Talk:Leonardo DiCaprio/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Finding the right proportions in the lead of the article

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

How should the lead of the article look to represent the career of this guy proportionately? 11:18, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

The issue here is the two mentions of the comedy Wolf of Wall Street in the lead of the article, while being more moderate with the real milestones like Titanic, Inception, The Departed etc.
This is how the lead looked like before with no less than three(!) mentions of this particular comedy. The problem is that this is a drama actor, NOT a comedy actor and movies like Titanic are only mentioned once which to me DOES seem disproportionate representation of the actor's work in the lead.
How should the lead of the article look to represent the career of this guy proportionately. (May we cite WP:BALASPS?) Isn't Titanic or Inception more important movies than this easy-going comedy? I repeatedly argued that if Wolf of W. S. is mentioned once, we could add a whole paragraph on Titanic or Inception and still a small desription of movies like Shutter Island or The Departed. How do you see it?
Infoboxes ARE elements of the lead per WP:LEADELEMENTS. Probably a quick read of WP:BLP also wouldn't hurt. PS171 (talk) 10:39, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

• Support previous version of lead with one change: list all of the films for which he was nominated for a major award (Golden Globe or Academy Award) instead of including only films after 2000. There are three individual mentions of Wolf of Wall Street (WoWS) in this version: a) in the infobox, to describe where and when the photo was taken; b) in the list of films for which he received a major award; and c) in the list of films since 2000 for which he was nominated for a major award. It would be odd not to describe where and when the photo in the infobox was taken so that mention of WoWS belongs there. In the text of the lead, WoWS is mentioned along with other movies as part of lists of nominated or received awards. The lists belong in the lead because being nominated for and receiving those awards is part of his notability. To exclude this "easy-going comedy" from these lists would be disproportionately representing why he is notable. Also, because these mentions of WoWS are just part of these lists, including a description of any movie in the lead would definitely not be WP:NPOV.

It isn't up to us to decide what kind of actor he is; we have to go on the reliable sources. To describe him only as a dramatic actor is WP:OR and to use that description to discount his work in comedy films (and to exclude their appropriate mention) violates WP:NPOV. --Ca2james (talk) 17:51, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm adding my opinion regardless of the discussion I was just in with PS171. I think their argument of "Isn't Titanic or Inception more important movies than this easy-going comedy?" seems more of a biased comment than anything. To them, Titanic and Inception are the most important movies in his career and hates seeing anything else mentioned more than those two films. I don't understand the argument and I've literally lost count with how many times I have asked PS to explain it. I think mentioning any film whether it be WoWS or anything else is appropriate if it's necessary to discuss his notability. The lead is a summary of the article and his career, which WoWS is included. I think mentioning it is the caption is perfectly fine, as well as mentioning he starred in it and was nominated for notable awards. I would say the same for any film without going over board in the lead. LADY LOTUS • TALK 18:57, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

No, the problem is not mentioning Wolf, but overemphasizing it.
If you mention it in the lead (the image caption is also a part of which, see here) with the same emphasis as Titanic or Inception, I think you hurt WP:BALASPS a bit. And if you mention Wolf TWICE in the lead, while more notable movies only once, then you're also hurting WP:BLP, unless you think DiCaprio appreciates a very decadent comedy more than an epic movie or a drama. But in this case I'm wondering why he picked so many drama roles and why he avoided comedies like that mostly.
Nowadays there also seems to be a bit of a struggle over some new "projects"... PS171 (talk) 10:22, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

