Talk:Stanley Kubrick

Cquotes, blockquotes,images etc

I've replaced all the cquotes with blockquotes throughout the article. The curly quotes are not only overly designed and cutsey-pie as hell, from what I understand their intention was to be used only for "shout outs" and pullquotes which adorn an article as a design element (which makes sense, given their look), and not to be for quoted material inside an article.

I've also truncated "Strangelove" for the section title only (and the AI section title as well). There's no reason to have the full title in the section, when the complete title is repeated twice in the next two lines. All having the long title does is force the Table of Contents to be unnecessarily wide. This is cleaner. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 04:33, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I've also adjusted image sizes. Images which are too small to be seen or properly illustrate the text are a waste of space. Each image should be large enough to be seen, to make an impact, to work, without overwhelming the text. The picture in the infobox, for instance, needs to be about that large to see anything of Kubrick's facial features - anything much less and it's useless, better to replace it with a standard head shot (if such a thing exists for SK). Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 04:55, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Discussion at the film project concerning an external link

Folks here might want to participate in a discussion here concerning a disagreement about an external link which was added to this article. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 04:47, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

His Birthdate

I'm changing 1828 to 1928. I hope that's OK with everyone.

THIS IS WHY WIKIPEDIA SUCKS.

It sucks because you spotted vandalism and reverted it within two minutes? --Closedmouth (talk) 07:19, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll revert you within two minutes. Oooooo!

Brancron (talk) 18:50, 29 July 2008 (UTC)Brancron

Section on Frequent Collaborators

I would prefer to keep the section on Frequent Collaborators relatively brief as it borders on a trivia section, and I encountered some fairly understandable resistance from user MarnetteD on having it there at all. As such, collaborators who were only in small supporting roles in multiple Kubrick films I suggest not be named. Thus I am for the second time removing the listing of Leonard Rossiter who appeared in both 2001 and Barry Lyndon as he had a small role in both films.
If we include Rossiter, we have to also include Margaret Tyzack who had fairly small roles in both 2001 and Clockwork Orange (before her glory days as Antonia in I, Claudius).
I'm even 50/50 about keeping Timothy Carey as although his role in Paths of Glory is substantial, his role in The Killing is fairly small. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WickerGuy (talk • contribs) 03:12, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

These sort of sections seem to be a common inclusion in director related articles. Tim Burton, James Cameron, The Coen Brothers, Martin Scorsese and Quentin Tarantino each have similar sections which are longer than the one in question, and each includes some actors whom the director has only worked with twice. Several of these sections, however, are in the form of tables, which might help if readability is an issue. S. Luke (talk) 05:17, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Stanley Kubrick needs your help

Stanley Kubrick currently contains several dozen "citation needed" tags. I will not be working on this article myself. -- 201.17.36.246 (talk) 21:06, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't know about you guys but most of the tags seem completely unreasonable. I mean, the article is in pretty good shape so you wouldn't expect such a load of tags added by someone who is part of WikiProjectFilms like User:S_Luke who has made the move: [1].
I did go over the article and provided citations all the way up to Spartacus and out of exactly 22 citation-needed tags there were 2 facts that needed slight adjustments to get it 100% sync with the sources. There are exactly 35 tags remaining, some of them pasted after each sentence. I think it's completely un reasonable and perhaps before going on with sourcing every second sentence in the article, perhaps User:S_Luke should justify the tags on Talk:Stanley_Kubrick first and limit the citations needed to ...anything that would be questionable indeed by people in the FilmProject.--Termer (talk) 04:07, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

A lot of those citation needed templates are spot-on; the article is definitely in need of more inline citations. Gary King (talk) 04:18, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

A lot of Spot-on would mean that there would be a lot of claims facts that are questionable. Since that is not the case, the article is pretty much based on the common knowledge of 'film community'. Unlike articles on WP such as History of film for example that would need some tagging indeed since most of it looks like WP:OR.
This doesn't mean that adding more inline citations to Kubrick's article would hurt it. Surely any article on WP could have some more.--Termer (talk) 04:31, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

