Talk:Kevin Spacey/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Initial messages

He's been recently named something to do with the Old Vic. Is it artistic director? -- Zoe

Thanks for the tip. After a quick search of recent news stories, I found enough to write a paragraph about his appointment as artistic director. -- Islandboy99

Sexuality

Why does Queeripedia always try and out anyone who isn't married solely because he or she is not married? Please find a better hobby than this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.114.140.52 (talk) 14:42, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

The article asserted he was a homosexual despite his public claims to the opposite. I changed the language to reflect that. If someone has "proof" that is openly gay, then go ahead and change it back. --Feitclub 20:18, Nov 7, 2004 (UTC)

The article still asserts that he is a homosexual. The change in language only acknowledged the fact that in public Mr. Spacey claims to be heterosexual while in truth being homosexual while around friends and coworkers. If that is true then the article needs to be changed to say that there is suspicion to his being gay, but not proof. It's all in where you put your allegedly. Wjw 06:45, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I think that unattribtuted, tangential speculations should be removed, regardless of their context. --Viriditas | Talk 01:58, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

If something like this cannot be proved, it is libellous. This is true regardless of whether we add "allegedly" or "some people say" or even "a few people have said, but I don't believe them myself, but". jguk 22:57, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Not in 2006. It is no longer libelous to state that someone is gay or lesbian. It may have some effects on their career, but it is not libelous in the year 2006. I don't know whether Spacey is gay, straight, or bisexual, or asexual, but if people continue to suggest that saying (it is no longer, "accusing") someone is gay is libelous, it will merely delay ever more the time when it is clear to all that it is no longer libelous. It is like revealing that Tom Cruise wears elevator heels in his shoes to conceal that he is only 5' 7" tall. He may not want his shortness to be revealed to his many female fans, he may feel such revelations to be embarassing, but it is not libelous. 66.108.4.183 09:18, 13 September 2006 (UTC) Allen Roth

It's true that alleging that someone is gay isn't libelous as such. But given that Spacey - following the article's publication - openly stated that he's not gay, what is subsequently being alleged is that he's deliberately lying about his sexuality - and that is arguably defamatory. Besides which, as others have stated, baseless speculation doesn't belong in WP. Tobelia 20:47, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to know what basis either of you have for saying that falsely claiming that someone is gay is no longer libelous. Any demonstrably malicious and harmful (and false) accusation is libelous or slanderous. If an accusation is true, that's another story. Wahkeenah 21:12, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

The issue here, I believe, that in our enlightened times, being gay isn't a crime nor something to be ashamed of; therefore, calling somewhere "gay" is not an insult. And thusly, isn't libelous or slanderous. CaptainJae 19:40, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

CaptainJae,Being called gay may not be a insult,but if the person is straight its not the fact that they are being called gay thats the problem,its the fact that someone is telling a lie about your sexuality. Kind of like saying that a black person is white. Its not a insult its just not the truth.--70.157.42.133 (talk) 19:13, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I am doing a survey of Wiki pages for actors, musicians, and other celebrities who are subject to rumors about their sexual orientation, and I am surprised to see that for Spacey, the matter has been removed completely. That there are rumors and speculation about his sexual orientation is completely NPOV. Such rumors are included for Tom Cruise, Clay Aiken, and others. Furthermore, a federal (US District Boston, MA) court ruled in 2004 that “In 2004, a statement implying that an individual is a homosexual is hardly capable of a defamatory meaning” and therefore, stating that someone may be gay is not grounds for libel. If there is going to be biopic statement that "rumors about sexuality exist for X" applied to any celebrity, it needs to be consistently applied throughout Wiki. WebTraveler 23:12, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Could you provide a source for any of these rumors? WP is an encyclopedia, not a gossip rag. Try The National Enquirer for that. Bbatsell 03:43, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

There is a post up on Margaret Cho's blog about Kevin Spacey being on an (implied, but not explicitly stated) date with Jason Gould. Is a blog post enough? http://www.margaretcho.com/blog/2008/05/05/white-out-vs-yellowface.html Leslilesli (talk) 00:19, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I do hope this is a joke!