• "If you mention it in the lead... I think you hurt WP:BALASPS a bit" – Why? It's an extremely notable film in his vast filmography, and his fifth to receive an Oscar nomination.
• "And if you mention Wolf TWICE in the lead, while more notable movies only once" – This is opinion and original research. Why do you say it's less notable? For example, if we're using awards as a basis, he wasn't nominated for an Oscar for Titanic or Inception, so why are they more notable than an Oscar-nominated role? I'm not using this as an argument for its inclusion, just making a point that the notability of these two films isn't really sourceable.
• "unless you think DiCaprio appreciates a very decadent comedy more than an epic movie or a drama" – It doesn't matter what we think. None of us are Leonardo DiCaprio. He's said how much he loved the character, actively pursued getting it made for a few years, and "wishes more movies were like [The Wolf of Wall Street]. He's promoted the movie extensively, talked about how much he enjoyed doing it, etc.
• "But in this case I'm wondering why he picked so many drama roles and why he avoided comedies like that mostly" – I'm not sure how this statement furthers your argument. We can't reflect on DiCaprio's acting choices unless he does, in a reliably sourced statement. And even then, if he said that he hates that he starred in Wolf, he still did and it was still a notable film in his career.
• "Nowadays there also seems to be a bit of a struggle over some new 'projects'..." – How does this relate to this discussion at all?

PS171, I respect your opinion. I do. I'm happy to admit that I was wrong about the infobox not being a part of the lead, because that was an ill-informed statement and you've clearly proven the contrary. But your arguments to delete this content just do not make sense to me, and they clearly don't to Lady Lotus either. Not to mention that actions like this show bad faith. As MrX said in his edit summary when reverting you, "It's improper to change this content when it is the subject of an open RfC (that you initiated)."

If you respond directly to me, please remain focused on the content. I don't want things between us to keep getting more and more personal; I'd rather just focus on the discussion. Sock (tock talk) 15:25, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

• "It's an extremely notable film" - The movie is more notable than Titanic? Titanic won eleven Oscars and is still the second highest grossing movie ALL TIME. In that case I don't really get it why you would mention Wolf more times than Titanic. I still think it should be the other way round.
• Notability is NOT original research, it can be established, just like in other cases. I think it is rather some of you who want to edit the lead entirely under the "guidance" of Wikipedia:Recentism.
• "He's promoted the movie extensively, talked about how much he enjoyed doing it" - But nowadays his alleged niece allegedly got abducted, one of the movies his company produced made references to a Native American tribes as inbred and dangerous drug addicts, while DiCaprio’s production company countered that they were protected by the First Amendment and pointed out that movies have long portrayed various groups in a negative light (allegedly), he also announced he'd retire from acting indefinitely in January 2013 and then confirmed that again in December 2013 and then he changed his mind voluntarily already in April 2014. The actor also found the time to party with a “harem” of 25 female models as recently as July. Leonardo DiCaprio defends 'Wolf of Wall Street': 'We're not condoning this behavior, we're indicting it (his own words allegedly). In 2006 he almost got eaten by a 'gigantic' shark. What else? Moon Trip with Leo DiCaprio Auctioned for $1M?
  Should I continue? I mean, we may add all these perfectly reliable sources in the article.
• "it was still a notable film in his career" - Again ... was it MORE notable than Titanic or Inception?
• "How does this relate to this discussion at all?" Robin Williams rejected the idea of starring in a Mrs. Doubtfire sequel for years and then when the shooting would have begun, he died in an unnatural way. As DiCaprio himself very clearly and multiple times announced taking a long break from acting (see above), it's just strange he gets dragged into a new movie already, that's all.
• I reverted earlier but it didn't show in my browser, I simply repeated this edit. Infoboxes ARE parts of the lead according to WP:LEADELEMENTS as I also pointed this out in the edit summary. That means, I didn't act in bad faith at all. PS171 (talk) 12:58, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

• Comment - This RfC does not follow the widely accepted convention of being neutral worded. Nonetheless, I oppose changing the lede to remove references to the Wolf of Wall Street. It's a sufficiently notable work and has not been given undue prominence in the lede, especially considering how recent the film is. I also see no reason to remove it from the lede photo caption, at least until there is a more recent quality image available. After this RfC is concluded, I strongly urge the PS171 to DROPTHESTICK with regard to this issue. It has already crossed into the realm of tendentiousness.- MrX 15:40, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

You had written this before I answered User:Corvoe/User:Sock, so see above.

"a more recent image" - WP:LEADIMAGE does not demand the most recent image. However, the image and its caption ARE parts of the lead.

