Talk:Jack L. Warner

hard-hitting social dramas, whose production Jack Warner tended to support

Duh. Since he ruled the studio with an iron hand, obviously anything actually produced would by definition have his support. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.12.23.104 (talk) 19:31, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

decreed a flat, low-key lighting style to make the sets look cheaper than they were

That's nonsense in every way. First, it doesn't - if anything, it makes them look more classy. Second, why on earth would he want to make them look cheaper? He'd want the exact opposite. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.12.23.104 (talk) 19:24, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Upgrading Jack Warner

This article has improved but still needs a "Personal life" section. This would be the appropriate place to discuss his marriages, infidelities, relationships with colleagues, etc. -- twelsht (talk) 05:26, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

The inclusion of material on Jack Warner's personal life (marriages, strained relationships with relatives, etc.) has improved this article. The piece would be even stronger if certain sections were expanded, including "Depression era"--an important period for the studio. Even a brief reference to Warner's near-fatal car accident (which occurred in the 1950s, I think) would help round out this article. -- twelsht (talk) 15:10, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Your point is well taken. I've added a section on Warner's political views. Feel free to expand it. Cheers, -- twelsht (talk) 01:29, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Edits from Banned User HC and IPs

Wikipedia's banning policy states that "Any edits made in defiance of a ban may be reverted to enforce the ban, regardless of the merits of the edits themselves. As the banned user is not authorized to make those edits, there is no need to discuss them prior to reversion."

1) HarveyCarter (talk · contribs) 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

4u1e's comments

OK, this is just stuff that occurs to me as I go through:

Lead

• 'His 45-year career exceeded that of any other studio head' At the time of his retirement, or of all time?

 Done Comment: As of 1990, Warner had the longest career of any Hollywood studio head. I'll take steps to confirm the current status of this record.

• 'develop the film industry's premier "talking picture"' Unclear what this means: does it mean to develop the technology for talking pictures, or to develop the best talking pictures? Or something else? Why is talking picture in full quotes? I would have thought it was a fairly familiar term (and I ain't that old!). Perhaps single quotes only, to indicate use of jargon, or just a wikilink if you think readers will not understand it?

 Done Comment: I agree. This sentence needs to be more specific. The Warners secured the license for Bell Lab's Vitaphone technology, which enabled them to produce The Jazz Singer. Sam, who sensed the potential value of the technology, was largely responsible for the deal. The unnecessary quotes have been removed.

I think what's throwing me off is the use of 'premier' to mean 'first'. That's correct in French, but isn't 'premier' more normally used nowadays in English to mean 'premium' or 'high quality'? If you mean 'first' would it be less ambiguous to say so? 4u1e (talk) 17:04, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

• Probably need to add something to the text to make it clear to a wider audience why being a Republican conflicts with supporting the New Deal. (i.e. something like 'Although he was a staunch Republican, he encouraged film projects that promoted the agenda of Democrat President Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal.')

 Done Comment: Good point. I referred to Franklin Roosevelt and mentioned his party affiliation.

Formative years

• I found it confusing that the first para of the main body of the article starts off referring to Warner's Brothers, not Warner himself. The various references to Warner siblings and their birthdates later on also become confusing. Could I suggest that the siblings are introduced in chronological order instead, and that the first para should start 'Jack Warner was born.....' or similar?

 Done Comment: Excellent point! I restructured the opening paragraph of this section, which now opens with a reference to Jack Warner's birth in Canada.

• Do we know why the Warners moved to Canada?

 Done

• steeltown. Really a single word?

 Done Comment: I have seen it rendered as a single word, but I suspect this is not standard practice. To stay on the safe side, I rendered the term as two words.

• ' forming a brief partnership with another aspiring "song-and-dance man"' I'm probably being hyper-sensitive here: is there any chance this could be (mis)understood to mean a personal relationship rather than a performing partnership?

 Done This is a valid concern, given that the term "partnership" is frequently used to describe personal relationships. I've added the word "business," which should clarify the nature of the relationship.

