Jump to content

Talk:Oliver Stone

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 174.251.241.214 (talk) at 18:31, 12 March 2023 (→‎Bucha denial: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Vital article


To add

To add: an article about Stone's documentary Ukraine on Fire. 76.189.141.37 (talk) 22:06, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is appears that there are forces here that dislike it110.140.55.178 (talk) 01:58, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

5 Reliable Sources for identifying Stone as a Conspiracy Theorist

Hi 80.111.40.28 I see that we appear to be in disagreement about whether "conspiracy theorist" is a factual, unbiased descriptor for Oliver Stone. I believe that my edit is unbiased and justified because the term "conspiracy theorist" is applied to Stone in the 5 Reliable Sources which I cited: 1. ABC News 2. Seattle Times 3. Chicago Sun-Times 4. Vanity Fair 5. Newsweek

That is the reasonable, mainstream position as evidenced by its preponderance among reasonable, mainstream, reliable sources. JBlackCoffee52 (talk) 22:50, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Two things. The first is that the charge of "conspiracy theorist" is not made in the second source. The second is that "conspiracy theorist" by its very nature is a perjorative.80.111.40.28 (talk) 18:46, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

80.111.40.28 I am sorry, but you are incorrect on both counts. First, In the second source it states "Stone being the conspiracy theorist filmmaker of our time". Second, the term is not "by its very nature" a pejorative. The fact that demonstrates this is that there are numerous other Wikipedia biographies of living people of well-known conspiracy theorists and they are described as such without controversy. Examples: do you believe that it is a "pejorative" to describe such individuals as Alex Jones, Jermone Corsi, and David Icke as conspiracy theorists? Each of them has the term included in their opening sentence, so why should it not be included in Stone's? I have provided 5 RS that demonstrate that this understanding of Stone is reasonable and mainstream. What sources do you have which demonstrate otherwise? JBlackCoffee52 (talk) 22:48, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it is absolutely a pejorative in those instances. Five cherrypicked source is not a solid rationale to introduce bias into an article.80.111.40.28 (talk) 13:25, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as this is confusing. A conspiracy theorist implies a person that has an active role in creating new theories, rather than make movies about already existing theories. I don't think the four mentions in the sources warrant inclusion of this word, since a news article may be more playful with such words than an encyclopedia article. I think a description of his attitude toward conspiracies is more useful than a label, per WP:LABEL.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 14:17, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:ONUS "The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." JBlackCoffee52 needs to gain consensus to add disputed content. I think there is a concern about conflating someone who makes movies about conspiracy theories versus someone who works is labeled a conspiracy theories. I think there probably should be a section laying out the claim, supported by reliable sources, before adding controversial material to the first sentence of the lead of a WP:BLP. 2600:1700:1111:5940:D9F6:63D1:857A:104 (talk) 22:03, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As stated above, I believe that my edit is unbiased and justified because the term "conspiracy theorist" is applied to Stone in the 5 Reliable Sources which I cited: 1. ABC News 2. Seattle Times 3. Chicago Sun-Times 4. Vanity Fair 5. Newsweek
That is the reasonable, mainstream position as evidenced by its preponderance among reasonable, mainstream, reliable sources... Now, please provide your RSs which explain why it is factually inaccurate to characterize him as such. JBlackCoffee52 (talk) 22:26, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I already answered you in that material in the lead must be supported in the body. You can't just change the first sentence of a BLP. This should be supported with text and sources in the body of the article WP:LEAD "Apart from basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article". I also provided a link to the appropriate community policy on how this matters are handled WP:ONUS. 1 is a dead link, 2 could be read as he makes movies about conspiracies theories, 3 looks to support your position, 4 looks to support your position, 5 is an opinion piece. 2600:1700:1111:5940:D9F6:63D1:857A:104 (talk) 23:13, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have now added a new section with text and sources in the body of the article and re-inserted descriptor in lead sentence. I have also inserted an archive link to replace the dead ABC link. https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/09/bush-knew-more-about-bin-laden-plans-than-we-realized/323784/https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/09/bush-knew-more-about-bin-laden-plans-than-we-realized/323784/ (talk) 22:45, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Lead sentence removed due to no consensus, though I like the material you added. Give people time to respond. 2600:1700:1111:5940:D9F6:63D1:857A:104 (talk) 07:48, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It seems no one else is going to be involved, so JBlackCoffee52 I don't have an issue with your change. 2600:1700:1111:5940:D9F6:63D1:857A:104 (talk) 22:42, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well the current lead is unfortunaly somewhere between problematic to nonsensical.

  • a)Why do we need explicit source in the lead that he a writer and director? That seems outright nonsensical.
  • b) Description as conspiracy theorist in the lead. That seems highly problematic to me. First of all in the first sentence of lead belongs what a person is famous/known for (the defining characteristic) and not simply anything he/she might as well. So even if you consider him a conspiracy theorist, it certainly not what is primarily known for. Another problem is that "conspiracy theorist" is usually considered a defamatory description, so claiming that in the article (in particular in the lead) requires high quality authoritative sources. Sources of the type "somebody called him a conspiracy theorist in some publication" aren't curring it. As far as I can see the currently given sources sources are not sufficient in that regard. One is not reachable anymore, the New Yorker One is some mocking short commentary not even calling him explicitly a conspiracy theorist. That leaves the book source on the jfk assassination, which doesn't give a page number and mostly likely not an authoritative source to assess whether Stone is a conspiracy theorist or not.

--Kmhkmh (talk) 00:01, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

a) Why is it "nonsensical" to identify Stone as a writer and a filmmaker (that is the word used, not director)? Those are 2 of the things he is most well known for doing - making and writing films - and that is attributed in the RS. What do you believe would be a better, more accurate lead sentence?
b) Regarding the conspiracy theorist designation, here on the talk page I note 5 sources in particular, all which are authoritative, which describe him as such. Copying and pasting the comment from above, which you may not as seen: As stated above, I believe that my edit is unbiased and justified because the term "conspiracy theorist" is applied to Stone in the 5 Reliable Sources which I cited: 1. ABC News 2. Seattle Times 3. Chicago Sun-Times 4. Vanity Fair 5. Newsweek JBlackCoffee52 (talk) 16:16, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Kmhkmh I have restored these sources to the lead sentence. Thanks. JBlackCoffee52 (talk) 16:22, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FOIA release for his service record

Here is the public portion of his Army record received from NARA via an FOIA request, which shows the awards listed in the article are accurate. https://imgur.com/a/Q7lEmk9

Primary source exception

@Binksternet: Please help me understand your reversion. Per WP:PRIMARY: primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia. The quotation from Stone's tweet was published in the cited reference [The Guardian], which is a reputable source. Your edit summary is incorrect in stating that this quotation is used against him in BLP. Reproducing the man's own words, reputably sourced and properly contextualized, is not an attack on his integrity. Rinpoach (talk) 15:40, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There's an intermediary step involved. I was responding to this removal of the Guardian source to be replaced by a tweet from Stone. I reverted this person, and trimmed the Stone quote down to the essence. Binksternet (talk) 15:43, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Military Service for infobox

I understand the old infobox went all out about, but this man served in the military. It should say "United States army", [Years of Service] and "wars and battles". Just those 3 at least. PreserveOurHistory (talk) 15:56, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bucha denial

Is it true and cited that Stone put out a tweet denying the Bucha massacre? If so, I feel this is important information that should be included. 174.251.241.214 (talk) 18:31, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Oliver_Stone&oldid=1144257856"