Talk:Robert De Niro

Coathooking and POV

Although, calling him Wakefield instead of Dr. Wakefield is valid, I suggest that Gongwool's edits are biased, as is his reason for striking the "Dr." as Wakefield still is a doctor by virtue of his education. However, more importantly removing the history that the withdrawal of Vaxxed from the Tribecca festival also resulted in an outcry of protest is manipulative and promoting a POV by rewriting history. Additionally, the "trial" is misrepresented. The General Medical Council charges were for falsifying data and ethics, and Wakefied's and co-authors medical licenses were revoked, however, there was a lot more to the story. The subsequent Mr. Justice Mitting 2012 trial for plaintiff co-author Prof. John Walker-Smith found that the GMC used flawed reasoning in their determinations and made factual mistakes. Mitting quashed the GMC findings. See: http://www.theguardian.com/society/2012/mar/07/mmr-row-doctor-appeal and http://www.eastwoodslaw.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/Walker-Smith.pdf. The bottom line is that the report was not fraudulent and the data was not falsified. Neither did Wakefield advise against measles vaccinations. As a result of his study, he suggested some children may be vulnerable to a unique gastrointestinal condition as the result of the combination MMR shot so single vaccinations for measles might be a wiser course, although more study was needed. Going into all that would be coat-hooking, which is the current and inaccurate state of this entry. I'm not interested in playing these games, but I ask that other editors consider the facts and attempt to represent truth and fairness in the section pejoratively titled "Anti-Vaccination Movement" in this BLP. Seabreezes1 (talk) 17:49, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

MY ORIGINAL EDITS:

De Niro acknowledged that he championed the inclusion of a controversial film about vaccinations, Vaxxed, directed by Andrew Wakefield at the 2016 Tribeca Film Festival. Wakefield was barred from practicing medicine as a result of his hypothesis that connected the MMR vaccine with a gastrointestinal disease associated with autism that was published in a 1998 paper. That study was later retracted by the journal's editors. De Niro explained his interest came from his son's autism, but was strongly criticized. De Niro withdrew his recommendation after discussion with the scientific community. He and the film festival team concluded, "we do not believe it contributes to or furthers the discussion I had hoped for." Following a wave of criticism, De Niro and Tribeca announced that they would pull the film from the program, an action met by another equally vociferous wave of criticism from the public and those in the scientific community who agree with Dr. Wakefield and his associates. They charged the censorship was due to power and politics rather than science. Seabreezes1 (talk) 17:49, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

I undid the coat hooking and made it as neutral and factual as I could for a BLP. Seabreezes1 (talk) 21:15, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

How dare you call me an astroturfer. You need to now provide the name of which Corp or ThinkTank etc you allege is paying me to edit here. Such an accusation is quite serious. I'm no astroturfer, but you Seebreezes1 are clearly a prof of fringe consp theory considering your use of Natural News as a cite. WP doesn't support your WP:FRINGE. Bye, Gongwool (talk) 05:10, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Adding a section under in a BLP who is in the film industry under the title "Anti-Vaccination Movement" that talks about the the "dishonesty" of a medical doctor and calls him a "conspiracy theorist", when all the film star did was to recommend and then withdraw his recommendation for a movie is definitely a POV. Here is my second, and last, attempt to inject some objectivity into the article, under the much more appropriate sub-heading TRIBECA FILM FESTIAL

In 2002, De Niro was one of the three founding members of the Tribeca Film Festival. According to the Tribecca website, “The Festival’s mission is to help filmmakers reach the broadest possible audience, enable the international film community and general public to experience the power of cinema and promote New York City as a major filmmaking center. Tribeca Film Festival is well known for being a diverse international film festival that supports emerging and established directors.”

De Niro championed the inclusion of a controversial documentary about vaccinations, Vaxxed, directed by Andrew Wakefield at the 2016 Tribeca Film Festival. De Niro explained his interest in the film resulted from his family experience with an autistic son. De Niro was criticized for his promotion of the film which was assumed to question or criticize vaccination policy. De Niro withdrew his recommendation after discussion with vaccination proponents in the scientific community. He and the film festival team concluded, "we do not believe it contributes to or furthers the discussion I had hoped for," an action met by another equally vociferous wave of criticism from others in the scientific community who charged the censorship was due to politics rather than science.Seabreezes1 (talk) 18:41, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