Early film career

• 'According to Jack Warner's obituary, he contributed $150 to the venture by pawning a horse' This is slightly ambiguous. Since the previous para refers to Sam Warner, this could mean that Sam contributed $150, not Jack. Suggest re-word to something like 'Jack Warner contributed $150 to the venture by pawning a horse, according to his obituary.'

 Done Good point! The sentence has been revised.

I'll be back later. 4u1e (talk) 07:54, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Let me know when 4u1e is done reviewing the article. I'd prefer to not have 2 people reviewing it at the same time - it's too confusing. Royalbroil 21:15, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

4u1e's comments (part II)

Back again:

Early film career

• Is this section title misleading? 'Film career' implies, but does not explicitly say, 'acting career'. What's the usual industry term for someone who shows and promotes films?

 Done Comment: I revised the section heading so it reads, "Screening and film distribution." Let me know if this is too vague.

Formation of Warner Bros.

• There's an eight year gap here (1910 - 1918)! Is there nothing notable to say about the brothers' early production efforts? Were they successful? Why was WB not formed until 1918?

 Done

• Similarly, is there nothing to say about the period 1918 - 1925?

 Done

• Might be useful to have an explanation of what a head of production does, for those not familiar with the film industry.

 Done

Depression era

• 'era in which Warner would recruit the most New Dealish (often simultaneously the most left-wing) writers and social themes' Is this worded as original? Recruiting 'social themes' sounds odd, but if that's what the quote says, then obviously leave it as is.

 Done Comment: There is no rule against truncating the quote, so I eliminated the reference to social themes.

Personal life

• 'daughter of one of San Francisco's most established Jewish families' Longest established? Most notable? Doesn't sound quite right.

 Done Comment: Warner's biographer described Irma Solomon's clan as one of San Francisco's "pioneer" Jewish families. Perhaps this is the most appropriate word choice.

• '1947 Alfa Romeo roadster' Do we need to know the year? Cars in Europe are not now usually known by model year, and probably weren't then, so the distinction may be meaningless in reality. On the other hand, it is what an American audience would expect to see.

 Done

• I've removed refs to 'Warner Sr.', on the grounds that he is elsewhere referred to only as Warner, and the context with him and Jack Jr should be clear enough as is. It would be nice to tidy up the references to Ann Page/Warner as well, it is specified three times that she was Warner's wife, and twice that she was his second wife. Can you think of a way to reduce this apparent repetition? (I couldn't off the top of my head! :))
• 'Jackie Park, who bore a "startling" resemblance to Warner's wife' First or second?

 Done

Political views

• 'soft-pedaling idealogical differences with those who held leftist political views' I'm sure it's my ignorance, but I'm not quite sure what soft-pedalling (sic, for me) means in the context. Is there a less jargon-y way of putting it?

 Done Comment: "Overlooking" is more direct.

Later years

• 'reedited' Should this be 're-edited'?

 Done

• First part of first paragraph covers same ground as last para of 'The Sixties'. Can the overlap be reduced or removed?

 Done Comment: Very good point! I integrated material on Warner's late 1960s career into the section titled "The Sixties."

• The middle part of this para feels like it belongs earlier on in the article. Up to 'The Sixties' we were covering Warner's career in chronological order. Then we went to two sections focussing on specific topics (Personal Life and Politics), so it feels odd to jump back to the latter part of his career. Can the first two paras of this section be merged into 'The Sixties', which will then have to be re-named? The remaining para could possibly be moved into personal life to avoid having a one para section.

 Done Comment: The material in question actually belonged in the section on the 1960s. The material in the section titled "Later years" deals with the 1970s. Thanks for catching this!

Hope that's helpful. This is a good article. It mostly pulls off the trick of focusing on Warner himself and not the company, although there are a couple of places where that could be tightened up. I've enjoyed reading it. I'll check back here to see if you've got any questions about my comments. Cheers. 4u1e (talk) 18:22, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Your comments were clear, constructive, and very helpful. I still need to work on the repeated references to Ann Warner as Warner's second wife, of course. I'll give the piece a thorough review tomorrow. Thanks, again, for your detailed feedback, which improved this article considerably. Cheers, -- twelsht (talk) 03:05, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Royalbroil's comments

Overview

GA Criteria 1. Well written.