You seem to be saying that a lot of History of film looks like OR, but the information in this article is not? It looks like OR to me until references are added. Gary King (talk) 05:06, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Please take a look at the articles and their references. there are 38 sources provided for Kubrick, out of which only Stanley Kubrick: A Biography By Vincent Lobrutto can cover the most of the article. VS. History of Film that has 3 intext citations-references. So sorry but I'm not getting it how these articles are even comparable rconsidering WP:OR--Termer (talk) 05:16, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Tons of information in the Kubrick article are still missing inline citations, which WP:BURDEN requires for information that can be challenged – which is essentially all of that analysis. Gary King (talk) 05:20, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

If you're talking about Kubrick#Character, Kubrick#Politics etc. I completely agree with you. I don't think these chapters add any value to the article anyway and I'd just get rd of these.--Termer (talk) 05:25, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm talking about pretty much all of the "Film career and later life" section. Gary King (talk) 05:28, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, everything in there is in pretty good shape, like said the tags all the way down to Kubrick#Spartacus have been provided with citations. The rest of the text from Kubrick#Lolita on might need also some but current tags are a clear overkill since there is nothing much questionable over there and more like providing citations for the earth being a ball instead of flat. But never mind, I'll just go on and add citation to every tag.--Termer (talk) 05:39, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

How is something like "In 1962, Kubrick moved to England to film Lolita, and resided there for the rest of his life." considered common knowledge? Gary King (talk) 05:46, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

That's a good catch! however, it wasn't and it's not tagged like most of the 'common knowledge' has been which proves once more how valid the tagging actually has been. It's not helping, instead of catching mistakes like that, all kinds of other things have been tagged and from Lolita on it's sometimes every second sentence that makes the work tedious so that real mistakes get missed.--Termer (talk) 06:06, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

← Here's my thoughts. The article is poorly referenced – but then again, so are many others. There's no point in placing citation needed tags as they rarely actually get others to pitch in to help out, and as an added bonus, they make the article look worse by placing tags that break the flow of the text when reading it. Gary King (talk) 06:09, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Gary King, that has been exactly my point!--Termer (talk) 06:17, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

As the person who started this discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Films#Stanley_Kubrick_needs_your_help I'd like to toss in my 2 cents here:

(1) People sometimes use "the article is poorly referenced – but then again, so are many others" and the like as arguments. I'm one of those that feels that "other stuff exists" should not be a reason to do or not do something. If many articles need improving, that's certainly no reason not to improve this article. (Wikipedia:Other_stuff_exists#General_avoidance_principle).

(2) In general, the many various "Improve this" tags should be freely used and should not be removed until the underlying problems have been addressed. People don't always have the time, expertise, or resources to address these matters themselves, but that doesn't mean that they shouldn't point out the problems for those who do.

Thanks to all discussing this and improving the article! -- 201.17.36.246 (talk) 17:50, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't trying to throw the validity of the statements themselves into question, I actually added the tags in the hopes that it would inspire members of the project to provide sources to back up the information, not remove it. The statements may be (and most of them probably are) 100% true, but at the present there's nothing to back them up. My ultimate goal is to improve the quality of the article and the best way to do that is to include more references. S. Luke (talk) 04:37, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Thats fine S. Luke, please consider in the future also putting in some actual work to improve the quality of the article by providing the citations instead of just tagging it. There are 35 citation tags left out of total 57 added by you. If you can't make it by adding at least an half of the remaining 35, a quarter would be fine. I intend to help out latest by tomorrow as well. thanks!--Termer (talk) 04:42, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Although I am interested in Kubrick, I'm not intimately familar with his work. If you can give me some pointers as to where references might be found (i.e. biographies, books on film history) I will gladly help. S. Luke (talk) 07:22, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Please look at the section I posted below at Talk:Stanley_Kubrick#Useful_books_to_use_as_references. Gary King (talk) 14:29, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. S. Luke (talk) 06:24, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Citations needed

Since it was suggested, I thought I'd provide the reasoning behind some of my tags. I believe the following statements do not constitute general knowledge, while many of these may be well known facts among film fans the average reader of wikipedia does not come from such a background, and they I belive they require referencing per WP:BURDEN. I am not trying to start an edit war, but the best way to improve the article is to reference the passages, not ignore their lack thereof.

• Nabokov wrote a three-hundred page screenplay for Kubrick, which the director abandoned; a second draft by Nabokov, roughly half the length of its first, was revamped by Kubrick into the final screenplay.Nabokov estimated that 20% of his material made it into the film.