I don't think that that the Wikipedia essays you cited will overwrite Wikipedia guidelines and Wikipedia policies. If you like essays though, I strongly urge you to read WP:RECENTISM with regards to Wolf and its weight in the lead. PS171 (talk) 13:16, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

• Comment Just responding to the RFC. It seems like just logically you could have it appear just once as opposed to twice, but I don't see very strong evidence either way that makes it completely unacceptable to have either result. The reasoning that the film is recent isn't a terrible reason to say that it could be cited twice, but it seems less notable than Titanic at least, and perhaps others. Prasangika37 (talk) 01:32, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
• Support mentions of Wolf of Wall Street. LegoBot invited me here, and that's the only reason why I'm commenting on this affair again. I agree with MrX: Wolf of Wall Street should be mentioned, and to do so is not undue. That includes text, captions, and images. I find this campaign to minimize Wolf of Wall Street to be perplexing, and I also recommend dropping the stick. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:58, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Semi-protected edit request on 4 October 2014

aiden

80.192.205.163 (talk) 11:42, 4 October 2014 (UTC) aiden

Not done: as you have not requested a change.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 12:19, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 November 2014

It was rebuilt after the 1994 Northridge earthquake and opened in early 1999.

The reference above appears to be defunct, and also quite inappropriate when sourcing the rebuilding of a library. Please change to a more appropriate source.

Maccaughanc (talk) 07:09, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Done Used AP instead. Stickee (talk) 08:25, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Edit Request

In the Early Childhood section it states he got a "general education diploma". GED is an abbreviation of "general educational development". Can we get that changed? 216.160.83.174 (talk) 18:22, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Nominations received by Leonardo DiCaprio

Hi Bbb23, Leonardo DiCaprio received only four nominations for Academy Awards.. You can check OSCARS / AWARDS DATABASES and his page on IMDB.com . Thank you.. --Shbib Al-Subaie (talk) 07:23, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Your link to the database doesn't work. IMDb isn't reliable. He was nominated four times as an actor and once as a producer. See this link to the database.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:59, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

The half Russian comment

In an interview Di Caprio said that he is actually "half Russian", and it was not only his grandmother but also grandfather who are Russian. My question is, we know his grandmother (Smirnova) is Russian, but what Russian grandfather is he talking about? Any sources to make it more specific? Sunderland against Di Canio (talk) 03:13, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

The Aviator

I removed the following sentence (referring to The Aviator):

Altogether, DiCaprio reportedly spent more than a year and a half in preparation for the film which was not necessarily shot in continuity because of actors and locations schedules. [Cited to http://www.theguardian.com/film/2002/dec/22/features.review]

The article in question doesn't say anything about DiCaprio spending a year and a half in preparation for The Aviator. Nor does it say anything about The Aviator not being shot in continuity (that is, the scenes were not filmed in the order in which they appear in the script). Even if it did say that the film was not shot in continuity, that would not even be worth mentioning. Most films are not shot in continuity; more commonly a director will film all the scenes to be shot at a particular location, then go on to the next location. Saying that "the film ... was not necessarily shot in continuity because of actors and locations schedules" is about as interesting as saying "the actors wore makeup and costumes in the film". --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:03, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 April 2015

Five Academy Awards 187.190.63.216 (talk) 22:50, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Done, thanks! --ElHef (Meep?) 23:16, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Academy Award winner is a big deal

This fact should be highlighted in the article somehow. At present, it is glossed over somewhat. Mister Sneeze A Lot (talk) 05:28, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 February 2016

Request to change:

"While filming Django Unchained, DiCaprio accidentally cut his on glass"

to

"While filming Django Unchained, DiCaprio accidentally cut his hand on glass"

Due to missing the word "hand" Petesims411 (talk) 10:29, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

 Done - Thank you- MrX 12:30, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

2016

Leonardo DiCaprio has won his first Oscar, named as best actor in the film 'The Revenant' at 88th Academy Awards.