• Yes

2. Factually accurate and verified:

• Yes, minor changes outlined below

3. Broad coverage

• Yes, his whole life is covered

4/5. Neutral/stable

• Yes

6. Images

• I don't think that the Youngstown image belongs in the article: it's not directly related to Warner. The same thing for the German American Bund parade image.

 Done

The Hollywood Studios image should get moved to Commons since it's free use. That image certainly belongs in this article. Portrait has fair use criteria. Thoughts for possible free use images: 1) a picture of his family like his wife(s) or young Jack, Jr. He married before 1923, so a wedding picture? 2) His star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame. Don't worry if you can't find any of my suggestions.

This image of his house might be interesting enough to including in this article. If so, you would need to ask the photographer to consider licensing it Creative Commons. They are a Wikipedia fan, so your odds are better thant the normal 50%. Royalbroil 19:19, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

 Done Comment: The photo is described as "public" on the Web site. I used a free use license that requires attribution but will contact the author about moving it to Commons -- twelsht (talk) 17:27, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Copyedit

• "His 45-year career exceeded that of any other studio head". In what way did his career exceed others? Length? Sales? Is this NPOV?

 Done Comment: Good catch! I revised this statement so that it clearly refers to the length of his tenure, rather than the effectiveness of his leadership.

• Cite "to procure the technology for the film industry's first talking picture" - most firsts should be cited

 Done Comment: I totally agree and added an inline citation.

• "a bestseller that condemned" I assume it's a book. How about "a bestselling book that condemned"?

 Done Comment: Good observation.

• Some words might be written too high for most readers (I have 2 college degrees). I had to look it up 2 of these words. "presaged" - How about "was a precursor" or "was an omen"? Also, "prescient" "enmity" "ingratitude".

 Done Comment: I altered some of the language and will continue to work on this.

• Consider moving the first paragraph in the "Personal life" section to the lead. I don't like how there's a summary of his life right before it tells you the details.

 Done Comment: Thanks! This seems to work better. I was also concerned that the "Personal life" section was a bit too long.

Excellent job finding relevent and interesting quotes an integrating them into the text! It's a well-written article that looks ready for GA and beyond. Royalbroil 14:55, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

death and legacy section

How is it possible that Michael Curtiz was at Mr Warners memorial service when he was, at that point , already dead 15 years??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.192.233.83 (talk) 02:52, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Your point is well taken. This item has been removed. Thanks, -- twelsht (talk) 18:44, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

corrections and clarifications

The Early Years portion of this article was changed to reflect research into primary sources that provide evidence of the Warner family's arrival in the United States. This is contrary in various ways to published sources that do not show evidence of primary source research, and are therefore not credible at to these specific events. There are several references to Benjamin Warner's intent and motivation that should be placed in the context of heresay rather than repeated from published sources as fact. If there is a written account by Benjamin Warner to substantiate these statements, it should be noted. Otherwise it is heresay. Declair (talk) 02:55, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

The foremost issue with what you've said is that it is apparently your research into primary sources, which makes it original research and not acceptable under policy covering primary sources, which for the most part are not allowable. Previously published sources are the fundamental place from where acceptable content comes. If your research has been independently published, then please provide the particulars of that publication. Otherwise it is original research and not acceptable. Also, I noted some changes in your last revision which simply seem to be picayune changes - shoemaker vs. cobbler (aren't they the same thing?), punctuation after the refs, the contemporary names of regions, and odd sentences:

• "In Baltimore, the couple had five more children, including Abraham, and he would eventually be called Albert." vs. "In Baltimore, the couple had five more children, including Abraham (later known as Albert) and Sam Warner."
• "Aside from Hirsch, a son Schmuel was also with them, later known as Sam."

