Jump to content

Talk:Kevin Spacey: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
m Archiving 1 discussion(s) to Talk:Kevin Spacey/Archive 3) (bot
Line 93: Line 93:
== Semi-protected edit request on 5 December 2022 ==
== Semi-protected edit request on 5 December 2022 ==


{{edit semi-protected|Kevin Spacey|answered=no}}
{{edit semi-protected|Kevin Spacey|answered=yes}}
Fix spelling/grammar - add commas and change "concerned"->"concerns".
Fix spelling/grammar - add commas and change "concerned"->"concerns".


Line 103: Line 103:
To:
To:
The director of the film, Gene Fallaize, dismissed concerns about working with Spacey. [[User:Tompkins789|Tompkins789]] ([[User talk:Tompkins789|talk]]) 23:10, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
The director of the film, Gene Fallaize, dismissed concerns about working with Spacey. [[User:Tompkins789|Tompkins789]] ([[User talk:Tompkins789|talk]]) 23:10, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

:{{ESp|d}}, thanks. [[User:Adrian J. Hunter|Adrian&nbsp;'''J.'''&nbsp;Hunter]]<sup>([[User talk:Adrian J. Hunter|talk]]•[[Special:contributions/Adrian J. Hunter|contribs]])</sup> 04:52, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Revision as of 04:52, 6 December 2022

Former good articleKevin Spacey was one of the Media and drama good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
July 10, 2006Peer reviewReviewed
August 1, 2006Good article nomineeListed
February 1, 2010Good article reassessmentDelisted
Current status: Delisted good article

Template:Vital article

Regarding Spacey's allegations in Synopsis

In the synopsis, it unfairly portrays Stacey as suspicious or even guilty, yet because all of the allegations were dropped, Kevin is allowed to be seen as innocent, yet to address this at the top is often disputed by other editors who have emotional attachments to the subject matter, claiming that 'not guilty' is not the same as charges dropped, and although I agree it's not the same, Kevin was never found guilty, therefore it is perfectly fine to add that he was 'never found guilty', because he wasn't, therefore he is still innocent in the eyes of the law, and whether you're a high profile person or an average joe, everyone has the right to remain innocent until proven guilty You may argue that in the article discusses in detail that he was not found guilty, this is not addressed within the synopsis, so why is it important to show that he was never found guilty within the synopsis? well, the synopsis acts as a "TLDR" (Too long didn't read) where it briefly addresses the article before addressing it all within categories. So I hope that others agree with my view that wiki should be written within factual and impartial context rather than emotional or hearsay. Hogyncymru (talk) 23:04, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The header mentions the allegations. It doesn't say he was found guilty or assign any positive or negative weight to the allegations, so saying he was not found guilty is kind of superfluous and comes across as defensive imo. Also, just tacking on the short sentence "Kevin was not found guilty of any misdemeanour." at the end of the header really kills the flow and doesn't mesh with the previous sentence. However, I'm new to wikipedia so maybe you folks feel differently. Ficaia (talk) 16:21, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bias Editors

The article is not here to affirm editor's viewpoints and to show Kevin as a guilty party in the synopsis (a segment which summarises the article..) if a synopsis closes off as being defamatory due to how it is worded, no judge nor jury has convicted him of being guilty of the allegations mentioned within the article, it is our duty as editors to show every viewpoint regardless of how they feel for the person personally or who they are associated with, Wiki already has an image problem with not showing accuracies and those bias editors are the ones who tarnish the reputation of this whole site, it doesn't even matter if you're an experienced editor who's been here for 10 years with hundreds of awards and accolades under their belts, if they tarnish just one article with their own viewpoint, that in itself destroys the democracy we live in, to learn history as it was documented and to give everyone a fair defence, otherwise, we are doomed to have one person with a chip on his/her shoulder dictating what THEY want the article to look like.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Hogyncymru (talkcontribs)