What does Margaret say, actually? "I am a big Kevin Spacey fan. I liked him since he came to my 23rd birthday party with Jason Gould". If you look at her biography, since she was born in 1968, she was 23 in... 1991! And if just coming to a birthday party with a gay friend necessarily implies you are on a date with him, and subsequently gay, then I must be very, very gay too :-))).

"Is a blog post enough?" I suppose this is a rhetorical (and ironical) question. If this is the only valid "proof" of someone's sexual orientation that can be brought to light... well, the court will judge.

Anyway, is the English Wikipedia turning into a den of gossip-mongers? This would be really pathetic. Clabel 12 June 2008

Just to clarify, As discussed above due to his private nature discussion on his sexuality will always be highly subjective as their will never be any proof either way. However as it stands the article is quite happy to elude to the supposed heterosexual trysts he may have had but refuses to acknowledge any of the events which have led to the speculation about his possible homosexuality. Thus making the article somewhat biased and weighted towards one or the other. In my opinion we should either include both bits of information to retain balance or none at all and just mention that their has been speculation about his sexuality and leave it at that. However I really think its an either/or thing. To keep one set of information and not the other shows a lack of objectivity. -- 139.153.13.48 (talk) 13:06, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

That's all well and good, but the source you put in doesn't even come close to alleging anything. It says he reported a mugging. It says he withdrew the report. It says the park isn't known for muggings. Then it says, out of the blue and as a complete non-sequitir, "In the past the actor has denied rumours that he is gay." It leaves what you are implying as meaning completely up to the reader to derive. It doesn't come remotely close to being a tabloid story that supposedly supports speculation about his sexuality. It is too vague to be relied upon as a source. To use this as a source to assert a claim about sexuality is a violation of policies governing biographies of living persons. A source would have to be quite explicit in its assertion to pass BLP. This doesn't pass it. Wildhartlivie (talk) 13:15, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

You will see by the sentence that I stated that this mugging increased media speculation about his sexualty, which it did. I'm not saying he is gay nor am I saying he isnt however to deny that the mugging incident brought up the tabloids obsession of is he or isnt he, is shortsighted in the extreme. Would this link: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/article828674.ece, be a better link in which spacey himself said that he was asked what he was doing in the park at that time with people inferring that it was something to do with his possible sexuality. Or maybe this one http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2004/apr/21/2, which makes refernce to cartoons published in the Sun around the same time concernign the events, or maybe http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/this-britain/spaceys-walk-in-the-park-turns-into-the-mystery-of-the-mugging-that-never-was-560581.html which again cites the incedent in the same manner or maybe http://www.pinknews.co.uk/news/articles/2005-4462.html which although tabloidy in nature with a clear gay bias does indeed state that "Rumours surrounding his sexuality increased in 2004 when he allegedly refused to report being mugged in the early hours of the morning in a London park." These are all exmples of the tabloids interest in the matter being plucked due to these events and thus I think it's valid, all these other statements about women hes been with are mostly falling into the same vein as the links above, however they seem to be given more credence. Ultimately I'm not to bothered if he is or if he isnt, however I would prefer the article to be balanced. -- 82.41.44.188 (talk) 16:19, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

To give some context missing from the stories, the park in question is Clapham Common. At night, it is the second biggest 'cruising' space for gay and bisexual men to meet and have sex in London. It's not entirely safe, as it also attracts those who have violent homophobic views and/or see the cruisers as easy targets. It's where Matthew Parris was mugged, some time before he came out for example. If you are not interested in sex between men, whether to partake, watch or assault them, there are many more sensible places to walk a dog in the early hours of the morning, and he is reported to have gone past several of them en route to the Common. Kevin Spacey has denied being gay. Has anyone asked him if he is bisexual? Lovingboth (talk) 10:17, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