Those are essentially arbitrary changes that would reflect personal wording preferences which have little to nothing to do with sourcing or accuracy. This article was designated a featured article some time ago and then underwent what can best be termed as tampering by a possibly well-meaning but unskilled editor that threatened that status. At a point when there is disagreement over content on a featured article such as this one, the appropriate place to discuss such changes is here, on the talk page, so that a compromise can be reached between editors who disagree, through discussion. It isn't a compromise when one side makes content changes and calls it such in the edit summary. That's more like appeasement. I would strongly urge you to broach your issues with content, item by item, here, and changes be discussed prior to making them. That is cooperative editing and working to consensus, as Wikipedia policy dictates. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:46, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't appreciate this personal attack: "The foremost issue with what you've said is that it is apparently your research into primary sources, which makes it original research and not acceptable under policy covering primary sources, which for the most part are not allowable." Your statement is incorrect and inappropriately accusatory. I have made it very clear (on talk pages, discussion and edit summaries) that my concern is to correct and clarify information presented from sources that I consider unreliable, and I've stated my reasons. Should I have brought it up at the very start before I made any changes? That is a procedural issue, and if I had it to do over, yes, I would have. I haven't been particularly conciliatory since then because the responses I've been getting to my changes from the start have not been in the spirit of "cooperative editing." If there has been any sense of appeasement here, it's from what I think is a clear sense of proprietary rights to an article by one(?) editor. I have no interest in putting my personal "stamp" on anything at Wikipedia. The changes I made were not capricious, and if anything was arbitrary, it was a few words or sentence structures altered to accomodate those changes sensibly. The bottom line is that I like to see information on the web that is the most accurate as possible, regardless of which individual(s) presents it. Shouldn't this be the aim of all Wikipedia editors? If Wikipedia doesn't deem the source I cited to be acceptable within their guidelines, then people can find the information elsewhere for comparison. Life goes on. I understand resistance to my changes if they don't make sense, but to look for ways to discredit a source based on technicalities? Who does that serve?

"Also, I noted some changes in your last revision which simply seem to be picayune changes - shoemaker vs. cobbler (aren't they the same thing?)." Cobbler is an obsolete term. Would you call Nike a cobbling company?

You mention "contemporary names of regions" - I assume you refer to my change that says the Warners were living in Russia before they immigrated? The original wiki text said that town was in Poland. It wasn't. If a citation to a source is needed that explains when the later boundaries of Poland included that town, so be it, but the early years part of the article is full of this kind of repetition of poor scholarship from poor sources. As for "odd sentences," that's your opinion. The original sentence you mention says that Sam was born in Baltimore. Primary evidence shows he wasn't. He wasn't even born in the same country as Baltimore. 69.86.119.87 (talk) 17:49, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I made no personal attack upon you. You stated clearly "The Early Years portion of this article was changed to reflect research into primary sources". I told you that your research into primary sources was not acceptable to use as a source to change items in the article. That is not a personal attack. Also, I see that another editor explained to you that you yourself cannot simply discard sources which you consider unreliable. If someone has published something that challenges reliably, independent third party publications, then you must bring those here for interested editors to discuss. For the record, cobbler may be an antiquated term now, but it certainly wasn't at the end of the 19th century, my great-great-grandfather, who emigrated to the US from Prussia in the mid-19th century routinely listed his profession as a cobbler on census records. I'm not going to spend a great deal of time arguing with you. As you were told, your original research into primary sources cannot meet the terms of reliable sourcing, it is original research, and the other editor tried to discuss this with you. Again, I made no personal attack upon you. It's regrettable that you take a response that way. Wildhartlivie (talk) 19:17, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Dream Factory

Jack, jr, did a nice if pedestrian life of his father clothed as Ham Robbins, in a novel "Dream Factory," 1982, and contains a remarkable amount of material from this wikipedia article. I'm surprised it didn't mention the book. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.161.29.211 (talk) 00:17, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Second wife

Sounds like a small section has been missed out. The first mention of second wife Ann is when the family 'refuses to accept her'. How did she arrive, and when did they marry? 81.158.42.208 (talk) 11:48, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Warner and My Fair Lady

The "Andrews vs. Hepburn" section of the My Fair Lady article seems to have small discrepancies with this article in relation to the reason Jack Warner left and other related issues. Davehoekst (talk) 01:02, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

This is a well sourced feature article. Any discrepancies should be addressed at the film page. Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:20, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Jack Warner Jr. Was Not His Only Child

He also had a daughter named Barbara. It is written somewhere in the book Hollywood Be Thy Name that she was born while he was still married to Irma. He started his affair with Ann a few years before he officially divorced Irma.75.72.35.253 (talk) 03:33, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

