Talk:Warren Beatty

personal life

Is attempting to list all of someone's sexual partners considered neutral pov? 104.220.42.199 (talk) 23:47, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

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)

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)

Upon research, sister Shirley's last name was spelled "Beaty" in her senior high school yearbook, while Warren's last name is spelled "Beatty" in his senior high school yearbook, before he became an actor. Sn 09 September 2018 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.58.48.11 (talk) 22:44, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Have changed the name of firstborn daughter to Kathlyn from "Stephen", also in the Annette Benning article. Where did this "Stephen" come from? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.57.147.26 (talk) 14:33, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Changed name of firstborn child back to Stephen in both articles. Stephen is transgender and that is his legal name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.181.12.56 (talk) 19:24, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

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)

" Beatty had 10 scholarship offers to play football"..and he turned then down to pay his way through college? Does that make sense to anybody?. Oh well,he's a good lib. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.207.116.55 (talk) 17:05, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

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)

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)

---

> Afraid of being typecast as a milquetoast leading man, and still smarting over the What's New, Pussycat?
> debacle, where he was outmaneuvered by Woody Allen and eventually forced to leave the production,
> Beatty produced Bonnie and Clyde...

Huh? This is worded as though the "What's New, Pussycat? debacle" has already been discussed, and no doubt sends many readers scurrying back through the text looking for what they missed.SomeAvailableName (talk) 07:54, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Picture

Hey Wikipedia, don't you think you can get a more recent picture of this guy. Its been 17 years since that picture was taken.

"You're so vain"

The song by Carly Simon was about Beatty. This should be under pop culture references. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.208.105.243 (talk) 11:20, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, that's in dispute. She's never said who it was about. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.28.237.131 (talk) 01:36, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I've heard that for 25 years, I'd love to see if there are any solid sources either way on that. 98.245.150.162 (talk) 06:29, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Subject was gay producer DAVID GEFFEN http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_geffen , at the time head of Elektra records.

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/showbiz/bizarre/2869512/Carly-Simon-ends-Youre-So-Vain-riddle.html 80.5.101.158 (talk) 12:07, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

An Australian radio announcer asked Carly Simon who was the subject of "You're So Vain." She answered: "Warren Beatty." Eligius (talk) 23:43, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

It would be good to have a source for what you're saying.

But even without that reference, it is a well established fact that she is continually asked in interviews if the song is about Warren Beatty. Therefore this is sufficient to meet requirements for inclusion in this article. This article is actually deficient for not having so much as a link to the song, let alone an explanation about how so many reporters have linked him to the song. Simon has gone so far as to divulge three letters in the subject's name being 'A', 'E' and 'R'.

Today I've taken the step of adding the song as a link next to Carly Simon's name. This article would be further improved by adding a complete explanation of the facts as they are currently known.--Concord hioz (talk) 23:05, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Pronunciation

Bee-ty, Bee-atty, or Bay-atty? Thanks. -86.164.11.233 (talk) 18:57, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I've heard BAY-ty (BAY-tee, BAY-dee?) most often, but not 100% sure which is correct... jeff (talk) 03:33, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Interesting... thanks 86.164.11.233 (talk) 06:33, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

"Citations needed" for military service

We have people keep on adding that a "citation" is needed stating that Warren Beatty was really in the military. His military service record is on file at NPRC and can be requested through the Freedom of Information act. His medical records are on file with the Department of Veterans Affairs and (limited information) can be reuqested through them as well. In response to a Freedom of Information Act to both of these agencies, here is the offical reply:

Henry Warren Beaty (AF 28 282 310)

Air National Guard of California & U.S. Air Force Reserve

11 Feb 1960 - 1 Jan 1961

Discharged, rank of Airman 3rd Class due to physical disability (sleep apnea)