A source that would support what you are writing would make some connection between the two things - being in the park and the question of Spacey's sexuality, which the original reference really did not, it was much too vague a connection. The cartoon reference does not meet that criteria either. I wouldn't particularly recommend the pinknews article, which references Perez Hilton, who is not likely to ever be considered a reliable source. My concern is that whatever source is used would be clear enough to support what the item is supposed to support. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:43, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

However the addition I'm suggesting isnt that he is or isn't gay, simply that media attention was increased in regards to his sexuality as can be evidenced by the fact that so many make non sequiter statements in the same articles. However I do understand what you mean, That it needs to be more than just strongly inferred in a tongue in cheek manner. So I'll go search for a stronger source article. However as a UK resident, I can remeber around the time concerning the story that nearly every article read like "...was mugged.... The actor, who has denied being gay in the past, was walking..." Thus the inferrence was always made but never stated clearly. On the flip side however may I ask how are the two claims he dated Dianne Dreyer and Helen Hunt, anymore valid? There isnt even a link to support the Dianne Dreyer claim and the helen hunt article is very "he said, she said" gossip rag style. Surely they should be deleted then too until they can be more reliably sourced? -- 82.41.44.188 (talk) 10:32, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

The Helen Hunt source is from WENN, which is commonly used as a source, although it is most usually posted through the entertainment news section from IMDB, so it is as valid a source as it is on that site, which is generally accepted, despite the wording. I added a couple cites to the Dreyer sentence and left the other cite, which was apparently to show images of them out together. Wildhartlivie (talk) 11:19, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Wildhartlivie on the irrelevance and inconsistency of the article referenced by our anonymous friend. Moreover, I’d like to ask said anonymous what is his agenda here exactly. Since Spacey himself denies being gay and publicly acknowledged his long-term girlfriend Dianne Dreyer in his Oscar acceptance speech and several interviews, there’s nothing to add. This is the Wikipedia, for Christ’s sake, not the Sun or Perez Hilton! The references that are listed in the external links are first-hand and accurate. Okay, maybe Spacey’s supposed affair with Helen Hunt could be removed as a tabloid rumor, since none of them confirmed it publicly, as often happens. It wouldn’t make any difference, basically. On the other hand, there’s not the shadow of a reliable source about Spacey’s alleged homosexuality, it’s only an old tabloid construct that sells paper and keeps the internet gossip mill going. The same goes for almost every A-lister in Hollywood: as a matter of fact; that gay rumor is a cultural tropism in the Anglo-Saxon mentality. But just because a rumor is old and rehashed doesn’t make it a revealed truth. It’s duly mentioned in the article, that’s quite enough for objectivity.

Besides, opening a new “sexuality” section was useless. So please allow me to cut and paste this tired and tiresome debate where it logically belongs.