The lead makes absolutely no judgement about his guilt or innocence, as it should. It simply says that allegations have been made and what has happened to him since. The only editor editing with a bias here is you, who is constantly trying to add a line to suggest that he's innocent. We don't take a stance either way. We just list the objective facts in the lead, which is that Spacey was accused of sexual misconduct by several people and that he's been removed from most projects as a result. Those are indisputable facts. A random producer defending him can be added to the body of the article, but would be completely unbalanced to add it to the lead. JDDJS (talk to mesee what I've done) 16:15, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

first of all, I never said he's innocent, second, I edited it from my very first edit where I said "He was not found to be guilty" to "In 2018, film producer Paul Schrader offered Spacey a role in his new film and wrote, "If he's guilty of a crime, incarcerate him. If not, let him act." So where in this edit does it say that he was not guilty?, does this mean you reverted my edit without reading the edit first? because that doesn't seem very fair does it?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Hogyncymru (talkcontribs)

First of all, please sign your talk page posts. You've been around for long enough that I shouldn't have to remind you. Second of all, I have no idea how you're claiming I didn't read your edit when I responded to the direct content in each edit. If we include a random producer defending him in the lead, why not include all of the negative things people said, like Jon Bernthal? The lead is just no place to include someone's personal opinion on the matter. JDDJS (talk to mesee what I've done) 16:30, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Because you said that I said that I wrote in the article that he was not guilty, I amended that to the latter, so that's why I was confused as to why you claimed that I did include it when you joined in.. however, I will leave things be, I personally think the synopsis is a mess, too much information even if I did have my addition added, it still would have been too much, as to my signing, I have memory and dyslexia issues so find it hard to add it every time, but one last thing, I really am not warring with anyone, I just want everybody to be seen fairly and I hope you see that from a human level, I really don't want to be punished for wanting to help, I can see nothing can be done here to add to the synopsis (even if the billionaire's boys club isn't his last film because you reverted that too), but as of now, I apologise for making anyone feel uncomfortable for my involvement. Hogyncymru 17:41, 27 May 2021 (UTC) [reply]

The Billionaire's Boys Club is his last film to date. Yes there's been news reports of him being cast in an Italian film, however Spacey has yet to comment on it himself and production hasn't started yet, meaning there's no guarantee that it's going to happen. JDDJS (talk to mesee what I've done) 16:55, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 4 October 2021

Kindly change section title 2017–present: Baby Driver and career controversy to 2017–present: Career controversy.

Baby Driver was released in 2017, but there's no mention of it in this section, so putting it in the title makes no sense.

The discrepancy dates back to the edit that created this section in the first place, 1028941812 - which is to say, there never was any content to match the title.

The alternative to changing the title would be to add such content now, obviously. However, as it stands, everything in this section relates to the controversy in one way or another, whereas Baby Driver was released half a year before, so that doesn't seem ideal to me. Adding it to the previous, pre-controversy section would be better... except that that doesn't fit with the current "to 2016"/"from 2017" split. *shrug*

- 2A02:560:428C:A300:68B1:3D08:DB8E:6034 (talk) 20:56, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Done ––FormalDude talk 05:01, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

question about the new picture

hiya I'm a newbie but surely the previous picture was better for his page as it was more recent? it's been replaced by one from 2009 that has a Spanish description on en.wikipedia, why is that? ty ty — Preceding unsigned comment added by PeterSelIers (talkcontribs) 14:54, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

sexual misconducts allegations : why is it allegations and not convictions

As per rhe article : "On May 26, 2022, Spacey was charged with four counts of sexual assault against three men in the UK"

This is a bit more than an allegation, he's been convicted of sexual assault. Allegation is "a claim or assertion that someone has done something illegal or wrong, typically one made without proof". Here there are clear proofs, so I suggest the "allegation" part should be left off. 2A02:2788:2B4:652:2565:52CC:C535:CC9A (talk) 06:37, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A criminal charge is not the same as a conviction. He has not been convicted. ––FormalDude talk 07:27, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 5 December 2022

Fix spelling/grammar - add commas and change "concerned"->"concerns".

Under 2017-present:

Change from: The director of the film Gene Fallaize dismissed concerned about working with Spacey.

To: The director of the film, Gene Fallaize, dismissed concerns about working with Spacey. Tompkins789 (talk) 23:10, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Done, thanks. Adrian J. Hunter(talkcontribs) 04:52, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]