RJ 14:03, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 29 February 2016

DiCaprio was quoted in 2015 as having witnessed global warming in action, while in Alberta, Canada, for a film shoot. He remarked:

We were in Calgary and the locals were saying, 'This has never happened in our province ever.' We would come and there would be eight feet of snow, and then all of a sudden a warm gust of wind would come... it was scary. I've never experienced something so firsthand that was so dramatic. You see the fragility of nature and how easily things can be completely transformed with just a few degrees difference. It's terrifying, and it's what people are talking about all over the world. And it's simply just going to get worse.

The comments were widely reported in the press, particularly since chinook winds are a well-known weather phenomenon in the region and have been dating back over a century when European settlers first began recording weather data. Despite Michael Platt of the Calgary Sun describing his comments as "pseudo-scientific fantasy", DiCaprio has continued to incorrectly identify Chinook winds as evidence of climate change, including in backstage comments at the 2016 Screen Actors Guild awards, during a meeting with Pope Francis, and in his acceptance speech at the 2016 Academy Awards.

References

Deletion of the final claim, "and in his acceptance speech at the 2016 Academy Awards". Not only is this claim not cited, DiCaprio does not cite Chinook winds in his acceptance speech, as is clearly evident from a cursory listen to the speech. Additionally, the previous claim in the paragraph, relating to the pope, is not backed by the cited source. The source says "you can be sure Pope Francis got an earful of DiCaprio's misinformation," implying that there is no evidence of the actor mentioning the winds to the Pope. The source itself is nothing but conjecture, and the claim based on it should be removed.

69.245.59.45 (talk) 06:11, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

The biggest problem with this section is lack of context. From the press interview in which Leonardo DiCaprio is quoted, it wasn't warm winds alone that was spoken of - it was unseasonably warm weather in general. The melt season commenced early, inspects and plant matter sprang into life, and the entire crew had to relocate to a different continent to complete the film. DiCaprio was informed by locals that the unseasonably warm weather was unusual for the province.

The director, Alejandro Iñárritu, has said much the same thing:

And yet, those conditions notwithstanding, The Revenant’s shoot would run out of snow. “The snow melted down, literally, in front of our eyes,” Iñárritu says. “We experienced global warming; we were planning to shoot the ending scene in a location that supposedly will have snow …” he laughs. “[But there were] bees. So we had to shut down.”

DiCaprio's critics, which all appear to have a strong political persuasion, have isolated and stripped his remarks of context before attacking him for it. — TPX 12:25, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

I have moved the disputed text from the main page until contextual information is added and a balanced statement is formulated. — TPX 12:46, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Read the article on chinook winds - they were NOT unseasonably warm or unusual. They are a known weather phenomenon and have been since before the arrival of white settlers in the 19th Century. The idea that this was global warming is laughable. DiCaprio lied about hearing this from locals - unless someone has identified who he talked to. 198.161.2.211 (talk) 16:56, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

That is not a considered reply to the objections raised. If this section is to be improved then we must provide a more fuller account of what DiCaprio has stated regarding the matter. Our starting point should be reliably sourced pieces in which he talks about the unseasonable weather members of the crew say they witnessed, 2015 being a warm year in general (the warmest ever on record, he says), the rapid snow melt, locals informing him that conditions were unusual, etc. etc. Currently the whole thing is sourced to criticism of a single remark he made regarding warm air, and that's not good enough. — TPX 18:33, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Furthermore, I am striking out part of your comment as a BLP violation. According to climatologist Michael Pidwirny, the 2014/15 winter was "the warmest year in the climatological records that we have for Western Canada that date back to about 1900". Ski resorts had to close because of the enormous snow melt. [1] Another climatologist says what happened in Canada cannot be dismissed as chinook wind. [2] CBS news actually described the weather as "positively balmy", so to accuse DiCaprio of lying when the evidence plainly supports him, doesn't speak highly of your research skills. — TPX 17:07, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

You might try actually reading the sources rather than just sanitizing the article of content you don't like.