That comes straight from government records which anyone can request. I can tidy up the source tag, but I see no need for a "citation needed tag" since the test itself says "accodring to his military service record" and "according to the Department of Veterans Affairs". -OberRanks (talk) 16:13, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I updated everything and added a citation, if independent verification is needed, like I said these are public records. I did remove the part about "what" the physical disabiltiy was (sleep apnea). I think the case worker at the VA who did the FOIA response gave me too much information there and that medical stuff shouldnt be released. If someone disagrees, feel free to put it back in. -OberRanks (talk) 16:31, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I originally thought the paragraph was dubious because of the discharge for sleep apnea in the 1960s sounded bogus. However, it "appears" you have researched Beatty's military experience, since the dates appear to be correct and you have furnished other info in some detail. I also have a very blurred memory of reading somewhere that he was in the service for a short time. I personally see no reason to question it's place in the article since it is interesting detail, and in spite of the fact that it's original research. You can't find an on-line source or book reference or magazine article with specific reference to Beatty? I think you should also eliminate the section and edit it to one short paragraph added to the section above about his "early life". He is an actor/politician, not a general. The inclusion of his service number could violate his right to privacy. My opinion anyway.Mytg8 (talk) 15:45, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Service numbers are public information under the Freedom of Information Act. The one thing that the VA messed up on was revealing why he was discharged - data out of a medical file is not supposed to be public but I think they just messed up when they released it. And, on your other question, I'm sure this is in a book somewhere - I just havent looked for it. -OberRanks (talk) 17:40, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Rank insignia

Beatty's highest rank was that of Airman First Class

The picture of Beatty's rank insignia has been removed twice by a single user. While I am not against it being removed if so warranted, there was no discussion about why and it appears to be getting cut based on the singular dislike of one user. The pros of having it in is that Warren's final rank has an insignia which has changed names a few times in the past thirty years, mainly a Senior Airman today was not the same as a Senior Airman back then and/or an Airman First Class. Having a picture kind of clears this up. Beatty was also not in during the era where the center star was subdued, which it was for several years but now no longer is either. That's the argument for having a photo. If more than one user voices dislike and wants it out then that's fine, but it should be discussed here and not cut out by one single user without discussion. -OberRanks (talk) 22:46, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

It is quite easy to turn that around and say that it has been restored twice by a single user, and in that, it does appear you are against it being removed. It's bad faith to state that it was removed "based on the singular dislike of one user." You're making an assumption with no basis or foundation. I stated in the edit summary when I removed it the second time that it was removed "because it adds nothing to the understanding of the section for the reader, it's merely decorative." The day to day reader of his page does not have a working knowledge of the changes to an insignia over a 40+ year period, and having the image in the article doesn't clarify that in anyway. An image doesn't make that distinction, and the article already states "but he was promoted from Airman Basic to Airman First Class in August 1960 (under the rank system in use during 1960s, this was the equivalent of a modern day Senior Airman)." I must ask, if the insignia did have a center star when he was in, and it does again now, how instructional is it to have a visual aid? It's not a matter of likes or "dislikes", it's a matter of adhering to image use policy. An image should contribute to a greater understanding of the article subject and I cannot see how that image does that. The text in the article explains it. Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:23, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

We just need opinions of other editors, is all. This is a pretty heavily watched article so I'm sure a few more people can voice in on it. If the majority don't want the descriptive picture, then that's fine. -OberRanks (talk) 03:14, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

And I've posted a request for other opinions at WT:ACTOR, so there should be more opinions in the next day or so. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:07, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I think that any images should be used sparingly and for a purpose. The insignia doesn't really teach anyone more about Beatty. There are a lot of objects that are tangentially related to Beatty but they don't need an illustration in order to understand how they relate to him. The argument about the change in specific style of the insignia and the way it has been adapted over the years is relevant to discussion of the insignia itself, but in Beatty's case it's enough to know his rank. Rossrs (talk) 07:17, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Image should be removed, it adds nothing. Also by looking at the history of the article it was added by OberRanks, the same user who restored it twice. So it seems to have been added without discussion "based on the singular liking of one user".... Garion96 (talk) 08:14, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

