Talk:Steven Spielberg

Misleading

The very first sentence "In a career spanning five decades..." is misleading, it almost makes it sound like he's been directing movies in Hollywood since the early 1960's, since he really began directing in the LATE 1960's, wouldn't it be more accurate to say that his career has spanned a little more than four decades since he would have been under 18 until 1964? Zeelog — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.164.37.128 (talk) 14:51, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

WP:BLP concerns - Sourcing, assertions, original research

This article is a WP:BLP, meaning it is an article about a living person (or a "biography of a living person"). BLPs are held to an even higher standard of sourced information than the rest of Wikipedia, because (I know it's obvious), the subject is still living...there are possible real-life issues beyond the page that can then get entangled with what is written there. That being said, even with all the references for this article, there are several important sections that seem to consist principally of unsourced assertions or original research with few or no inline citations, for instance:

• Production credits
• Themes
• Contemporaries

The Praise and criticism section, the Hobbies(!) section and even THE POLITICS SECTION(!!) all have more references than Production credits, Themes and Contemporaries, most of which have more to do with Mr. Spielberg's main claim to WP:Notability...his movies. I know that there must be many editors who are interested in this subject and in this article, I can't be the only one who thinks these important sections could do with quite a bit of improving. Shearonink (talk) 19:33, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

So why is no one allowed to edit this precious article?

Just wondering. Has someone decided that Steven Spielberg is such a sacred cow that no one should be allowed to add or change anything in the article about him?70.79.75.159 (talk) 22:12, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

There is no 'someone' around Wikipedia who can decide a subject is some kind of sacred cow. Right now, because of persistent vandalism, this particular article is just semi-protected. That means that any auto-confirmed user can edit the article.

From Vandalism on Wikipedia and WP:Autoconfirmed#Autoconfirmed users...

Semiprotected articles are those that can only be edited by those with an account that is considered to be auto-confirmed, i.e.that it is at least 4 days old and has made at least 10 edits.

Wikipedia:Why create an account? explains the many benefits of creating an account for yourself, some of those benefits being Privacy, receiving e-mail through the Wikipedia system, using more advanced editing tools and having a Watchlist. You really should consider registering for an account if you want to edit and work on articles. Shearonink (talk) 23:33, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Who has been "vandalizing" this article? How and why has this been happening? I've noticed that some so-called administrators on this site have a very loose definition of what constitutes "vandalism". In my experience, "vandalism" on Wikipedia usually just means when someone contributes something to an article that, for whatever arbitrary and capricious personal reason, the admin just doesn't like or doesn't agree with. And so, the said admin feels an overwhelming urge to revert the contribution wholesale and then try to stamp the contributor out of existence at all costs. This petulant and annoying knee-jerk reaction on the part of the admin is typically attended by a phony, ostentatious, grandstanding display of self-important, self-righteous arrogance (i.e., all that puffery about protecting the precious site against all those hordes of nasty vandals just waiting to pounce and rip articles apart like a pack of ravenous hyenas), as well as some hysterical and scurrilous statement disparaging the moral character and intelligence of the contributor. If you asked me, it is precisely these sorts of small-minded, sanctimonious, power-tripping admins who are the real vandals here.70.79.75.159 (talk) 07:40, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Pretty much. Seems like you have a pretty solid grasp of how Wikipedia works and why it's generally not accepted as a source by most college professors. In Wikiworld, words like "verifiability", "factual", "reliable" and others don't mean what they mean anywhere else. You can see something that you know is wrong on the level of 2 + 2 = 3 but if it's in an article written by some screw-up hack that happened to end up in a "reliable" source it's treated as the sacred gospel. I know someone who was responsible for managing the showbiz career of their now famous family member who I guarantee you've heard of and they couldn't believe how inaccurate the article about them was. Not gossip stuff but dates, times, titles etc. - just basic, mundane facts that were simply wrong....but came from "reliable" sources.

