Talk:John Hughes (filmmaker)

The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the John Hughes (filmmaker) article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Biography: Actors and Filmmakers

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
	This article is supported by WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers.

Illinois Low‑importance

	Illinois portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Illinois, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Illinois on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IllinoisWikipedia:WikiProject IllinoisTemplate:WikiProject IllinoisWikiProject Illinois
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Chicago Low‑importance

	Chicago portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chicago, which aims to improve all articles or pages related to Chicago or the Chicago metropolitan area.ChicagoWikipedia:WikiProject ChicagoTemplate:WikiProject ChicagoChicago
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Michigan Low‑importance

	Michigan portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Michigan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Michigan on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MichiganWikipedia:WikiProject MichiganTemplate:WikiProject MichiganMichigan
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Screenwriters

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Screenwriters, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of screenwriting, screenwriters, and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ScreenwritersWikipedia:WikiProject ScreenwritersTemplate:WikiProject Screenwritersscreenwriter
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Comedy Mid‑importance

	Comedy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comedy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of comedy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComedyWikipedia:WikiProject ComedyTemplate:WikiProject ComedyComedy
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Photo?

Could someone please put up an image of this guy? 71.110.128.78 (talk) 23:19, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did. It should be fair use since he is now deceased.--Harbinger1991 (talk) 02:05, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is not how fair use works. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.81.165.16 (talk) 00:04, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Where he's currently living

Someone changed his current location from Wisconsin to "the Chicago area" and then Chicago without citing a source. I changed it back to Wisconsin and cited a source.Tap1981 (talk) 20:48, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The BBC & Reuters refs state he lived his later years in Illinois. Information yes (talk) 10:17, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In 1994 they moved to Lake Forest, IL where their boys attended school. They also had some weekend places in the area, and I think that's where the confusion arose. 'Chicagoland area' (or something similar) covers it. Flatterworld (talk) 17:06, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Death

Please do not add any information about his death unless it is reliably sourced or it will be removed. Thank you. Wperdue (talk) 21:03, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

His fatal heart attack occurred whilst he was walking in the street. The many media reports don't say if he actually died there, before an ambulance could arrive at the scene. Does anyone know? Information yes (talk) 10:17, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How many previous heart attacks had he suffered? Information yes (talk) 10:17, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Trivia

Anthony Michael Hall worked on several of John Hughes films, as did Chevy Chase. Also the wording should be changed to incorporate gender indifference rather than just stating "Actors who have appeared in more than one Hughes production include" Yahoofx (talk) 21:49, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In my experience "actors" refers to both genders, and increasingly so. "Actress" seems to be becoming more and more obsolete and many of the women I know refer to themselves as "actors". I am fine with leaving the single word "actors". --Bruce Hall (talk) 05:02, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What happened with that table that was in there? I thought that was cool. I'd put it back myself, but I don't want it deleted. Why was it deleted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.27.39.238 (talk) 02:46, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links section

Needed attention per WP:EL. Thanks, --Tom (talk) 18:38, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can which ELs belong/appropriate be discussed here before readding? TIA --Tom (talk) 15:15, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you should have considered discussing them before deleting them. Flatterworld (talk) 17:06, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As a reference point, it may be notable to mention that "Shermer Illinois" is not just related to the North Shore of Chicago. It is a reference to Shermer Rd. which runs through Northbrook Il. Additionally, a portion of Shermer Rd. runs as far south as Niles IL. Culturally (referencing my youth in the area) everything from Lincolnwood north through Northbrook and Winnetka IL is considered suburban North Shore. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.0.76.41 (talk) 18:06, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I came here because Shermer, Il redirects to this article, yet the word "Shermer" doesn't occur anywhere in it. The only explanation was this talk entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.7.24.187 (talk) 18:26, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Qualifier

I find the qualifier of "director" to be insufficient. Hughes was primarily a writer and producer; he wrote over 30 films, 23 of which he also produced. He only directed eight of those films. I recommend moving the article to John Hughes (filmmaker), which would better encompass all of his occupations. --From Andoria with Love (talk) 02:41, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would be ok with that. Is there an type of "standard" for this type of disambiguation for other famous "filmakers" with common names? I am sure there is some guideline or policy :) Cheers, --Tom (talk) 12:53, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed there is a standard for this disambiguation. John Waters (filmmaker), Walter Hill (filmmaker), and Chris Columbus (filmmaker), just to name a few. :) --From Andoria with Love (talk) 16:53, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then this seems ok. I doubt you will get much feedback until you actually make the move. That might then illicit more response, but nothing that can't be fixed if huge out cry against. Anyways, good luck. --Tom (talk) 18:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll probably go ahead and do that shortly. I really don't see why anyone would object anyway, since he was not only a director, nor was that his primary occupation. Anyways, thanks for your input. :) --From Andoria with Love (talk) 23:38, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Most recent public photograph?