You are not paying careful attention to what is being said. Please take the necessary time to read and digest the stated objections. Thanks. — TPX 16:45, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Click to expand

Here is one source: Source 1 http://www.calgarysun.com/2016/01/31/hollywood-big-shot-leonardo-dicaprio-takes-foolhardy-beef-about-alberta-chinooks-to-a-higher-power Hollywood big shot Leonardo DiCaprio takes foolhardy beef about Alberta chinooks to a higher power If only Leonardo DiCaprio could take his argument just one rung further up the ladder. Perhaps then The Revenant star might finally listen. Instead, the confused and seemingly-gullible Hollywood actor, who just can’t get past the notion of Alberta chinooks being a sudden portent of global climate-change, has now shared his half-baked environmental theory with Pope Francis. “He’s been inspiring and revolutionary, to come out and be outspoken about the issue of climate change and endorse the scientific community,” said DiCaprio, of his meeting late last week with the world’s top Catholic. Alberta’s “terrifying” warm winds have become the 41-year-old actor’s favourite anecdote about climate change, and you can be sure Pope Francis got an earful of Leo’s misinformation on Western Canada — Papal bull, if you will. Hopefully the Pope knows the truth about the warm winter winds of Southern Alberta, but if not, the Supreme Pontiff’s boss certainly does — though it’s not clear a Hollywood know-it-all as cocky as DiCaprio would believe the big man upstairs either. DiCaprio takes another shot at oil industry Certainly, the derision of Canada’s media and countless world headlines hasn’t stopped the Oscar-hungry actor from repeating his pseudo-scientific fantasy, and he was at it again on Saturday night, at the Screen Actors Guild Awards in Los Angeles. “We shot at high altitudes in Calgary, and weather conditions were unprecedented,” said DiCaprio, speaking backstage at the SAG Awards. “The locals had told us they’d never had weather extremes like that since they’ve lived there.” Ever since he wrapped up shooting of The Revenant in Alberta last winter, DiCaprio has been repeating this ridiculous notion like a broken record, telling all who will listen that Alberta’s ordinary chinook winds are a sign of impending climate doom. He claims the locals said so. Yet if an Albertan really told Leo that, the Albertan was lying. Tellingly, the guy actually hired to act as a weather consultant on the set, meteorologist Jordan Witzel, never heard a peep of panic out of DiCaprio or any other film official regarding the sudden warm winds. “It wasn’t like they even reached out to ask me,” said Witzel, who works for Global News Calgary. “No producer or director ever said, ‘what’s going on here?’ There was no curiosity on that at all.” If DiCaprio had uttered the lie once and then shut up, it would be forgotten. Unfortunately, The Revenant has Oscar buzz around it. Because DiCaprio keeps repeating the same fiction to an ever-widening audience, you can bet he’ll babble on about Alberta to the entire world if he picks up Best Actor on Feb. 28. For Alberta, that’s a serious and undeserved black eye. We’re a province already battling to improve our environmental image for the sake of our core economy, and to have a Hollywood heavyweight adding to Alberta’s tarnish will have repercussions as we fight to build pipelines and the like. And DiCaprio’s drivel is a disaster for a film industry trying to attract more big players to the province, especially when he goes on about having to leave Alberta because the weather is no longer predictable for movie-making. “We had to go to southern tip of Argentina just to be able to find snow to complete the film,” he told the SAG Awards. Alberta’s film industry is being victimized by DiCaprio’s need to grandstand, and the repeated lie about Alberta’s weather is not doing this province’s movie industry any favours for the future. Luke Azevedo, commissioner of Film, Television & Creative Industries for Calgary Economic Development, is more diplomatic about DiCaprio’s mistake, but he says Alberta’s weather reality needs to be clarified. “It is unfortunate that we are subject to commentary being made about the climate and shooting conditions of our region on a world stage,” said Azevedo, in statement he sent to the Sun. “In actual fact, chinooks have been occurring in Alberta for thousands of years and in 2014/15 there were no more chinooks than in previous periods.” Source 2 http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/leonardo-dicaprio-witnesses-a-terrifying-sign-of-climate-change-in-calgary-a-chinook Leonardo DiCaprio witnesses a ‘terrifying’ sign of climate change in Calgary — a chinook Actor Leonardo DiCaprio attracted widespread derision from the people of Calgary after he cited the city’s