P.S. I used a number of citations, the Natural News citation was only used to document that charges of censorship. But point taken, here is the same charge listed in the Washington Post, which also quotes Di Nero saying he is not anti-vaccination, again an inappropriate subheading: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/03/27/filmmakers-accuse-robert-de-niro-of-censorship-after-he-yanks-anti-vaccine-movie-from-tribeca-festival/ Seabreezes1 (talk) 18:50, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

1. I am still awaiting the name of the Corp Seabreezes1 alleges I am being paid by to edit on WP.

2. I have made changes to my sentence to satisfy his concerns raised.

3. I do not support his changing the title of the section different to its original intended title by the original ed.

4. Seebreezes1 has the consensus of one on talkpage, ie himself, with regard his demands to changes.

5. On initial reading, as is often in Seabreezes1's proposed text, content is not reflected in sources. As such I do not support the changes.

6. Seabreezes1's NaturalNews is the worst possible example of an unrel source anyone could introduce to such an article, and thus reflective of Seabreezes1's Fringe POV. Bye Gongwool (talk) 22:31, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

I will change the heading to COATHOOKING and POV from Astroturfing in this section, as a more appropriate claim. As further support of that charge and documentation that the content of the "Anti-Vaccination" section on this BLP, I offer the 13 April 2016 live interview with Robert De Niro on today, where he repeatedly says he is NOT anti-vaccine, he is PRO SAFE VACCINE. He also goes on to say that the reason Tribeca pulled Vaxxed was that in the final days leading up to the Festival, a group of other film makers threatented to pull their films from the line up if Vaxxed was included, Since that would have been disastrous for the festival, Tribeca acquiesed. However, De Niro with co-founder Rosenthal at his side was quite definite about several things, that EVERYONE should go see Vaxxed, that it is an important movie about the CDC more so than about vaccinations, and that once he has more time, he intends to get to the bottom of the threats to boycott the festival. I suggest that Wiki should make an effort to be accurate, especially in BLP when a nine minute unedited interview of the person is available as source material. See: http://www.today.com/popculture/robert-deniro-debates-autism-s-link-vaccines-today-show-t86136 Seabreezes1 (talk) 13:12, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Ummm, Seabreezes1, you're continuing to bang that POV drum of yours (in capitals I see) well after the fact, that source has already been added by someone else prior to your above rant. I disagree with your proposal to add "PRO SAFE VACCINE Professor of Immunology Doctor De Niro says EVERYONE should go see Vaxxed" as article text. I think you're the one with Coathooking and Fringe POV issues, not me. Gongwool (talk) 02:34, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

References

Capitalization in the infobox

I'm curious, is it needed for "actor" to be capitalized in the infobox? Boomer Vial^Holla 00:12, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 March 2017

In the second paragraph, in the sentence:

"De Niro's first major film roles were in the sports drama, Bang the Drum Slowly (1973) and Scorsese's crime film Mean Streets (1973)."

The reference to Mean Streets as "Scorsese's crime film" is inaccurate and could only be made by someone whoe either 1) had not seen the film or 2) had seen the film but needed a one word descriptive and could not come up with any other term. There is minor crime in the film, but the picture should be described as a "slice of life" or "meditation on Little Italy circa 1970," or even "urban picaresque". 206.200.254.71 (talk) 20:00, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. —MRD2014 📞 contribs 00:16, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Could somebody add information as to how De Niro dealt with the draft and Vietnam? This is germane because of historical context and also because De Niro has played soldiers in movies. Finally, it is also relevant because he has made public statements about the meaning and import of citizenship, expressed his dislike of Trump and Trump voters, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.44.233.118 (talk) 21:50, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Robert De Niro. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://archive.is/20130110204639/http://inhealth.cnn.com/treating-advanced-prostate-cancer/8-famous-men-with-prostate-cancer/3 to http://inhealth.cnn.com/treating-advanced-prostate-cancer/8-famous-men-with-prostate-cancer/3

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:31, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Tony Awards