It wasn't added without discussion, I worked with another editor last year (see above) to enter WB's military service data which this insignia was part of. This isnt about assigning blame on who added what or who deleted what, simply the point that we should discuss the removal before making it (per the policies of this site). Since this has now taken place, if the majority don't want the picture in the article then by all means take it out. -OberRanks (talk) 11:28, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Then don't make statements that really do give the impression off putting blame on someone. Garion96 (talk) 16:59, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Wasn't aware that I did, sorry if that was the case. The picture is out now. I'm storing it here just in case future editors need a reference to what we were talking about. -OberRanks (talk) 19:44, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm curious as to why there is a special section on Beatty's time in the AF reserve. A couple of sentences added to his early life section should suffice. I'm not trying to downplay military service, but I see no proof that Beatty even wore the uniform. Chasrob (talk) 14:01, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

• • • • Okay, Airman Third Class was ONE stripe. Beatty was only in for a year so there's no way he could have made E-4. I was in the Air Force. 50.202.81.2 (talk) 23:02, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

There is still no citation for the short section on military service, which might not be important except it says he received a dishonorable discharge and implies he tried to be discharged, both of which may be considered contentious and a violation of Wikipedia standards. And, if others have pointed out over several years that a citation was necessary, and it still does not appear, then the section should be removed.Decembermonday (talk) 19:57, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

• I agree the section should be removed. There are no Citations either for the claim of medical discharge (at 10 "Citations needed" for military service) above or for the dishonourable discharge idea  Barliner  talk  12:47, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Uncited. WP:BLP. Removed. Guys, why all the hubbub? It's simple. There are no cited sources for these purports about a living person. It is removed now and there can be no argument on that. WP:BLP is one of the most important rules in WP. If someone wants to reinstate, primary sources can gird up the purports in secondary sources, but reliable secondary sources are required first to establish notability of the matter. When editors presume to select which primary-sourced facts oughta be included, that's WP:OR. So, don't do that. Get some damn-reliable secondary sources first and include them with any reinstatement. 2604:6000:1115:585:D8F4:FC8B:14D2:116B (talk) 05:09, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

The article is under pending changes protection. I accepted the IP's removal. I'm not familiar with this case, but an unsourced claim of a dishonorable discharge is not acceptable. And recent versions have gone so far as to claim that Beatty planned the whole scheme of enlisting in the National Guard and then intentionally getting dishonorably discharged to avoid the draft and prevent disruption to his acting career.

From the previous discussion it appears that the article used to claim that he received a discharge on medical grounds. That's not a dishonorable discharge. Meters (talk) 05:26, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Handprints

Re: using images sparingly, I question how important the photo of Beatty's handprints is to this article. It seems like unnecessary window-dressing to me. LiteraryMaven (talk • contrib) 20:03, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I suppose it serves to let people know his handprints are somewhere in concrete. I've never paid much attnetion to the walks of fame or whatever they are called but that might be interesting to some people....just not me :-) -OberRanks (talk) 21:13, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

It rather comes down to relevance and specificity. The image is of Beatty's handprints rather than a generic set of prints. I would be more enamored of them were the image from Graumann's, or whatever it is called these days, but it is only a little different than the images of the Hollywood Walk of Fame stars or the Graumann's location. I might like it even better if the image showed Beatty sticking his hands in the muck. However, it is a continuation of the Graumann's tradition in a way, and it is part of a public collection. If the article were overburdened with images, I might feel differently, perhaps. However, and despite invoking WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, this sort of image is widely used in our actor biographies. Wildhartlivie (talk) 20:40, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree that they serve little to no purpose. If there was a strong field of free images of Beatty to use for this article, and they were listed in order of importance, this would probably be near the bottom of my list, but there's not. The only difference I see between the handprints image and the insignia image is that the insignia image is generic and applies to anyone of that rank, while the handprints are directly related to Beatty as his. It's specific, but not particularly relevant, and to me its use is window-dressing. Its presence does not bother me and I don't think it's necessary to remove it, but I would not miss it if it was removed. Rossrs (talk) 02:04, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Rumors?