File:Jack warner1.jpg Nominated for Deletion

	An image used in this article, File:Jack warner1.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests - No timestamp given What should I do?
	A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 21:14, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

File:With Warner.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:With Warner.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status What should I do? Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:With Warner.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 01:50, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Country of origin

The article states that he was a son of jewish immigrants from Poland. Mind you, in the XIXX century, Poland did not exist as an independent country as it was partitioned by Austria, Prussia and Russia. I think it should be re phrased. I believe it should read "a son of Polish Jewish immigrants from the Russian Empire(or whichever part they were from). Norum 12:46, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Sam Warner's Estate, and Lita Warner's lawsuit in the 1970s against Uncle Jack Warner

Maybe somebody can find some info on Lita Warner's lawsuit against Jack Warner's estate. Did she win the lawsuit? Or receive a settlement? ....the backstory: Sam Warner married silent film actress Lina Basquette in 1925; Sam died in 1927 from an infection that went to his brain. Lina's daughter was adopted by her Uncle Harry Warner. Marc S., Dania Fl 2602:304:AE91:E4C9:30DD:83DF:BCBB:FA88 (talk) 16:06, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Requested move 4 June 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved. DrKiernan (talk) 15:41, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

---

• Jack Warner → Jack L. Warner
• Jack Warner (disambiguation) → Jack Warner

– He isn't the primary topic; he isn't more notable than all the other Jack Warners --Relisted. George Ho (talk) 03:15, 12 June 2015 (UTC) Joeykai (talk) 17:12, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose the suggested move per WP:PRECISE, since there is another film executive named Jack Warner. However, since the name "Jack Warner" doesn't seem to fulfill WP:PRECISE either, I would tentatively suggest moving the article to Jack L. Warner. I'd like to hear what the main contributors to this article, such as @Twelsht, think about this idea.--Lemuellio (talk) 18:05, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Is he typically referred to with the middle initial? See WP:MIDDLES. --BDD (talk) 18:21, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

RottenTomatoes, TCM, and IMDb all refer to him that way, as do the credits sequences I've seen from movies he produced. So I think a strong case can be made for the middle initial.--Lemuellio (talk) 20:19, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

I have changed to move request to Jack L. Warner. "Jack Warner" should still be a disambiguation page; there is no primary topic.Joeykai (talk) 20:52, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

That makes my original opposition no longer relevant, so I've struck it out above.--Lemuellio (talk) 23:05, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

• Support. Perhaps he is the most notable Jack Warner, but it isn't such a landslide that it would warrant taking up the main space. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:35, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

• Question - Is there any strong evidence to support this?--Yaksar (let's chat) 04:43, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose a move away from the primary topic without any evidence beyond personal opinions and guesses. Page view stats indicate that the current primary is accurate. The only page that would affect this outcome is the FIFA executive, but a comparison of the stats from, say, January of this year shows that these numbers are only inflated in the current month due to the heavy FIFA news coverage.--Yaksar (let's chat) 15:03, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

The FIFA executive's spike in views is not temporary; the FIFA scandal will not end anytime soon. The FIFA executive has about 25,000 more page views than this page over the last 30 days; this is not simply recentism. This represents a permanent change in his notability and visibility and shows there is no primary topic.Joeykai (talk) 15:22, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

And if we look at, say, february, this page has views in the 9000s while the football executive is in the 1000s. Obviously this change is entirely due to the FIFA scandal. Using the numbers from the heat of the scandal would just be silly, and predicting that a current event will forever change the view count is just crystal balling.--Yaksar (let's chat) 04:42, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Let me ask this: If, one month from now, the football executive still has double the page views of this Jack Warner, will it still be recentism? Two months? At what point will it become a permanent change instead of recentism? I'm not saying that the football executive is the primary topic; I'm saying that this Jack Warner is NOT the primary topic.Joeykai (talk) 17:40, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

There's not an exact answer. Perhaps 6 months, perhaps 1 year. But I would certainly say that in the midst of the actual scandal is one time where it should be overwhelmingly obvious that recentism applies. But that's the good thing about Wikipedia -- there's no deadline, and no reason we can't assess this again in January. --Yaksar (let's chat) 03:07, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