How much validity an article contains is largely a crap-shoot - depends on the agenda of whatever cabal has exerted their influence on an article. It can actually be entertaining to see some of this unfold, when an "uninvolved admin" is called upon to review something and they can't string together three correctly spelled words and exhibit no understanding whatsoever of the subject matter. One wonders which Domino's franchise they deliver for. You never know who it is that you're dealing with. An admin whose real life ID I became aware of is currently serving time for child molestation. This guy was the stereotypical admin who had a long history of pissing people off on here with his capriciousness and puffery. He sounded exactly like any number of admins on here.

It's not about truth or accuracy, it's about consensus by whatever faction whose members' primary qualification is they're willing to devote large chunks of their lives to Wikipedia so they can drape themselves with pretentious Wikititles, be given Wikiawards, be on Wikicommittees, and generally (and ironically) gain "identity" by being part of the Wikiborg. Welcome to Wikipedia! TheDarkOneLives (talk) 17:51, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Register an account then and you can edit the article after ten edits and four days as an auto-confirmed editor. Beyond that, before any further posting, please take a look at Wikipedia:No personal attacks:

Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor. Personal attacks do not help make a point; they only hurt the Wikipedia community and deter users from helping to create a good encyclopedia. Derogatory comments about another contributor may be removed by any editor.

Again, register an account so you can edit Wikipedia semi-protected articles as freely as any other auto-confirmed editor. After all, your IP (assuming all the edits are personally yours) has over 2500 edits, someone at your IP enjoys editing Wikipedia, whoever it is, you might as well receive the benefits of having a registered account. In regards to this article's subject, I think it is important for everyone to keep in mind that the article itself is the biography of a living person with all the care to detail and to sources and to tone that the concept entails. --Shearonink (talk) 12:51, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Wunderkinder Foundation

Spielberg's "The Wunderkinder Foundation", German for "child prodigies", suffered significant losses as a result of the Bernard Madoff financial collapse. (See: "Preliminary Estimates of Madoff Exposure", "Spielberg's Wunderkinder Foundation joins list of Madoff victims") — Preceding unsigned comment added by Petey Parrot (talk • contribs) 07:57, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Plagiarism Aspects of Spielberg's Career

I think a section on plagiarism should be added, since Spielberg seems to be a repeat offender in this regard ("Amistad" is probably his best known example of script rip-off). There's a site on the Internet called "Wild Realm Film Reviews: Spielberg Plagiarism" if Wiki editors want a quick overview. Court cases involving plagiarism are a matter of public record, so it should be easy to reference script theft cases. Stealing scripts is a big industry in itself in Hollywood, going back a hundred years, but I haven't been able to find a Wiki site on Hollywood script theft yet, I wonder if somebody is working on one. Yes, I realize Wiki sites on movie personalities tend to be fawning and sycophantic because of the Hollywood "fan" syndrome, but I think stealing somebody else's hard work and claiming it as your own is an important aspect of a person's life and personality that should be noted since stealing defines them more than anything else. What do Wiki editors think? 69.238.198.121 (talk) 18:33, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Register for an account, have it be over a certain number of days/edits and you too can edit this article. Be WP:BOLD. You would have to source all possible allegations very scrupulously though - alleging plagiarism in a WP:BLP article would be a very serious accusation.Shearonink (talk) 19:43, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Steven Spielberg/Blade Runner/Road to Perdition

Would Steven Spielberg count as an executive producer or uncredited executive producer for Blade Runner, since he was involved in the casting of Harrison Ford? Would he also count for Road to Perdition for setting it up at DreamWorks, along with giving Tom Hanks the comic book?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.240.76.129 (talk) 15:14, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Nationality...

In the sidebar his nationality is listed as 'Jewish'- save that for ethnicity or religion, his nationality's American. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.139.67.108 (talk) 11:05, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Lincoln

Shouldnt this film be getting its own article about now? We have press coverage, of course, already, but filming may have now begun. Even if not completed, it would be a notable unfinished film.(mercurywoodrose)76.232.10.199 (talk) 22:25, 5 September 2011 (UTC)