Nabokov may have said this, but there's no reference proving he did.

A bit of help Nabokov published his own screenplay in a book some years after SK's film. It's called "Lolita: A Screenplay". This is probably a good place to find this info. --WickerGuy (talk) 23:58, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

• . . . some viewers have even wondered whether Humbert and Lolita actually embarked on a sexual affair, as most of their relationship, sexually, is implied and suggested.

With no citations provided there's nothing to prove this isn't OR.

• However, Kubrick always spoke highly of James Mason, who portrayed Humbert Humbert in the film, identifying him as one of the actors with whom he most enjoyed working.

Again while the attribution may be true we need a reference to prove it.

• Lolita's release in 1962 was surrounded by immense hype.

Although this might seem obvious to fans of film history, there's nothing to indicate to the average reader that this isn't just one editor's opinion.

• Originally intended as a thriller, Kubrick found the conditions leading to nuclear war so absurd that the story became dark and funny rather than thrilling.

This needs a reference to prove it's not OR.

• The film's special effects, overseen by Kubrick and engineered by special effects pioneer Douglas Trumbull (Silent Running, Blade Runner), proved ground-breaking and inspired many of the special effects-driven films which were to follow the success of 2001.

I'm almost positive this is true, but without a reference there's no way to prove the author and I aren't mistaken.

• . . . as a result Richard Strauss's Also Sprach Zarathustra and Johann Strauss's The Blue Danube waltz have become indelibly associated with the film.

Again, there's no reference to prove this isn't just somebody's opinion.

My two cents. I think this is far more true of ASZ than it is of BD since the latter was already extremely well-known to the public and the former was a relatively more obscure piece. The recurring use of ASZ in future films accompanied by visual or verbal references to 2001 is evidence for this. --WickerGuy (talk) 23:58, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

• However, the film was not an immediate hit. Were it not for a six-week exhibition contract, the film might not have had enough time in cinemas to have benefited from building word-of-mouth popularity.

This is a bold statement even if it is true and needs a source to back it up.

• The film's ticket sales were low during the first two weeks of its release, and it was nearly withdrawn from theaters.

Again, although it may be fact there's currently nothing to prove that its not OR.

• Actor Jack Nicholson claims that Kubrick told him that 241 people walked out of the exhibitor's screening, including the studio head.

He might have said it but the quote needs a reference to prove that he really did.

• Arthur C. Clarke has said that an MGM executive commented on the screening by saying: "Well, that's the end of Stanley Kubrick."

Same reasoning as previous.

There are many more instances, however I don't want to talk up half the talk page listing them. If anybody feels that this discussion should be moved to its own page, then I have no qualms, so long as you provide a link. I realize that many other biographical pages or poorly referenced, but just because article x is doesn't mean Kubrick's should be too. S. Luke (talk) 07:06, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

That's all fair enough S. Luke. Please keep bringing up any possible issues with the article on the talk page, the space is not limited. we can make it a mile long or start up a new page after this one gets archived etc. For now however, please consider removing at least every second citation tag from Lolita on since I personally feel it difficult to work with. and it seems I'm not the only one as nobody has addressed the tags since you added those.. In case you think a section would need more than 2-3 citations, please use general ref tag 'Unreferenced-sect' and bring all possible issues up on the talk page. Instead of tagging every second sentence that makes the text unreadable and difficult to work with. Thanks! --Termer (talk) 14:59, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Howdy. Original poster again. I strongly agree with User:S Luke's attitude here, and say again that IMHO it's extremely appropriate to place tags in the article itself. They're supposed to be "unsightly" so that people will notice them and fix the problem.

I can live with reducing a number of inline tags to one "This article / section needs attention of sort X", but personally I strongly prefer the inline tags as more specific (as User:S Luke has just illustrated above.)

Thanks again to all. -- 201.17.36.246 (talk) 17:57, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

My understanding has always been that any unreferenced statements that are could have their authenticity questioned should be either tagged or removed. There are several statements on WP:Verifiability and WP:OR to back this up. I thought it best to tag the information rather than remove it, since as you've suggested, a good deal of it may be true. WP:Verifiability mentions that it is curteous to either tag a statement or adress it at the talk page before removing it. It doesn't say to discuss it before tagging it, and indeed that is not the standard practice unless an article has protected status.