Not sure what's going on, but the sentences: "On June 10, 2018, De Niro sparked controversy in the 72nd Tony Awards, in which he said "Fuck Trump". He received standing ovation from the audience, which were mostly celebrities." are grammatically in correct and poorly written. He received a standing ovation from the audience. "Which were mostly celebrities" (who cares?) Also, "in" and "in" is just not good writing; especially when the more appropriate preposition would be "at": "At the Golden Globes / At the Oscar" not "In the Oscars". Also, why did someone remove the notable mention of the networks (bleeping) censoring the obscenity. Most headlines and coverage state this. Maineartists (talk) 14:21, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Agree obviously to the grammar fixes, as well as mentioning he was censored by the network. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 14:23, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Should add more comments on both sides. This guy said nasty words to Donald Trump.Paul Lincoln (talk) 15:04, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

On the network bleeping this, broadcast networks have little choice under FCC rules. So, it's not really notable. O3000 (talk) 17:16, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

@Objective3000: Didn't they also silence the "Trump" part too, not just the "Fuck" part? Silencing "Fuck", okay, but why the whole phrase? That seems odd? Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 17:23, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Well, we don't know unless it's in a reliable secondary source somewhere. So, we can't make conjectures. O3000 (talk) 17:26, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

I redid the bit. None of the cited sources implied that De Niro sparked controversy with the words. And you're right that no one cares that the audience was "mostly celebrities". But that is also not in the sources given and not exactly true. It is crucial that content on Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view, and not with politically motivated bias. Zingarese (talk) 17:30, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Zingarese. But "De Niro said, to a standing ovation" is incorrect. (Not sure who wrote this) He said: "I'm gonna say one thing. Fuck Trump." People then stood to applause. Then he went on to finish his statement: "It’s no longer "down with Trump". It’s "fuck Trump". Tony Awards Clip Maineartists (talk) 21:59, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Afraid I'm missing your point. That's what a standing ovation means. Besides, that's what RS say. O3000 (talk) 22:02, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes, you are. The way it reads now, the standing ovation had occurred before he started speaking. You are also incorrect in saying that's what RS say. This is a direct quote from one RS cited: "“I’m gonna say one thing. Fuck Trump,” De Niro said, without any preamble. With the audience of theater actors, directors and producers shrieking and rising to their feet in applause, De Niro said: “It’s no longer down with Trump. It’s fuck Trump.” It cannot be more clear. The audience was not standing and applauding for no reason before DeNiro spoke. Maineartists (talk) 22:19, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

OK, I see what you're saying. But, the current phrasing can also mean the same. "To a standing ovation" can mean the ovation was a result of his words. I don't think this is uncommon and generally prefer efficiency of wording, but am open to other phrasing. O3000 (talk) 22:24, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Actually, no. The remark "received" a standing ovation (afterward). "To" is misleading and confusing, and means to the common reader that one is making the remark while the audience is standing. Additionally: 2nd RS: Title states: "Robert De Niro Says 'F— Trump' at Tony Awards and Gets a Standing Ovation" and article corroborates: "The actor’s remarks earned a standing ovation from most of the audience, and were bleeped out for those watching from home". 3rd RS: "The expletives sparked a roaring reaction from the audience, with many of the celebrities standing up." All cite that the remark was made first, the standing ovation came afterward. He did not make the remark to a standing ovation. He received a standing ovation for the remark. The phrasing should reflect the RS. Maineartists (talk) 22:28, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

The current phrasing indicates that the remarks continued to a standing ovation, which RS appear to indicate. And, we rely on RS for facts, but we don't copy exact text. But again, I'm open to alternate wording. O3000 (talk) 22:51, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────┘You don't have to copy exact text to correctly write the facts. It should read to the effect: On June 10, 2018, while introducing a performance by Bruce Springsteen at the 72nd Tony Awards, De Niro said, “I'm gonna say one thing: Fuck Trump", while raising clenched fists in the air. The remark received various reactions from the audience, resulting in a standing ovation. He continued, "It’s no longer "down with Trump". It’s "fuck Trump".” DeNiro later went on to praise Springsteen, by saying: "“Bruce, you can rock the house like nobody else,” De Niro said. “And even more important in these perilous times, you rock the vote, always fighting for, in your own words, Truth, transparency, and integrity in government. Boy, do we need that now.” Maineartists (talk) 23:06, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