I'm going to preface this by saying that I absolutely will not edit this article concerning this information...I've heard that there's been a recent biography (possibly autobiography) recently written about Warren Beatty...that makes the highly dubious claim that he has slept with over 24,000 women...now, if there was a category for people who have slept with over 20,000 women it would include 3 people... Warren Beatty, Wilt Chamberlain, and myself. In any case, I noticed that this information was not included in the article. IMHO, it should never be, regardless of whether it is true or not. Partly because wikipedia is not a place where people "rack up tallies", partly because I think that information is not notable, and partly because it almost certainly isn't true. I just wanted to say this so that I can revert instances of such claims in the future. However, I would not be averse discussing this matter if there were more reliable sources for this information. Antimatter--talk-- 08:53, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Not only was that reported, it was disputed by Beatty's reps. It was added and removed a couple times. Wildhartlivie (talk) 19:32, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Doubt that any speculative numbers should be included in the article, but it's a little strange that there's nothing whatever in the article about his prominently publicly-discussed reputation as a multiple philanderer... AnonMoos (talk) 21:54, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

I quite agree that far-fetched rumours have no place here. However he is so well-known for a number of his affairs (Joan Collins, Natalie Wood) that to only have his marriage under personal life just seems bizarre.PhilomenaO'M (talk) 15:42, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Right now Palladium channel is showing Beatty in Madonna's 1991 concert movie. How did Wiki leave that out?

Children

I have taken out the childrens names as they aren't notably in their own right and general presumption seems to be in favour of privacy in such cases.RafikiSykes (talk) 00:13, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

So why are they back in now? PhilomenaO'M (talk) 15:42, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Oscar Nominations

He has been nominated a total of 14 nominations, not 15. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.237.34.211 (talk) 13:02, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Personal life

Growing up, Beatty was a tabloid fixture, known primarily for the many women he dated including Madonna. It seems strange that this aspect of his public profile is completely omitted when other Hollywood biographies on Wikipedia are very open and forthcoming about media coverage of actor's lives. It's not like this is gossip or anything was hidden, he had a reputation for dating many famous, beautiful women that I even knew about as a teenager. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:13, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

And why are his other wives not mentioned? I know for a fact that he had at least one other wife because I knew her personally in the 1990s. (Maybe she doesn't want to be mentioned here?) I'm not suggesting that a celebrity bio should be sordid, but this article seems like an airbrush-job. CousinJohn (talk) 14:32, 13 July 2014 (UTC

Unrealized Projects

This entire very lengthy section is written by someone whose native language is not English, and is also completely unsourced. It contains several comments about Beatty's state of mind. 2602:306:BDF0:ADC0:59D5:A809:A0A:8917 (talk) 14:58, 15 February 2015 (UTC) Hannah

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Warren Beatty. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20121026032421/http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090321/film_nm/us_tribune_dicktracy;_ylt=Al4G_LVoc_fVEVoQpxMqS_5xFb8C to http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090321/film_nm/us_tribune_dicktracy;_ylt=Al4G_LVoc_fVEVoQpxMqS_5xFb8C

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

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. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:59, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Personal life section

Just thinking that the section is looking like a tabloid, is all that really necessary, encyclopedic or notable ? Mlpearc (open channel) 00:10, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

I agree. I am concerned especially by the quoting of Leslie Caron alluding to Beatty having narcissm, which can only be diagnosed by a mental health professional. I think the whole "Before Marriage" section should be striked. Kassieme (talk) 12:57, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Warren Beatty/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

As a Chicago-related article I promote it to Start based upon it's length without making further analysis or judgement.Leofric1 (talk) 18:58, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Last edited at 18:58, 17 May 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 10:14, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 February 2017

Hello. In the newly added lines about the 2017 Oscars, the wording states/suggests that Warren Beatty was the one to initially and erroneously announce La La Land as the winner. Actually, he can be seen trying to find more cards in the envelope and being confused at the mic. He showed the card to Faye Dunaway who then made the wrong announcement. Afterwards, Warren can be seen in the background still confused and talking to other people about the issue. I don't think it's fair to have information that essentially blames Beatty for something he didn't do. 50.185.75.78 (talk) 06:32, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

I have removed it. I don't think the incident is important in Beatty's long career, and as you say he didn't make the wrong announcement.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:11, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

The article now states in part "At the 89th Academy Awards, presenters Beatty and Faye Dunaway read La La Land as the winner of Best Picture." Beatty didn't say anything. Dunaway saw the name 'Emma Stone' and concluded (and stated) that La La Land won. 61.68.173.4 (talk) 09:50, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