There's no rule or guideline saying we should limit the number of citation tags in any one paragraph or section. I haven't tagged every sentence, only sentences that make unverified claims. Sometimes this happens to be two or three sentences in a row. Some articles contain sections that do have references virtually every sentence. I believe the purpose for the templates are to warn the reader from the get-go that the information in the article or section is unsourced, they are meant to be used in conjunction with citation needed tags not replace them. As user (IP adress) has said, if we simply used the template then readers and editors alike would have no way of knowing which statements the templates were refering too. Yes It'll take time and effort to reference them, but they need it and I plan on doing my part to help.

S. Luke (talk) 23:52, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Please take a look at WP:OVERTAGGING, where it says:

It is best to be conservative with the use of tags. ... Placing too many tags can be seen as disruptive, or as a violation of Do not disrupt Wikipedia to make a point.

Ed Fitzgerald ^{t / c} 02:35, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Please take a look at WP:OVERTAGGING, for example, the bit in the box where it says "This is an essay, a page containing the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. You may heed it or not, at your discretion." Many Wikipedians don't agree with this essay, or at least believe that tagging is more often helpful to the project than not.

Almost anything on Wikipedia can be disruptive, and almost anything can be seen as disruptive by somebody. WP:GOODFAITH says that we should try real hard to assume that other editors are not being disruptive. -- 201.17.36.246 (talk) 05:36, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually from what I can tell WP:OVERTAGGING seems to be about tagging articles with template messages, rather than citations needed. S. Luke (talk) 06:24, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Useful books to use as references

Per the discussion above at Talk:Stanley_Kubrick#Stanley_Kubrick_needs_your_help, I have found some books that are useful as references for this article. If you can find them in your local library or book store then please use them as references to cite this article:

• Ciment, Michel (2003-09-18). Kubrick: The Definitive Edition. Faber & Faber. ISBN 0571211089. {{cite book}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
• Kubrick, Stanley (January 2001). Stanley Kubrick: Interviews. University Press of Mississippi. ISBN 1578062977.
• Walker, Alexander (September 2000). Stanley Kubrick, Director: A Visual Analysis. W. W. Norton & Company. ISBN 0393321193.
• Duncan, Paul (2003-11-01). Stanley Kubrick. Taschen. ISBN 3822815926. {{cite book}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

Polishing

I noticed that a lot of this page is very messy in purely aesthetic terms. I've gone through some of it and tried to polish up the language and make it more readable. I don't want to step on anyone's toes, but in order to make something clearer one has to cut sometimes.--Benjamin canaan (talk) 21:26, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Gary King (talk) 16:06, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

71.6.81.62 (talk) 02:44, 14 January 2009 (UTC)Mathew Davison

If you cleaned up the reference to Daniel Manns' Firing from the Directorship of Spartacus, I think you improved it. Earlier text seemed viewpoint oriented - as it mentioned that the reason for his being removed was due to being unable to handle an "Epic" production. A baseless claim in the face of Mr. Manns production of "El Cid" & other BIG Films- I changed the reason for his dismissal as being due to political power plays occurring on the set (Based on my library references of events) - But the new terse "Fired by the studio" (Universal) is more to the point & doesn't interrupt the content. Thanks! (.--[[User:71.6.81.62 (talk) 02:44, 14 January 2009 (UTC)Mathew Davison|Mathew Davison]] (talk) 13 january 2009 (UTC)

Plots

I have just shortened the plot synopsis of the Shining while slightly expanding that of Clockwork Orange and Eyes Wide Shut. I have significantly expanded the plot description of Dr. Strangelove and added one for 2001 which didn't even have a synopsis. The plot of CO omitted the political angle all together, and major themes of EWS (couple's relationship) and Strangelove (Strangelove's role in story) were absent. Short Plot synopses (in article on director) should hit on major themes, but need not contain precise plot details (which I thought the Shining synopsis had more of than necessary.)