I removed an un-sourced claim that the last photograph of him in public was taken in 2001.

A movie set is not "public".
~~Two photographs here are more recent (and in more public venues).~~ WRONG Bongo matic 00:42, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bongo matic 14:02, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, a claim like that should have a citation for sure. Also, probably not that notable, due weight, ect. --Tom (talk) 15:16, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Those two photographs are of a different John Hughes, one who makes documentaries. Flatterworld (talk) 17:14, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, good point . . . "based in Melbourne" in the very first sentence should have alerted me. Bongo matic 00:42, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Funeral

Buried or cremated? Correct & improve (talk) 18:15, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He's buried at Lake Forest Cemetery in Lake Forest, Illinois, according to Find a Grave. --From Andoria with Love (talk) 11:04, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which family members live in NYC?

The Death section states he was there to visit family, but does not state who. Correct & improve (talk) 18:15, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

producer/director/writer table

maybe the filmography should be arranged in a table, as there is considerable crossover where JH has fulfilled more than one role in creating the film. I was thinking something like the way Guillermo del Toro's filmography is arranged

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guillermo_del_Toro#Filmography

might be better

NPOV Problem

There is a problem with the last sentence of the Careers section on the main page. It states the following, citing two sources:

"He became a voting Republican, after being disenchanted with the Hollywood left."

One of the two sources, the Slate article, contains absolutely no verification of the voting record of John Hughes or any verification of disillusionment with the Hollywood left. The piece is a dramatic analysis of the man's works combined with some tangential information about P.J. O'Rourke. It merely attempts to use his work to try and claim he was a closet conservative, without actually offering any facts from Mr. Hughes' life or career that directly substantiate the claims of the sentence in this article. There is absolutely no support of the sentence's two premises anywhere in the article. The second source is an offline source which I am in the process of obtaining. I am removing the Slate citation from the sentence in question, but leaving it in the footnotes for now. I will remove the other source and alter the sentence as necessary if it turns out to have no supportive information for the claims made.

I think it is worth noting that the documentary Don't You Forget About Me, which includes numerous interviews of Hughes' friends and former associates contains exactly no references to anything supporting this sentence and goes so far as to indirectly contradict the sentence by laying out the premise that Hughes' was disillusioned with the film industry and that is why he withdrew from Hollywood, without in any way referencing his supposed political convictions.

Mac.bh (talk) 06:38, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Move?

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no concensus. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 12:01, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
John Hughes (filmmaker) → John Hughes —

Primary topic over redirect. Overwhelmingly more page views than every other John Hughes article combined; more incoming wikilinks than any other JH article combined.--The lorax (talk) 07:18, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly not uncontroversial. --DAJF (talk) 08:34, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Page John Hughes lists 29 John Hugheses, and is the film-maker dominant among so many? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:49, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Clear primary topic. The writer-director is the John Hughes that most people would be searching for. The statistics confirm this, his article has nearly 70,000 page views this month. I haven't checked the statistics for the other John Hughes, but it's a safe assumption they wouldn't be near 70,000 a month even if they were all added together. ToTheBatmobile! (talk) 15:05, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support per ToTheBatmobile! whose assumption is correct. All 23 other articles combined add up to 4432 views, or 6% the filmmaker's. Even the dab page has almost 10,000 hits, double those for everyone else combined. Station1 (talk) 22:39, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. John Hughes (archbishop) is probably more important than the filmmaker and, with 17 other unqualified John Hugheses, the threshold for primary topic is not met. — AjaxSmack 01:34, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- John Hughes (archbishop) has only 570 page views this month, compared to for 69120 for John Hughes (filmmaker). That means John Hughes (filmmaker) has more than 99% of the combined page views. This is a textbook case of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. ToTheBatmobile! (talk) 14:04, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - WP:PRIMARYTOPIC notes that article traffic statistics are "tools that may help to support the determination of a primary topic in a discussion, but are not determining factors." (my emphasis). While page views are important, the existence of numerous other John Hughes articles should be noted as should the recent prominence of the filmmaker in the news due to his death. An encyclopedia should strive to be more stable and avoid recentism. — AjaxSmack 06:28, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Ajax Smacks point above that the dominating page hits are in the wake of his death is very valid and leads to the question, what were the page hits before his death (as we can expect the views to approximately return to after some time)? The article was moved from John Hughes (director) 3 days after he died. Looking at the hits on the prior name, they show about 350-400 hits per day. The 1964 footballer of the same name gets about 100 hits per day alone. Combining this with the archbishop and the numerous other articles, as well as the results from a Google Book search of this compared to others, this does not appear to be a primary topic.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:01, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Oscar Tribute

