Talk:Warren Beatty

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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.

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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?

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)

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)

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

A long time ago, this article had a very, very lengthy Personal Life section that listed all of Beatty's documented liaisons. We're talking triple digits. It appears somewhere along the way the consensus was to acknowledge the reputation without turning the article into a little black book. Earlier this month, somebody added a detailed paragraph about his romance with Joan Collins, which is totally unbalanced seeing as he only dated her for about a year and a half (if that) and was with other girlfriends way longer. Joan has a history of name-dropping Beatty to get air time, which is extremely cringe-worthy, and I say this as a fan of Joan. For what it's worth, Beatty in a 1998 Howard Stern interview denied ever being engaged to her. So I have removed this recent addition from the page. Yours6700 (talk) 05:15, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

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

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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)

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)

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Warren Beatty/CommentsTalk: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.

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