--WickerGuy (talk) 01:44, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Added a section and removed a section

Benjamin Canaan made four very good trimmings of this article. However, the stuff on Kubrick's marriage to Christiane belonged somewhere, so given that Canaan removed it from the section on Paths of Glory (probably a good idea), I have put it in a section of its own between the Paths and Spartacus discussion.
The section on "Criticism" of Kubrick which has been there since Sept. 1st cites only one person's opinion. Kubrick had several frequent detractors, notably Pauline Kael, and less often Roger Ebert. But such a section needs to have at least two or three sources, not just a citation of one person's essay. Ergo, I have removed it.

--WickerGuy (talk) 04:02, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I changed the title to make it shorter and to the point.--Benjamin canaan (talk) 04:15, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Concision

This is a general observation: We need to always keep in mind that a great deal of this page consists of short, concise summaries of much longer pages which can reached by clicking on the relevant links. Particularly in regard to the individual films, we should try to keep the sections on this page as clear and as minimal as possible. A lot of the information here would be better on the individual pages dedicated specifically to the subject at hand. For instance, the entire section on Alex North's score for 2001 (which I have not cut) really belongs on the 2001 page, and not here.--Benjamin canaan (talk) 04:13, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Suggested Rule of Thumb on short plot synopses in Kubrick article

It seems to me that relatively late plot developments which heavily connect to thematic elements of the film belong in even the brief plot synopses of the Kubrick article. This is certainly not the case with Barry Lyndon, but it is the case with most other post-Lolita films. Even the omission of Quilty from the Lolita synopsis is problematic, given how heavily his role is expanded in the film, though I've done nothing about it. I made no changes to the impeccable Full Metal Jacket synopsis, but did make additions to all others (including creating a synopsis for 2001) when I felt that they related to moral, political, and philosophical (or spiritual??) themes of the films. Although I aplaud most of canaan's trimmings, he occasionally cuts what could be shortened, and I've once again fleshed out the Strangelove synopsis.

--WickerGuy (talk) 17:02, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Please check for continuity issues introduced by your changes, all of you

Please be aware of the fact that apparently small editorial changes can have ripple effects that damage other portions of the article. Check for forward and backwards references. Not to pick specifically on user XXVI, but the old version's
"Richard Strauss's Also Sprach Zarathustra and Johann Strauss's The Blue Danube waltz have become indelibly associated with the film."
is a grammatically complete sentence, but the new version's
"Richard Strauss]]'s Also Sprach Zarathustra and Johann Strauss's The Blue Danube waltz."
is a subject without a verb. Other alterations I have seen (to the 2001 article not the 2001 section of the Kubrick article) have created similar though more subtle problems.

--WickerGuy (talk) 00:00, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Even as I wrote this User:JohnInDC has reverted most of the deletions of User:XXVI more of them than I would have.

--WickerGuy (talk) 00:03, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Guess someone else is in fact picking on User:XXVI. He's suspended due to accusations of sockpuppetry.

--WickerGuy (talk) 04:37, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Clockwork Orange plot- Care when correcting

The plot synopsis of Clockwork Orange has morphed a lot in just the past 3 weeks frequently introducing actual mistakes. One that slipped for about 3 days was that someone got specific on Sept 26 as to exactly just what Alex was imprisoned for, except it's not for the rape of the writer's wife- its for the murder of the cat-lady the following evening. On Sept. 29th, someone caught this and corrected it to the murder of an "elderly" woman. However, she's elderly in Burgess' novel, but just somewhat older in the film.
A while back (mid-September), Benjamin Canaan zapped all references to the writer's politics. I thought he was just trimming what he thought was unnecessary info, but then looked at his rationale, and in explaining his change he said the writer's politics are mentioned in the novel but not the film. This isn't strictly true. They're elaborated at some length in the novel. However, at the end of the film when the Minister of Interior promises Alex a government job, he refers to the writer as a "writer of subversive literature" who has been put away for both his good and Alex's. An oblique reference, but it's there all the same. Furthermore, some of the writer's film dialogue with Alex and the writer's conspirators discloses his involvement in political activism. I am going to say this is sufficient to once again call him a 'political' writer in the synopsis.