You seem to also be an "anonymous friend" but I guess you've forgotten to sign in, whoever you are. :-) I think it's a little unfair to suggest the anonymous contributor has an agenda. His/her last post refers to media coverage in the UK, and I've also seen it. But it's innuendo and doesn't belong here. The fact that Spacey is subject to innuendo, rather than the innuendo itself, may be a different story, but I'd rather stay on the safe side of WP:BLP and leave it out. As for the sources relating to Dianne Dryer - I think they're rather weak, but I've tried to find something stronger and I haven't been able to. IMDb shows several photos of the two of them together in public. It does not confirm that they "dated" in the sense given. EW "The Parties" says "When Best Actor Kevin Spacey twirled date Dianne Dreyer across the floor". Again it doesn't confirm that they were dating, only that she was his date on that evening. On another evening Spacey's mother was his Oscar date, and they weren't dating. EW "Lights, Cameras, Freebies" says "Without his stylist but with gal pal Dianne Dreyer, Kevin Spacey visits..." It's another off-hand comment, and in my experience "gal-pal" usually means the exact opposite of "dating". If Spacey's acknowledged Dreyer in several interviews, maybe we need to find one of those to link to, because I see a lot of vagueness in the sources given. I can't open the page about Helen Hunt. I agree that this issue has been over-discussed, but until there is some agreement reached and any BLP concerns are allayed, it should continue to be discussed. I believe that unless very strong and very specific sources can be given, for either the heterosexual or the homosexual claims, we would be better off leaving it as "Spacey keeps his private life private". That we can easily cite, I'm sure. Rossrs (talk) 14:58, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I really don't have an agenda, I'm a UK resident and I was trying to improve the article in a minor manner by including a very minor point, If anything it was more a jab at the tabloid press and the trivial events it will use to infer such a thing. Since then however what has arisen from that discussion is that very tenuous claims as to who he dated in a heterosexual manner are allowed where as homosexual ones are not, which just seems a tad biased. If you have the links to cite spacey himself saying those things, then that's great and I think they deserve to be cited but thus far the things that are cited are either extremely vague or not supported at all. However In agreement with Rossrs I believe without stronger proof either way we should drop the whole bit and leave it at Spacey keeps his private life private, as that is truly objective and none-committal either way. -- 77.99.221.44 (talk) 18:21, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Anon said:

“I really don't have an agenda”

Good.

“I'm a UK resident and I was trying to improve the article in a minor manner by including a very minor point”

Very minor, but highly controversial and questionable, apparently. :-)

“Since then however what has arisen from that discussion is that very tenuous claims as to who he dated in a heterosexual manner are allowed where as homosexual ones are not, which just seems a tad biased.”

Tenuous claims?! Did you carefully read the articles, watch the pictures and listen to April Winchell’s memories? What more do you want?

“If you have the links to cite Spacey himself saying those things, then that's great and I think they deserve to be cited but thus far the things that are cited are either extremely vague or not supported at all.”

Well, I'm just realising that this applies perfectly to the gay claims.

“However In agreement with Rossrs I believe without stronger proof either way we should drop the whole bit and leave it at Spacey keeps his private life private, as that is truly objective and none-committal either way.”

I agree. But unfortunately, as the “anon” above suggests, there’s indeed a cultural pattern to that sexual preoccupation (if not obsession) in the Anglo-Saxon area, and we have to consider that, whether we like it or not. It always strikes me that in other versions of the Wikipedia (Spanish, Italian, French, German, etc…) there is usually no mention of the artists’ “private life”, whereas you can’t avoid it in the English version. Way it goes (sigh).

Rossrs said:

“As for the sources relating to Dianne Dreyer - I think they're rather weak”

True (no offense, Wildartlivie).

“If Spacey's acknowledged Dreyer in several interviews, maybe we need to find one of those to link to, because I see a lot of vagueness in the sources given.”

Well, he acknowledges her categorically in the Gotham magazine interview, but if you need more I think your wish could be satisfied.

“I believe that unless very strong and very specific sources can be given, for either the heterosexual or the homosexual claims, we would be better off leaving it as "Spacey keeps his private life private".

If Winchell’s personal memories are not “very strong and very specific sources”, then nothing will. And there are plenty of photos and videos of Spacey and Dreyer together, hand in hand or holding and kissing each other, from 1992 to 2000, on the internet. So… I suggest we just move on now. Clabel (talk) 13:38, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

That's great, but we can't move on now. We need to fix the sourcing in the article and then move on, but moving on will be something to look forward to! :-) If we use the Gotham interview to cite Dreyer - he explicitly mentions her as "girlfriend", something I missed earlier - and we delete the Helen Hunt comment as not supported by a strong source, would this suffice? Rossrs (talk) 13:57, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I've boldly had a stab at it, and of course, if it's not right it should be reverted. So, I added Gotham as primary source for Dreyer plus kept the two "weaker" sources as ancillary. I wouldn't think it was necessary if this wasn't seen as such a contentious topic. Removed "discreetly" because it just adds unnecessary innuendo, and it's dubious - they were out in public. Nothing discreet about the Oscar party. Kept the IMDb link as it shows who Dreyer is. Removed the Helen Hunt bit. Is this OK? Rossrs (talk) 14:06, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, maybe we could just mention that none of them commented on it to the media? Clabel (talk) 14:15, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

