This  level-4 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography: Actors and Filmmakers 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 (assessed as Top-importance). United States Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

pbs.org mentions that the birthdate of August 1882 is often quoted but is incorrect. they give August 27, 1882 as his actual birthdate, what day i am not certain. this would be important to note especially for astrologers surfing the web for birthdata and finding this misinformation.

To use the words "astrologers" and "important" in the same sentence is a contradiction in terms. Sending astrologers off with the wrong data is the worst reason one could give for presenting the right information, and perhaps even an excellent argument for keeping it wrong. 140.147.160.78 (talk) 19:01, 17 December 2007 (UTC)Stephen Kosciesza[reply]

I have found three conflicting sources on Samuel Goldwyn's birthdate. Encyclopædia Britannica cites it as July 1879, World Book claims it is 1882, and The New York Times says that it was August 17, 1879. Does anyone have a definite answer? Htmlguy716 20:29, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/americanmasters/database/goldwyn_s_timeline_flash.html states, "Samuel Goldwyn claimed to have been born on August 27, 1882, in Warsaw, Poland but in truth Schmuel Gelbfisz was born in July, 1879." I will post this date because PBS seems to be the only resource that refers the the dispute over Samuel Goldwyn's birthday Htmlguy716 22:39, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever his birthdate is, the paragraph chronicling his early life needs to be fixed. It claims that at 16, he moved to Britain, lived for a couple years, and then travelled to Nova Scotia. But the year that he emigrated to the US, according to this article, is the year that he turned 17. I'm removing the age from the article.

A. Scott Berg's bio was written at the invitation of Samuel Goldwyn's son. Berg had access to family letters, etc. and interviewed many people who knew Goldwyn from his beginnings. I think it is not unreasonable to treat said bio as authoratative; Berg indicates the year as 1879 and the month as July.Jrm2007 06:51, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I’m confused. The lead para says 17 August 1879. The Social Security Death Index mentioned in the footnote says 27 August 1882. And Scott Berg’s authoritative biography says July 1879. That’s the least consensus-looking consensus I’ve ever seen. We need to come a view on this.

• This says 27 August 1884.

• This and this say July 1882.

• It seems the Social Security Death Index contains flawed data (27 August 1882), because they would have relied on official documents; if a false date had made its way onto his documents, that error would have been perpetuated.

• Britannica says July 1879.

• IMDB says 17 August 1879, but the mini-biography says “probably in 1879”.

• This says “summer of 1879” and refers to earlier sources that said 1882.

So, the preponderance of reasonable sources are favouring 1879, and summer, and probably July. That’s probably the closest we’ll ever come to an accurate date. I suggest we say he was born “probably in July 1879”, with a footnote acknowledging the various other dates that have been published, but saying why we prefer Berg’s version (namely, that he had access to people and documents that nobody else did). -- JackofOz (talk) 04:31, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now someone has changed it to August 1879 and is citing IMDb as a source. The IMDb is not a reliable source and should not be cited as such for biographocal info. I'll change it to c. July 1879, citing Berg's book. Crisso (talk) 16:15, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've put it back to "c. July" after someone changed it over to the incorrect 1882 date. The IMdB is actually a reasonably authoritative source -- it gets peer editing and users can submit corrections, although these processes aren't as plainly visible as they are on WP. The July 1879 date is in Berg as well as in the authoritative American National Biography Online; this should stand. Clevelander96 (talk) 13:45, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that referring to them as "inferior English" is appropriate. It seems to conflict with the phrase below the list of quotes, which suggests that he (or a number of writers at his disposal?) came up with these "goldwynisms" with the intent of being funny and not as serious phrases that were unintentionally funny. Even if his english skills were inferior the phrases were almost certainly intended with humor, which is suggestive of the fact that Goldwyn knew better than to use these phrases seriously, and so his language was not as bad as indicated by the quotes. --Shock 15:32, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Per debate and discussion re: assessment of the approximate 100 top priority articles of the project, this article has been included as a top priority article. Wildhartlivie (talk) 12:08, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kudos to whoever arranged the Goldwynisms from shortest to longest-- that was cute. 24.224.190.200 (talk) 15:14, 10 April 2008 (UTC)Tanya[reply]

It may be cute, but not terribly professional looking. I think the natural way to sort would be by the order of use, but that would be almost impossible so the next would be alphabetical. Besides, they weren't sorted by shortest to longest if shown with a fixed-width font, and there's no reason to arbitrarily choose "width of quote when displayed with a certain font" as the sort method. Ciotog (talk) 14:20, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Lede: Schmuel
• Infobox: Szmuel.

Let's get it at least consistent, guys. -- JackofOz (talk) 07:41, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@Ryan Pikachu: Per Wp:BURDEN, material lacking reliable sources can be removed and cannot be restored until reliable sources are added. The sources you're using don't meet that standard. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:30, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@DavidGoldish: I have added a reference from the Encyclopedia Britannica which identifies the last name as "Goldfish" and not "Goldish". Unless a better reference appears to contradict this, it should remain. Ifnord (talk) 14:42, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]