As an aside, I'm completely neutral about the middle initial.--Yaksar (let's chat) 18:03, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

• Partial support per Lemuellio. While I agree that this move request seems like a kneejerk reaction to the current FIFA scandal, I think there is a good case for moving Jack Warner to Jack L. Warner. In addition to the evidence presented above, the "company history" on the Warner Brothers website refers to him as such [1], as do two publications on Amazon [2][3]. PC78 (talk) 18:16, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Having said that I'm not entirely convinced that Jack L. Warner isn't the primary topic, in which case Jack Warner should be retained as a redirect and the dab page should stay where it is. PC78 (talk) 22:19, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
• Support in principle; no primary topic. Red Slash 22:25, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

• Question - What makes you feel that way, or more importantly what actual evidence is there for this?--Yaksar (let's chat) 18:01, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

• Well, we only have two criteria for primary topic, and pageviews is one of them and is pretty decisive. Red Slash 05:37, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

• Yes, but these page views are 100% due to recentism. Numbers taken from before the current scandal show a clear primary topic.--Yaksar (let's chat) 06:18, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

• Support. One can screen the opening logo of any Warner Bros film of the 1940s, 1950s or 1960s (also second half of the 1930s) to find subject's name listed as "Jack L. Warner in charge of production" or "Jack L. Warner executive producer", rather than as simply "Jack Warner". If Jack L. Warner were to remain as the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, then Jack Warner would have to be a redirect to Jack L. Warner. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 20:50, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

TFA rerun

Any objections to throwing this article into the pile of potential TFA reruns for this year and next? Any cleanup needed? If it helps, here's a list of dead or dubious links. - Dank (push to talk) 00:02, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

About the lawsuit James Garner filmed against Warner Brothers to be let out of his contract----it should be added that Garner won the suit in a walk;after Warner took the stand and gave a speech along the "actors are brainless cattle and my indentured slaves" line of thinking. The jury was highly offended and found for Garner almost immediately. His memoirs also say that Garner judged Warner to be a boor almost immediately and told his agent---"Never seat me at the same table with that man" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.23.5.11 (talk) 13:59, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

"Canadian"

I removed "Canadian-American" from the lead first sentence, and I question whether Warner belongs in "Canadian X" categories like Canadian people of Russian-Jewish descent. True he was born in Canada, to parents who had moved from Baltimore, Maryland, but the family returned to the US when Jack was no more than two years old. For comparison, his older brothers Harry, Albert, and Sam, born in Poland (then part of Russia), are not categorized or described as Polish-Americans or Russian-Americans. Canadian identity doesn't seem very significant to his career or biography, aside from his 2004 (long after his death) inclusion in Toronto's Canada's Walk of Fame. If zero or very few sources call him "Canadian" or "Canadian-American" (which is different from Canadian-born American), then Wikipedia should follow suit, and not place disproportionate emphasis on the birth place, in the same way we don't call Bruce Willis a "German-American" or "West Germany-born American", especially not in the introductory sentence. --Animalparty! (talk) 00:06, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Mary Scarborough

née Mary Scarborough:

• Jackie Park
• Jacqueline Park
• Jacquelyn Park
• Jaqueline Park
• https://prod-www.tcm.com/tcmdb/person/0%7C76842/Jacqueline-Park
• Jaqueline Park: Still around? maxfisch.com/thehang
• https://therumpus.net/2016/03/15/west-of-eden-by-jean-stein/
• https://www.nybooks.com/articles/2016/02/11/very-big-in-la/

.... 0mtwb9gd5wx (talk) 16:05, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Riddled with poor grammar and syntax

For a "featured article" with the star on top and all that, I can't believe how many grammatical errors are strewn throughout. I doubt these are all stylistic devices. You find 'em and you fix 'em, I've better things to do with my time. StyxinConn47 (talk) 00:58, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

shrewdness

He was a smart person because he bought the shares of the brothers and managed it alone 185.131.154.130 (talk) 20:21, 21 January 2024 (UTC)