierney (talk) 09:20, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Practicing catholic
I have a couple problems with this:


 * As he was a practising Catholic,[5][not in citation given] the Ford marriage lasted until his death, although he had many extramarital relationships.[6]

The citation given for "As he was a practising Catholic" does in fact say that. But I have two other problems with the statement. One is the synthesis that being a practicing Catholic resulted in his marriage lasting until death. The other is that I'm not convinced adherents.com counts as a reliable source. Comments? Kendall-K1 (talk) 13:14, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Religious scruples, and lack thereof
So, why did the Catholic ban on (or, more to the point, non-recognition of) divorce apply, but the Catholic ban on extra-marital sex never seemed to bother him in the slightest? I think we need a citation that demonstrates the marriage thing was important to him but the other thing was not. At the moment, it reads like we've just made it all up. --  Jack of Oz   [Talk]  12:45, 11 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I've altered that as it's not clear his religion relates to his sticking to the marriage. She was apparently non-Catholic and divorced when they married. Possibly her previous marriage didn't count according to the Church of the time, but it still might have been doable for him to annul such a marriage. Also he reportedly stated he was "Catholic, but not very Catholic." All that said there have been Catholics, some of the Kennedy family come to mind, who had a bigger problem with divorce than adultery. This can maybe be justified via the faith. In Catholicism remarriage after divorce is considered adultery or polygamy because marriage is for life. All forms of adultery can be forgiven though if you end the adultery, repent, and try never to do it again. However that means the way to repent of being "remarried after divorce" is to end your "serial polygamy" marriage and either renew your valid marriage or never remarry as long as your valid spouse lives. That can be more complicated than just ending an affair. Also a second marriage after divorce would mean a marriage outside the Church and before Vatican II even attending a non-Catholic marriage was sort of a folk-taboo among many Catholics. So taking that together some may have felt adultery was still "wrong" but less wrong as it was easier to get out of it and didn't run the risk of you engaging in heretical or heathen ceremonies. (Because I'm assuming a Kennedy or what not would not be thinking of life-long celibacy after a divorce. If you don't remarry I think divorce was acceptable, or non-existent, but I doubt that's what we mean) I've read stories of divorced Catholics, in older times, who would "shack up" with people rather than marry them and I guess it's because one is forgivable but the other was seen as essentially abandoning the faith outright. Although it strikes me, a Catholic, as fairly weird too.--T. Anthony (talk) 22:30, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on John Ford. 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/20100611062910/http://www.cbc.ca:80/arts/film/story/2010/06/08/silent-films-new-zealand.html to http://www.cbc.ca/arts/film/story/2010/06/08/silent-films-new-zealand.html

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

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 22:14, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I checked, it is working.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  23:04, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on John Ford. 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/20130729145355/http://www.cinemaforever.com/CF_The_Fugitive_1947_rev.html to http://www.cinemaforever.com/CF_The_Fugitive_1947_rev.html

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

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 15:12, 5 January 2016 (UTC)