--WickerGuy (talk) 00:34, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Southern's role in adding comedy to Strangelove incorrect

There is a line in the Strangelove blurb (end of 1st paragraph) that is incorrect. It is a popular misconception that Southern wrote the comedic bits to Red Alert that resulted in Dr. Strangelove screenplay. Kubrick, in his own words, had already adapted the work with the "black humor" into a finished screenplay. He then invited Terry in to do polish. The polished version is the one Kubrick shot. So says the Director in this 1966 interview, here: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7362318851275701535&ei=QDjvSMrxAo-o2wKd47z0Dg Given how territorial some users of WP are (which will lead to WP's eventual demise, IMO), someone please update this info. --84.103.37.63 (talk) 12:01, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Corrected per request. I'm sure those editors who have encountered the 2001 monolith will win the edit-wars; however, I hope there is no danger of Wikipedia achieving self-consciousness and rebelling against its human masters. :) --WickerGuy (talk) 14:48, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

More seriously, any change accompanied by an addition to the talk page explaining it is a bit more likely to go unmolested.--WickerGuy (talk) 15:21, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Criticism and subsequent removal

I have added a criticism section which has been removed without good reason. This article has been treated more as a celebration of Kubrick's life, which is in violation of Wikipedia policy. This section fixes the problem. I encourage people to add other opinoins as well if you are dissatisfied. Arturobandini (talk) 17:02, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Here is a transcript of what I wrote on Mr. Bandini's talk page

Dear Arturo,

Any section in the kubrick article on Kubrick criticism needs to be a broad and general survey of diverse views on Kubrick covering a broad range. Otherwise it violates Wikipedia's WP:NPOV policy which requires a Neutral Point of View. The same applies to any other major director, Welles, Hitchcock, Fellini, etc. etc.

Regards,

--WickerGuy (talk) 16:26, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Some negative assertions about Kubrick already exist in the sections of the article entitled "Later versions of source material for Kubrick films", and the section "Character". This last is an especially good example of a balanced article that maintains the Wikipedia policy of NPOV. Some folks speak well of Kubrick, others speak quite poorly of him. Other sections of the article note that SK has received occasional negative reviews. For example, the section on Barry Lyndon reads

Some critics, especially Pauline Kael, one of Kubrick's greatest detractors, found Barry Lyndon a cold, slow-moving, and lifeless film. Its measured pace and length--more than three hours--put off many American critics and audiences,

then mentions more positive reviews from others. Your section is skewed, and your assertion that the rest of the article is just a celebration of Kubrick isn't really entirely true.

--WickerGuy (talk) 16:39, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

The case against your additions was already made in clearly laid out Wikipedia guidelines WP:NPOV. They were not directly addressed to you, but since your contributions so heavily seem to violate those guidelines, the burden of proof is on you to establish why you haven't violated them. So no, I did not have to establish my reasons for deleting your work on the talk page. You have to defend yourself there. The following is clearly laid out in the Wikipedia guidelines in the section Wikipedia:UNDUEWEIGHT

NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification: Articles that compare views should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and will generally not include tiny-minority views at all.

Your work is both a clear violation of this, and as I have argued above, while the article is fairly pro-Kubrick, negative views of Kubrick do appear elsewhere in the article.

--WickerGuy (talk) 17:11, 23 October 2008 (UTC) --WickerGuy (talk) 17:13, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Mix of life and career

I notice this article seems to have the man's life broken up between the sections on his films. This seems odd and at odds with other director entries. Would it not be better to have his life and death and personal relationships all together and not mixed in with other stuff? It strikes me as confusing. Just asking before I were to do anything.Orangenj (talk) 15:25, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Good idea. After looking at some other director articles might want to think about this. We did a while back split out the marriage to Christian Harlan out of the Paths of Glory section. Thinking cap on. --WickerGuy (talk) 05:30, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it makes a bit of sense to do Kubrick this way just because he made so few films and he took so long to make films, so there's a sense in which his bio seems interwoven with his films moreso than with other directors. Still thinking --WickerGuy (talk) 05:44, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Further subclassifying unrealised projects

A while back (after One-Eyed Jacks was put in) the unrealised projects section was split into projects completed by other directors and projects never completed. As a few more unrealised projects have been thrown in, it seems wise to subclassify these into early stuff all of which never got past the screenplay stage and later stuff most (though not all) of which went into preproduction and then was halted. This leaves two projects that don't fit either category which I put into categories of their own ("Story Outline only" and "Author Rebuff"). This might be too many categories, but at least some partial chronology is now imposed on the unrealised projects list which was ballooning in a chaotic fashion. --WickerGuy (talk) 05:37, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Image Deletion Controversy

Here's what I posted at the request for comment on posting images for deletion

• Replace - All the images in the Stanley Kubrick article were flagged for deletion in one fell swoop two years after they were originally uploaded. All images in that article were given the same rationale. While scrolling through an article this long, searching for discussion of a specific film, the images from specific films are useful for quick searching.