But Spacey did comment - reluctantly. How would you reword it? Rossrs (talk) 14:29, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

He didn't comment on it directly and explicitly, right? That was through a spokesperson. Anyway, as far as I'm concerned, I don't really mind the "Helen Hunt bit" being removed. But I'd keep the "discreetly", because the Spacey/Dreyer long-term relationship was indeed discreet compared to the media display of private life that is orchestrated by some celebrities. Of course, that discretion didn't help that gay rumour... ;-) Clabel (talk) 14:46, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

True. The discretion has been a double-edged sword.

From Gotham: "G: Since you’re so private, why did you thank your girlfriend [Dianne Dreyer] when you got your Oscar for American Beauty?

KS: Because she was my girlfriend. I don’t think you can blame me for a moment when you’re so emotional, and you can’t believe what just happened to you. I was with her on that night, so I acknowledged her."

It falls considerably short of a shout-from-the-rooftops declaration of mad love and sexual obsession. He is not bouncing on a couch, but he does say "she was my girlfriend". Understated, but unambiguous. But then he says "I was with her on that night", which a hair-splitter could interpret as suggesting he wasn't with her on most nights. arrgghh! Couldn't he just spill his guts for once? If you think 'discreetly' should go back in, I won't disagree. Rossrs (talk) 15:03, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

"But then he says "I was with her on that night", which a hair-splitter could interpret as suggesting he wasn't with her on most nights. arrgghh!"

LOL! Well, you know, those people work in the industry and in the arts, they have heavy professional obligations, I guess. Do you think Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie spend all their nights together? Why are there so many divorces among actors? :-) Clabel (talk) 20:16, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I would just like to apologize to peeps for causing this wee debate. It really wasn't my aim to cause a hassle. So my apologies for that. My thanks also to those who helped work it out. Thanks guys! :) -- Zareb (talk) 22:01, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. No harm done :-) Clabel (talk) 14:04, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

The queers editing Queeripedia won't be satisfied until everyone is gay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.200.151.127 (talk) 10:46, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

NPOV

I think this should be removed as too general and certainly POV: is arguably one of the greatest American actors of his generation. If that claim can be associated with a specific person, like a critic, writer, or film professional, that would be great. Otherwise, it should be removed as POV. Also the awards should be moved to an awards section. And his birthplace information (South Orange, New Jersey) should be moved to an Early life section. It's best if we NPOV the introduction so it reads as follows:

Kevin Spacey Fowler (born July 26, 1959) is an American actor

What do you folks think? --Viriditas | Talk 01:49, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Be bold :) jguk 22:58, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Kevin Spacey went to Chatsworth High School with Val Kilmer and my aunt. :) -anon

And with Mare Winningham. Preaky 04:17, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Honda commercial

I just saw some Honda commercial with Kevin Spacey as the narrator. Is he doing alright? --MightyGiant 01:24, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Weasel words

No one seems to have added anything to discussion about it, so I am removing it until they do. I'm guessing the tag was added because the article says "his father was alleged to be a member of the American Nazi party". Well, maybe we need to add "alleged by Fox News to have been". Otherwise, the section is NPOV. Mad Jack 20:24, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Fox News is a corporate entity; as such it lacks cognition and is unable allege anything. Those making the allegations are all named or otherwise identified as are those who claim to be reporting it. Mansquito (talk) 19:25, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Austin Powers in Goldmember

His filmography has him listed as playing Dr. Evil in the second Austin Powers movie, who, of course, was played by Mike Myers. I thought perhaps he was a stand-in for the scenes where it was neccessary to film Dr. Evil and Austin Powers in the same frame. Could someone look into this, confirm it, and either strike it from the filmography or add clarification? --Frag 08:25, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Goldmember was the third film. Spacey played Dr. Evil in the first 3 minutes of that film. Mad Jack 08:29, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

And the end part?