My removal was reverted, so I have reworded the passage to reflect what really happened.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:38, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

And it was reverted again! This is ridiculous.--Jack Upland (talk) 20:03, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Continuing Oscar Flub discussion

Various IP's (likely related) have been adding back in this information, so it's time to bring this up again. While clearly a piece of Oscar history, this has very little to do with Beatty. He did not announce the name on the envelope, and other than being present for the incident he has very little to do with this. This is an encyclopedic page, chronicling 60 years of Beatty's career, and per WP:WEIGHT - "Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject." The subject here is the Academy Awards, not Warren Beatty. To place it here on a BLP would amount to a "pop culture" or "trivia" fact, which we do not strive for. Garchy (talk) 19:09, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

It's not only the Academy Awards. Warren Beatty is part of it. Definitely. Julie Andrews' 2015 Oscar appearance is mentioned on her page because it was one of the most memorable moments too : "In 2015 Andrews made a surprise appearance at the Oscars, greeting Lady Gaga who paid her homage by singing a medley from The Sound of Music.[81] This became a social media sensation, trending all over the world." We could write the same thing on Beatty's page : "This became a social media sensation, trending all over the world." He is associated with this event, he is the one who gave the explanation so there must be at least a mention of it. RomanSpring (talk) 19:34, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Note: This user appears to be related to IP 73.13.33.173 - this account above was created 5 minutes prior to this comment, and this is the only contribution. The Julie Andrews appearance in the Oscars wasn't added because it was "trending all over the world" - it was added because it was directly correlated to her and played a large part in the Oscars (it was an anniversary for the Sound of Music). Going further, however, it should be noted that just because something exists on one page is not an argument for its existence on others. Garchy (talk) 19:46, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes that's me. I still think there should be a mention of it (again, it's one of the most memorable moments of the Oscars ever, and Betty is part of it), but I got your point and do not intend to revert your edit on the page. Should we delete the paraph on the Faye Dunaway page too ? RomanSpring (talk) 20:03, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi, thank you for making an account, and welcome to Wikipedia! I personally don't think it's necessary on the page, but there could be others that feel it should exist on the page so we can wait for a discussion to see if it should be added in. For the Dunaway page you can certainly remove it if you'd like. Garchy (talk) 21:07, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

It seems relevant to the 89th Academy Awards article, but not the biographies of presenters. --Light show (talk) 22:45, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree. It's not relevant here. Essentially people are attacking Beatty for something he didn't do, perhaps because of his politics. It deserves a mention on the Awards article, but nothing else. It has no lasting significance.--Jack Upland (talk) 20:34, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

I want to re-open this discussion. I don't think that its a negative aspect of Warren Beatty's life to be in that situation. I only know him from the Oscar Ceremony. So, how can it be irrelevant for his biography put this here? Let's talk? --Rafacasima (talk) 13:23, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Returning to this issue, the topic now has six sentences on the page:

In 2017, Beatty reunited with his Bonnie and Clyde co-star Faye Dunaway at the 89th Academy Awards, in celebration of the film's 50th anniversary. After being introduced by Jimmy Kimmel, they received a standing ovation as they walked out onto the stage to present the Best Picture Award. They had the wrong envelope, leading Dunaway to incorrectly announce La La Land as Best Picture, instead of the actual winner, Moonlight. This became a social media sensation, trending all over the world. In 2018, Beatty and Dunaway returned to present Best Picture at the 90th Academy Awards, earning a standing ovation upon their entrance, making jokes about the previous year's flub. Without incident, Beatty announced The Shape of Water as the winner.

I don't think the sources really back all this up. With regard to social media, the source says, "The mix-up was the most-social moment from ABC’s Oscars telecast, topping activity on both Facebook and Twitter worldwide". It's unclear if that means postings related to the Oscars, or activity the whole night. The source also oddly says, "Neither Facebook nor Twitter had released data at press time of overall Oscars-related activity on Sunday, as they have in past years". In any case, it's only activity that night, so I don't think that amounts to a "sensation". With regard to their appearance to 2018, the source cited does not say they made jokes, though it could be inferred that their attitude was jocular. I don't think every appearance at an Oscars ceremony is notable, and I certainly think this could be dramatically shortened.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:10, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

References

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Warren Beatty. 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/20081011222307/http://www.goldenglobes.org/browse/film/23953 to http://www.goldenglobes.org/browse/film/23953

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) 17:51, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Why has list of dating history been removed?

