Talk:Clint Eastwood#Article too large

{{edit COI|a}}

• What I think should be changed:
• Why it should be changed:
• References supporting the possible change (format using the "cite" button):

140.177.118.171 (talk) 17:36, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

{{reftalk}}

:{{Done}}, although you should have made the request at Talk:Clint Eastwood filmography. Peaceray (talk) 18:10, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Given Eastwood's primary notability as a film director and actor, it seems a bit WP:UNDUE to be using the officeholder infobox for this article. Back in 2020, I rearranged the infobox to use officeholder as a module [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Clint_Eastwood&oldid=933985199], but it seems to have gone back to the previous version now. Does anyone have any further thoughts? Connormah (talk) 01:05, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

:True, should be changed --FMSky (talk) 01:10, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

A recent article in The Telegraph labels him so [https://www.telegraph.co.uk/films/0/clint-eastwood-juror-no-2-release-politics/]. This term only entered the mainstream lexicon in the 2010s, but it obviously applies. Does anyone contest adding the cat? PromQueenCarrie (talk) 00:54, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

::Since no one objects, I'll go ahead and add it. PromQueenCarrie (talk) 01:36, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

{{edit semi-protected|Clint Eastwood|answered=yes}}

Hello, I am the author of recently published book about Eastwood, would love to make some edits on his page. The book was reviewed here

https://theclinteastwoodarchive.blogspot.com/2024/06/clint-eastwood-life-on-both-sides-of.html Catch20two (talk) 11:54, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

{{Respond|orangeexclamation|Not done for now:}} it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. I appreciate your good faith. Just wrong format. It also appears you have a conflict of interest. (3OpenEyes's talk page. Say hi!) | (PS: Have a good day) 12:26, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

{{Notice|Amazon ({{ASIN|B0D1FD9PQB}}) identifies this as a {{tq|Independently published}} book.}} As per {{section link|Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published sources}}:

{{tqb|Anyone can create a personal web page, self-publish a book, or claim to be an expert. That is why self-published material such as books, patents, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs (as distinguished from newsblogs, above), content farms, podcasts, Internet forum postings, and social media postings are largely not acceptable as sources. Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications.{{efn|Note that any exceptional claim would require exceptional sources.}} Exercise caution when using such sources: if the information in question is suitable for inclusion, someone else will probably have published it in independent, reliable sources.See Wikipedia:Verifiability#cite note-8 Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer.}}

Because of this, I recommend that we do not use the following until after the subject's death.

• {{cite book |title=Clint Eastwood: A Life on Both Sides of the Camera |isbn=979-8322480341 |asin=B0D1FD9PQB |year=2024}}

Peaceray (talk) 21:23, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

{{Notelist-talk}}

{{tref}}

Under "Personal Life," Sondra Locke's husband, Gordon Anderson is described as "an unemployed homosexual." The 3 sources cited actually list his occupation as sculptor. The page should be updated to reflect Anderson's correct occupation. Blammyyy (talk) 20:08, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

:By all accounts, Locke financially supported Anderson their entire marriage. Eastwood once said, [https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/the-good-the-bad-and-the-ugly-1259606.html "She's married to someone who doesn't work. So what does that do? That makes me the sole provider."] Anderson's nominal profession was that of a sculptor, but he hasn't been employed in nearly 60 years, assuming he's still alive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.29.121.51 (talk) 05:16, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

I find it hard to imagine that there is no mention of CBD in the article on Clint Eastwood. The amount of press coverage of controversies and lawsuits on these conjoined topics is staggering. I came here looking for a more sane and factual, less market-driven take on the matter than I could get from Google, and instead, found nothing. --Haruo (talk) 20:33, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

I recommend changing "to Ruth (née Margret[b] Runner; 1909–2006)" to simply Ruth Eastwood ({{nee}} Margaret Ruth Runner). She was born Margaret per all reliable sources, not Margret. Only the California Birth Index ([https://californiabirthindex.org/birth/margret_r_runner_born_1909_95029]) which is not reliable and which is replete with misspellings (including her mother's maiden name, which was McClanahan not McClauah), misspells the name as "Margret". 65.88.88.56 (talk) 21:36, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

::Your recommendation has no merit and is pompous to boot. Her birth name is Margret. The California Birth Index proves that. Period! That her mother's maiden name may've been mistranscribed is irrelevant. (It's perfectly feasible that a midwife in 1909 might misspell the mother's maiden name, but spelling an infant's name wrong on her own birth certificate? Get real.) Furthermore, the CABI is 100% acceptable on Wiki for vital stats pertaining to deceased individuals, and Ruth has been dead since 2006, so you're wrong on that count as well. Birth certificates/registrations are the only way to verify this information. She never went by Margret (or "Margaret" as you assert) during her adulthood—even her marriage license at 18 gives her name as Ruth—so any sources claiming she was born "Margaret" would've drawn their conclusions from hearsay rather than official documentation. Just what reliable sources are you referring to, by the way? Books about Clint? Every one of them is riddled with profound factual errors (the most noted, of course, is that they all claim Locke was years younger than she was). Given the revelations that have surfaced in the information age, it'll be interesting to see if any of those uninvested, undiligent authors decide to republish their books with the appropriate corrections. God knows they have a lot of correcting to do! PromQueenCarrie (talk) 05:59, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

:::You are ill-mannered and incorrect in almost everything you posted. 65.88.88.56 (talk) 22:03, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

::::As far as birth names are concerned, a state birth registration is unimpeachable except in cases where it's been retroactively edited due to adoption, Cher being a prominent example [https://californiabirthindex.org/birth/cheryl_lapiere_born_1946_3214561]. You're not going to win this argument, so please stop wasting everyone's time. PromQueenCarrie (talk) 03:34, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Did he die 192.140.249.148 (talk) 13:06, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

:Not yet. Maybe he is trying for centenarian, semisupercentenarian, or supercentenarian. Peaceray (talk) 19:48, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

User:Notpromotional, I would want to know who is lying by omission? Wehave to adhere to biographies of living persons rule. Atlantablackstar is only relying on RadarOnline and writes "If rumors of him dating again are true". Since when is the latter a credible resource. It seems like a tabloid in vein of Sun. See photo of Eastwood near (garbage?) bin above in the article. I find this fact unproven. The fact that there are no reliable sources like Variety or Deadline writing about this fact makes it suspicious. I am not convinced Eringer is reliable source, him writing "In fact, they tell me he was in last week, twice, and already has a new girlfriend" seems more like gossip and not what actual renowned, reliable journalist would say. And website, roberteringer.substack.com? Could there be any reason source like Guardian does not write about it except if it is wrong? BilboBeggins (talk) 21:31, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

::Radar has proved itself to be the most reliable source for Eastwood news, actually. They were the first to report his most recent divorce as well as the deaths of two of his exes, among other exclusive stories. His daughter Kimber and grandson LT have given Radar interviews before. Eastwood has always had a passive-aggressive relationship with the mainstream press. Notpromotional (talk) 05:15, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

:::It is not what WP:Reliable source rule says. BilboBeggins (talk) 17:18, 21 May 2025 (UTC)