However, It might be better if we could use poster/cover art instead of this image, since the fair use policy of WP prefers that screenshots be used in the context of critical commentary. Indeed, we could be in trouble with "In articles and sections of articles that consist of several small sections of information for a series of elements common to a topic, such as a list of characters in a fictional work, non-free images should be used judiciously to present the key visual aspects of the topic. It is inadvisable to provide a non-free image for each entry in such an article or section." and "Barring the above, images that are used only to visually identify elements in the article should be used as sparingly as possible"

--WickerGuy (talk) 05:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

One of two deleted sections back

As I noted in my edit-summary, once again I find myself tracing citations for someone else's edit after it gets challenged by a third person. Yesterday, both the "Legacy" and "Character" section were deleted in toto from an IP address. Both had been justly tagged in August for having no citations whatsoever. The "Legacy" section was relatively easy to find citations for. The "Character" section will take a LOT more work before it can be reasonably restored. I slightly re-edited the "Legacy" section and removed one phrase that seemed too POV. As I have noted in the hidden comment, there are two books called "Stanley Kubrick: A biography" so the switch between authors is not a mistake.

Happy holidays, all.

--WickerGuy (talk) 19:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Just "Aryan Papers" please.

Three times someone has changed both references in the article to Kubrick's unfinished "Aryan Papers" to "The Aryan Papers". Although a few websites here and there refer to the film as such, ALL published books call this project just "Aryan Papers". Quit adding in the "the", please. (This is a good example of why Wikipedia doesn't like self-published works as sources.) --WickerGuy (talk) 01:10, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Character section is back, but still needs more work

I have restored the Character section of this article, and have just enough references to justify removing one of two tags (the one that said it had no references at all) but have retained the tag saying it needed cleanup. It still needs a lot more citations than the ones I have filled in to meet WP's highest standards of quality. Hard to trace the references to what multiple actors have said about Kubrick. This is enough to justify it's restoral, but could use a lot more clean-up --WickerGuy (talk) 01:15, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Translation and dubbing

I heard that Kubrick didn't like the idea of dubbing of any of his films. As far as I know many of his movies were never dubbed for foreign markets and were always screened with subtitles instead of regular full dubbing or voice-over translation. Does anybody has exact information about what movies should've been never dubbed according to Kubrick and what exceptions were made. (i.g. The Shining was dubbed with help of Kubrick himself). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.204.203.24 (talk) 12:35, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

2001 most certainly was dubbed, as reflected in the fact that HAL's disconnection song differed in various countries. In English countries, he sang "Daisy", but in France he sang "Au le Clair de Lune". Most Region 1 DVDs have a French audio track if it's available, given that Quebec is in Region 1. (2001 DVDs certainly have it.) You might consider looking up the DVD features of various Kubrick films on either the Internet Movie Database or Amazon.com. First make sure their listing for 2001 DOES list the French audio track, then see if it's listed on the others. --WickerGuy (talk) 14:33, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I personally attended a screening in Vienna, Austria where Clockwork Orange was dubbed into German -- and I must say, it was an excellent dubbing job, really conveying the Alex character and narration well. It's an interesting spin on the film to hear another actor's voice interpretation. WikiTracker (talk) 21:00, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Brit vs. American spelling

WP:MOS (Manual of Style) holds one should use the spelling most closely associated with a subject, British spelling for articles on Lord of the Rings, or James Bond, American spelling for articles on Mark Twain, etc. It is unclear which of these is correct for Kubrick as he was an American expatriate living in England. However, of the 8 films he made while living in England, only two are actually set in England, with five in America, and one in outer space- this last having American astronauts who are admittedly interviewed by the BBC. An anonymous IP editor recently changed all the spelling in the article to Brit spelling ('color' to 'colour' etc.). I just reverted it, but if anyone can think of a compelling reason to use Brit spelling here, please feel free to post it (or a reason for keeping American spelling.) --WickerGuy (talk) 14:45, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

American spelling sounds good to me, he was American born and as far as I know he never relinquished his citizenship. His movies were all made with American studio money, I wouldn't call him a director of British films.