Why have the names of all of the women Beatty has dated been removed? I know someone got upset because it said he dated Mrs. Santa Claus but we know the rest of the page is not vandalism because it has been part of the page for a long time, why has this been removed now? DorsetTiger (talk) 02:58, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

The problems with the section extend far beyond the listing of Mrs Claus - some of the sources used are not reliable, while others don't support the claim at all. For example, a claim of dating Hannah Montana was cited to this source - both individuals are mentioned there, but there's no suggestion that they are or ever were dating. Because the subject is a living person, our BLP policy requires stronger sourcing and less gossip, as both Jonathan A Jones and Cullen328 pointed out. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:22, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Contentious claims about a living person require references to indisputably reliable sources. This whole section was referenced mostly to unreliable gossip rags and lying exploitative tabloid papers and websites. Perhaps a handful of these relationships are well enough sourced to be worth mentioning, but 95% of this is garbage. DorsetTiger, when you restore disputed content to a BLP, you are assuming full responsibility for the source reliability and accuracy of every single assertion in that edit. Do you fully understand the implications of that? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:31, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

I checked several entries. The sourcing for Margaret Thatcher and Ann Widdecombe was just nonsense. The source for Vanessa Redgrave starts "A short list of Beatty’s loves is said to include", which is hardly adequate. I don;t think this list belongs in the article at all, but editors who want to reintroduce parts of it should as a minimum check each reference individually themselves rather than just blanket restoring a list including obvious nonsense on the spuriuous grounds that an incorrect claim has been in the article for a long time. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 06:25, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Sources included the trash tabloid the Daily Star and other gossip sources. Reliable sources covering his relationships in depth are allowable - rumour-mongering is not. Fences&Windows 14:51, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

A. A. MacLeod

See the discussion I've started at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Teahouse#Warren_Beatty,_Shirley_MacLaine_and_A._A._MacLeod. Mcljlm (talk) 18:57, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

@MurrayGreshler Perhaps you'd like to add something to the discussion. Mcljlm (talk) 01:00, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Patricia J. Williams on Bulworth

After noticing the "citation needed" note following "Patricia J. Williams said: "[Beatty] knows power... and this movie is effective precisely because it takes on the issue of power." " I tracked down the whole quote "he knows power, if not the ghetto, and this movie is effective precisely because it takes on the issue of power." at https://www.thefreelibrary.com/Bulworth+agonistes.-a020942927 which shows it was originally in The Nation July 6, 1998, and then at https://go-gale-com.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/ps/i.do?p=AONE&u=wikipedia&id=GALE%7CA20942927&v=2.1&it=r&sid=ebsco. I now find the whole paragraph containing it has been deleted by MurrayGreshler.

Since Patricia J. Williams is described as legal scholar perhaps the whole quote should be reinserted, with a citation. Mcljlm (talk) 19:28, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

It's up to you if you feel that's a better approach. MurrayGreshler (talk) 03:10, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Why did you delete the whole paragraph? 08:20, 10 November 2022 (UTC) Mcljlm (talk) 08:20, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Little black book

The reputation is well known, and every one of these match ups was mentioned in the press at some point [1]. I don't think it should be omitted. Lady with an attitude (talk) 01:40, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Even from a quick look it is obvious that the list cites several sources not even remotely acceptable per WP:RS policy. I suggest you familiarise yourself with how Wikipedia works, and what its standards are for biographical content are, before proceeding any further. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:27, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

But, Lillian Hellman???????? MurrayGreshler (talk) 19:32, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

At least this time Anne Widdicombe and Margaret Thatcher aren't included on the list. It is utter trash, and frankly I don't understand why anyone (even an obvious sock) would waste their time creating a new account just to be told to go away and get a clue. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:46, 30 November 2022 (UTC)