Full name

Some sources say his full name is "Kevin Matthew Fowler", and some say "Kevin Spacey Fowler". Does anyone know for sure which is which? Mad Jack 23:12, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

And the name middle name was "Spacey". So we had it wrong and now we have it right.[1] Mad Jack 07:22, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Are we sure Spacey is correct? I'm still seeing "Kevin Matthew" out there Matt Yohe (talk) 03:22, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I still haven't seen any official source stating Spacey was his middle name at birth. And his brother, Randall Fowler, has stated that Spacey is actually the maiden name of his paternal grandmother, Norma (Spacey) Fowler, rather than the maiden name of his mother, Kathleen.Kitchawan (talk) 17:40, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Well done to whoever has corrected the information relating to Spacey's mother's maiden name (Knutson or Knudsen, not Spacey!), however the page still says he was "expelled" from Northridge military academy which is incorrect. Robin Tamblyn, Spacey biographer92.17.206.255 (talk) 18:39, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

The Northridge bit has been updated too now! What stars you wiki editors are. Btw the ISBN number of my book is 1450204384 in case you wish to mention it in the footnote section. Robin Tamblyn 92.17.208.120 (talk) 21:48, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Personal life

Can anyone either source this to a reliable source or comment on its relevance to the article? " A skilled mimic, Spacey is known for impressions, including Johnny Carson, Walter Matthau, Jack Lemmon, Christopher Walken, Katharine Hepburn, William Hurt, Anthony Hopkins and Dr. Evil." Mad Jack 23:12, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

He also does great impressions of Jimmy Stewart and Cary Grant (see Letterman 6/26/06).

I saw one on Conan O'Brien, but this all still strikes me as unencyclopedic... You could list dozens of names. In summation, we should mention his "talent", though maybe not give any examples. Is there any good source that mentions his "talent" that we can quote? Mad Jack 04:55, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

i guess he learned it autodidactic and to the fun. i remember he used it on his early carrer in a comedy club. but in WWW i don't found anyone about it. but what i can show you is: "Inside the Actors Studio" http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0611292/ http://www.bravotv.com/Inside_the_Actors_Studio/videos/Kevin_Spacey.shtml http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O8JmN_-oudY&search=bluedog12 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inside_the_Actors_Studio , Verbal99

He did a fabulous impression of Bill CLinton during a Parkinson appearance tp promote his Bobby Darrin bopic too.

What relevance are the gay rumours? That seems a little out of place and too tabloidy to me. Codeviolation 04:04, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I totally agree that this part of the article is mere gossip and, as such, irrelevant. I removed it. If we want Wikipedia to be credible, then we must be convinced there is no room in it for that kind of speculation. Especially if, for some reason one can guess easily, the contributor's work (so to speak) essentially consists in cherry-picking through unreliable, or even made-up sources, deliberately ignoring a number of contradictory firsthand testimonies. This is despicable. Bachibz 29 July 2007

Sorry guys I felt obliged to remove the paragraph about Spacey's sexual orientation, even though it was rather objective. This point is a matter of dispute and always will be. It will inevitably draw in the fanatical gay activists and the homophobes who have been relentlessly after him for years (just as they are after Tom Cruise, John Travolta, George Clooney etc.). Spacey is one of the greatest actors alive and a respectable personality. He doesn't deserve this. Let's cut it off once and for all. Clabel 26 August 2007