ManymerrymenmakingmuchmoneyinthemonthofMay says that noting the tribute isn't necessary to understand John Hughes' life, but I disagree. I think it's notable, since the Academy Awards is a big event, and his tribute was far, far bigger than what was done to note the deaths of any other members of Hollywood in 2009. I think it clearly illustrates the man's deep and lasting impact on a large part of Hollywood, and American culture. My version of the comment on his tribute doesn't include a laundry list of actors, but does note that it was a significant moment. I think that's reasonable. Torchiest (talk) 14:59, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Oscars have done a lot of tributes for a lot of people without those tributes getting listed in their Wikipedia bios. It does not belong. MMMMMMMM (talk) 18:59, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Those tributes are usually just part of a montage of celebrities, not a huge separate production. I think this one is more significant. Perhaps a third party can add something to this discussion. Torchiest (talk) 12:41, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Torchiest, this was a touchingly profound, rare tribute. While Oscar broadcasts do have tributes, they are usually fleeting, this in contrast seemed special.--The lorax (talk) 19:56, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page not moved: no concensus and is now in the backlog. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 08:57, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

John Hughes (filmmaker) → John Hughes – Primary topic. Filmmaker and redirects: 61,785, 431, 273. Others: 601, 527, 373, 244, 212, 183, 162, 161, 140, 128, 128, 121, 113, 94, 91, 87, 72, 71, 58, 55, 48, 36. Partial title matches: 256, 92, 80, 75, 69, 53. 62,489 versus 3705 + 625 (partial title matches) = filmmaker primary topic. Marcus Qwertyus 08:19, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support The #'s tell it all.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:05, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Has anything change since the last request? John Hughes (archbishop) is probably more important than the filmmaker and, with at least 23 other unqualified John Hugheses, the threshold for primary topic is not met. Wikipedia should strive to be stable and avoid recentism. — AjaxSmack 02:31, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Clear primary topic. Most people searching for or linking to John Hughes want this person, by far. The dab page itself is getting more hits than all other John Hughes combined. Objections a year and a half ago involved his recent death, but the proportions appear to be about the same now, well over 90% for the filmmaker. Station1 (talk) 22:02, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. John Hughes is a very common name. There cannot be a primary topic. This is what disambiguation pages are for. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 13:51, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Clear primary topic, as shown by the statistics. Only evidence to the contrary is that "John Hughes (archbishop) is probably more important" and that "John Hughes is a very common name", both pretty weak arguments in my opinion. Jenks24 (talk) 16:20, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

Ummm... Arizona or Arizona State?

This is what's in the article as I write this. Which one is it? Arizona State University|The University of Arizona

Ommnomnomgulp (talk) 00:00, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is the University of Arizona according to multiple reliable secondary sources. Elizium23 (talk) 21:10, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Did not launch John Candy's career

John Candy was a very well-established comic actor and star of the sketch show "Second City Television." I have removed it from the list of actors' careers he "launched." leica 07:12, 30 August 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leica0000 (talk • contribs)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on John Hughes (filmmaker). 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/20090813122541/http://thefilmstage.com/2009/08/11/hughes-doc-finds-distributor/ to http://thefilmstage.com/2009/08/11/hughes-doc-finds-distributor/

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: 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:58, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on John Hughes (filmmaker). 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:

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: 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:20, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on John Hughes (filmmaker). 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/20161104193313/http://www.talentmonthly.com/how-80s-filmmaker-john-hughes-changed-the-world/ to http://www.talentmonthly.com/how-80s-filmmaker-john-hughes-changed-the-world/

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: 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:31, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]