Great CopyEditing- But don't do it on cited material

Ronaldomundo has done some wonderful and meticulous copy-editing on this very long article, for which he should get some sort of modest award. But with one caveat: Material cited from other sources, even when it has problematic punctuation, should not be changed. It is true that "godlike" is preferable to "God-like" and "earthbound" preferable to "Earth-bound" but in the interviews with Kubrick that are in blockquotes found here, these words are in fact printed with hyphens willy-nilly for better or for worse. As such, I think they should be left that way. All of Ronaldomundo's thirty-plus other edits of course stand. --WickerGuy (talk) 13:45, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

"Liked height" quote

I removed the section talking about the fact that Kubrick "liked height." Kubrick never said this in interview, and the quote actually comes from his assistant Leon Vitali. If you read the article (which originated on DVDtalk.com), it's clear Mr. Vitali isn't technically-minded and makes a number of faux pas regarding ratios, etc., and his comments don't jive with those actually written by Kubrick (such as the sourced storyboard). The Photoplayer 22:25, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Image Change...?

I'm thinking that maybe we should change the image in the main info box at the top of the page. I think it should be an image of an older Stanley Kubrick, later when he was in the prime of his career. I think people will connect more with that Kubrick. another thing to consider would be to use the latest image of him. I particularly don't like that, but it might be Wikipedia policy or something. Thanks. --Robo56 (talk) 01:31, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Would the anonymous IP editor explain the problem with awards?

Both the article on Mulholland Drive (film) and the article on Angelina Jolie have been featured articles and both mention Academy award wins or nominations in the first two sentences. Would the anonymous editor(s) who have three times now objected to mentioning Kubrick's awards in the opening sentence on the ground this jeopardizes the articles FA capabilities explain why they think this is a problem?--WickerGuy (talk) 16:53, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I've altered it for a different reason. Kubrick won only one personal Oscar, for special effects in 2001 although he received many nominations for directing and writing. His films have won several Oscars in other departments. Still the anonymous IP editor today a 4th time said you don't mention Oscars in the opening sentence of an FA article, but the two FAs cited above do so (in the second sentence).--WickerGuy (talk) 07:36, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Problems with Technical Errors?

Hello... there are a few inaccuracies that have crept in, one of the most annoying of which is the mention of Kubrick using "traveling Matte" effects in "2001". Needs to be changed to "Front Projection,' and 'Machine driven camera moves'. (They didn't have computers to move the cameras on model work, But they got by fine using very elaborate Worm gear driven rail & Dolly systems.) Although there were various types of "Matte" effects used in the film, the effects unit, with Kubricks urging, deliberately AVOIDED using any "traveling Matte" shots, which is an alternative phrase for the Classic Blue Screen- or "Sodium Screen" composite techniques. The one innovative method that was utilized was a large scale application of "Front Projection'" (Unheard of up until then for such large scenes) and extensive use of Optical printer work, "Latent Image Mattes" -and even a room full of ladies employed to dab ink on star background plates under animation stands! Most of those guys hated how Blue Screen had devolved by then & thought it looked mediocre. They shot in front of Black velvet; they used full sized mirror trick shots; they hung from wires; -but I don't think there is a single frame of Stewart screen work in the entire film. Part of "Star Wars" innovation was how they 'Rescued' the color difference traveling matte from the 'ugly-shot' bin by integrating animation repair of the hold- out mattes. --- The other stand- out error i notice is that Bill Gold is credited for the Clockwork orange poster art. He is I believe the actual layout designer, and well deserves that notice. But the Airbrush art was executed by Philip Castle who has a wikip. entry & should be linked to it. (He also did the Steel Helmet art for "Full Metal Jacket")So perhaps it needs to read, "Poster by Bill Gold, Airbrush Illustration by Philip Castle" 71.6.81.62 (talk) 03:55, 8 October 2009 (UTC)Mathew B. Davison71.6.81.62 (talk) 03:55, 8 October 2009 (UTC)