@Maineartists: @Objective3000: Thank you for bringing this to attention. I introduced the "to a standing ovation" remark, and I intended for that to mean that De Niro's remarks brought the audience to a standing ovation. It certainly does not mean that it happened before the remarks. Another example of the "to a standing ovation" phrase in a sentence: "What brought the public to a standing ovation was the calm purpose followed by the director and how completely it worked as a piece of theatre." However, I am open to rephrasing it if a clear consensus can be reached. Zingarese (talk) 23:24, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, Zingarese for being open and understanding. You are correct: an audience can be brought "to" a standing ovation. But the sentence does not say this; and the sentence you use as an example here is not even close to the one used in this article. If you were "implying it" in the article, it is very unclear. As it reads now, again, DeNiro is saying his remarks "to" an audience that is already standing: "De Niro said, to a standing ovation". The word "ovation" is a noun; and you are treating it as an action. You have left out the fact that his remarks were what generated the standing ovation by an audience. I understand what you are attempting to say, but it is so very confusing and misleading; when the above re-write is as factual and clear as can be. Consensus should not be an issue when the statement itself is not reflective of the RS facts. There is no "to a standing ovation" implication anywhere. I have plainly listed the exact play-by-play above from all 3 RS. Thanks. Maineartists (talk) 23:51, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

I still like Zingarese’s wording. I’m generally in favor of brevity and don’t see a need to overanalyze this in a step-by-step manner. The crowd obviously reacted positively to what he said, for better or worse. I don’t see any point in trying to determine whether they liked the word fuck or count the number of standees or anything else. It’s a one minute event in his life that hit a lot of RS. Worthy of a bit of mention. O3000 (talk) 00:26, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

The preposition “to” has many definitions. In this sentence it means that the standing O was a result of De Niro’s remarks. It does not mean that De Niro made his remarks to an already standing crowd. Zingarese (talk) 06:05, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I think “to” can also cause confusion. Why don’t we just use “which received a standing ovation”? Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 01:37, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

I would be totally okay with rewording it. I see how the wording as it is now suffers from slight unclarity. Also, Trump wrote some tweets targeting De Niro a few hours ago; maybe that’s worth a mention. Zingarese (talk) 05:54, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────┘ @Maineartists: I reworded the sentence. Please see my recent edit. Regards, Zingarese (talk) 17:00, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for pinging me. I had left the page. The wording is certainly clearer and better represents the situation. Why this is now represented within the sentence: "On June 10, 2018, while introducing a performance by Bruce Springsteen of his song "My Hometown", I have no idea. Because DeNiro is the focus of the sentence directly after, it sounds like he wrote the song "My Hometown"; and honestly, it's an unnecessary mention of the song. If the above argument about what DeNiro actually did while saying his denunciation is unwarranted and "lengthy"; this most certainly is and has nothing to do with the reason for the inclusion. I might make the reminder here: WP:OWNERSHIP. Exhausting the proof of the wording for "to" when in essence editors had every right to change the word structure to fit the actual events via RS, is counterproductive to talk discussions. As with this civil correspondence of request, it is not necessary to seek my approval; but in the same breath, each has the right to go in and change what they deem correct for a good article written here at WP without fear of rv on the simple bias of change. This is not directed toward you, but more towards those who had originally changed wording from what was there before: "He received a standing ovation from the audience". Which basically says the same thing now. I would actually like to go in and remove what is unnecessary (Springsteen's song mention); but it seems there is just too much "ownership" going on with this minor mention of an event in this BLP's life for me to any more invested. Thanks. Maineartists (talk) 11:26, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

My intention was not at all to claim any wp:ownership of this content. All that I did was have a slight disagreement about how you interpreted my rephrasing. Even NBC, one of the most major American news sources, wrote last month about BlacKkKlansman that played at the Cannes Film Festival: “Spike Lee’s latest movie, ‘BlacKkKlansman’ debuted at the Cannes Film Festival on Monday night to a standing ovation ...” This does not mean that the film was literally played to a standing, applauding crowd. That would be strange. It means that the film generated so much excitement to the viewers that they gave it a standing ovation as soon as it was over. Since I then later saw how it could be unclear to several others, I was happy to change it back. I never insisted that my rephrasing must be kept. Legitimate ownership of Wikipedia content would entail repeatedly reverting the content to their preferred version, claiming that they have the right to review any changes before they are introduced to the article, or being patronizing or narrow-minded to fellow editors who disagree with them. I clearly have not done any of those things. All editing on any article should be done with nothing less than enthusiastic collaboration; that is the spirit of Wikipedia. There’s nothing wrong with having polite disagreements, and we should always have constructive conversations when they arise to try to establish a solution/consensus. Zingarese (talk) 19:11, 14 June 2018 (UTC)