Awards

There's a problem with the accuracy of the dates for his Oscars and awards. Many people are confusing the release dates of The Usual Suspects (1995) and American Beauty (1999) and the dates of the awards Spacey won for his performances in these films (respectively 1996 and 2000). This should be fixed once and for all. Bachibz 5 August 2007

Links/footnotes

There is a link to a Val Kilmer website/article given as a reference (#6) to the section on Spacey's sexuality, but I can't find any mention of Spacey at that site? Spamming? Birgitsnet 11:00, 03 July 2006 (GMT)

Looks like a mistake - thanks Mad Jack 16:41, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

GA rsult

There are 7 things that must pass before an article reaches GA status. I have reviewed it and the result is as follows:

1. Well-written: Pass
2. Factually accurate: Pass
3. Broad: Pass
4. Neutrally written: Pass
5. Stable: Pass
6. Well-referenced: Pass
7. Images: Pass

Well done, the GA has passed successfully —Minun ^Spiderman 19:40, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Spacey/Chávez

An anon keeps removing the paragraph about Spacey meeting with Venezuela's president (Hugo Chàvez, a strong critic of the United States). Other actors have met with Chàvez (Sean Penn, Morgan Freeman) and this is mentioned in their articles, probably because this says something about their political views. I invite the anon to explain why he thinks this is not worth mentioning. -Yamanbaiia 19:43, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the Chavez inclusion, it includes the line "state-controlled movie studio". I may be incorrect here, but "state-controlled" seems to as if it has an ulterior motive, i.e. to attack the Chavez government. There are such institutions all over the world. For example Australia has the ABC and to a lesser extent SBS. The US has PBS. The UK has BBC, etc. I do not know if the word "controlled" would be accepted in describing any of these, as it connotes negativity and implies that the state is illiberally controlling a media outlet. I propose that a word such a "operated" by used in place. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.111.99.135 (talk) 08:41, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Source for "state-controlled movie studio". "to attack te Chaves government"? It's Chavez that it's controlling the studio, not a third party.Yamanbaiia 09:42, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

21

Just a quick question. He is not credited in his filmography with being one of the producers of the movie "21", yet on the page for that movie (and in an interview I saw) he clearly is. Is this just an error? Kishimojun (talk) 21:16, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

GA review

I think it might be time for a GA review. Standards were a bit loose in 2006, and I'm not sure the current article meets all the requirements, however, I will try to make some suggestions for improvement before submitting a review request. Viriditas (talk) 11:57, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

This article is already on the list for the GA Reassessment Sweeps [2]. There are still quite a large number of articles remaining on the list that are open to be reassessed. Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:17, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I didn't know that. In that case, I should reassess it. Disclosure: I've participated on this talk page since 2004, and in the past I have uploaded an image of Spacey that is in use on The Usual Suspects article. I've also made less than 10 edits to the article, all of which consisted of reverting vandalism, except one, which was to include the image I uploaded (and is no longer used here). I don't think this disqualifies me from reassessing the article. Viriditas (talk) 10:04, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps, but the reassessment is scheduled as part of a wide check of GAs which were promoted prior to sometime in 2007. Would it not be productive to make suggestions for improvement prior to simply doing a reassessment which would in all probability be put on hold for the improvements you were formerly going to suggest? Wildhartlivie (talk) 10:27, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Why do you think the suggestions and the reassessment should be separate? I would appreciate it if you gave me some breathing room here. WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers has assessed 30,494 articles. Surely you could find some to edit where I am not involved? Looking at the contribution history, you've been following me from article to article, and it's somewhat creepy. Viriditas (talk) 10:31, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Spacey early performance history

In 1982, Spacey starred in Peter Byrne's (see: http://www.peterbyrne.info/profile/index.htm) production of Barrie Keefe's play Barbarians at the SoHo Rep Theater with Michael Wright and Gregg Martin. Peterbyrne (talk) 05:05, 20 August 2009 (UTC) Talk:Kevin Spacey/Archive 1/GA1