famously unusual weather as “terrifying” evidence of climate change. “We would come and there would be eight feet of snow, and then all of a sudden a warm gust of wind would come,” DiCaprio told Variety.com, describing it as a “scary” vision of things to come. “It’s terrifying, and it’s what people are talking about all over the world. And it’s simply just going to get worse.” While Alberta winters do seem to be getting warmer lately, sudden shifts of temperature have been a Calgary winter staple for centuries. Known as Chinook winds, they are sudden gusts of warm, coastal air that coarse over the Rocky Mountains, leaving a trail of instant snow melt. “Those who have not the warm, invigorating Chinook winds of this country, cannot well comprehend what a blessing they are,” reads a description of the phenomenon from a 1900 edition of the Calgary Weekly Herald. “The icy clutch of winter is lessened, the earth throws off its winding sheet of snow.” Chinooks are also the origin of the favourite Calgary phrase “if you don’t like the weather, wait 10 minutes.” While the actor did not mention the specific date when the phenomenon took place, it did suddenly reach 17 C on Jan. 25, sending Calgarians to patios in t-shirts. Oddly, however, DiCaprio reported that Albertan crew members told him ‘this has never happened in our province ever.” “I wish someone had explained to Leonardo DiCaprio what a Chinook is,” wrote Alberta MP Michelle Rempel in a Twitter Post. DiCaprio was in Southern Alberta in early 2014 to film The Revenant, a film recounting the true story of 1820s frontiersman Hugh Glass, who mounted an epic journey out of the U.S. wilderness after being left for dead following a bear attack. ‘It’s terrifying, and it’s what people are talking about all over the world. And it’s simply just going to get worse’ He described the warm wind encounter during a media Q&A for the film. “I’ve never experienced something so firsthand that was so dramatic. You see the fragility of nature and how easily things can be completely transformed with just a few degrees difference,” he said. The shoot did experience more Chinooks than usual because of a strong El Nino season, according to Global Calgary Meteorologist Jordan Witzel, who acted as a forecasting consultant on The Revenant. But as Witzel noted on the Global News website, “You cannot make a statement on climate change based on a weather event … weather is what’s happening now; climate is what we would expect to happen into the future.” The Titanic and Wolf of Wall Street star has long been a high-profle campaigner for action on climate change, and is currently working on a documentary about climate change, with a focus on weather patterns in 2015. Although climate change’s actual effects on Alberta will likely not be noticeable to visiting actors, a 2013 report wrote that the province will see a two degree rise over the next 100 years, a situation that will bring about an earlier spring, increased precipitation and a drier climate. Source 3 http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/leonardo-dicaprio-climate-change-oscar-speech-alberta-reaction-1.3469010 DiCaprio's Oscar speech cringe-worthy for some advocates of climate-change action Environmentalists worry actor's use of common chinook as case in point for global warming damages credibility It's hard to overstate how many people were paying attention when Leonardo DiCaprio won the Oscar for best actor at the Academy Awards Sunday night. Aside from an estimated TV audience of 34 million, DiCaprio's win for his performance in the The Revenant smashed a significant social-media record, becoming the most-tweeted minute of an Oscars telecast with 440,000 Twitter posts in the span of 60 seconds. DiCaprio's chinook climate change comments mocked by Alberta politicos DiCaprio critics say climate change comments ignore his industry's impacts DiCaprio rips Big Oil 'greed' at Davos business leaders forum That crushed the previous record of 255,000 set when 2014 Oscars host Ellen DeGeneres set the internet ablaze by tweeting a star-studded selfie during the broadcast. DiCaprio used his high-profile moment to draw attention to climate change, calling it "the most urgent threat facing our entire species." But the way he went about it had even some of the most ardent advocates for climate action cringing. The 41-year-old actor again highlighted his experience of a sudden change in temperature and loss of snow while filming The Revenant in southern Alberta as evidence of a warming globe. "Our production needed to move to the southern tip of this planet just to be able to find snow," DiCaprio said during his acceptance speech. The incident DiCaprio described was widely believed to be a chinook — a weather phenomenon that occurs when warm air is forced downward at the point where mountains meet prairies. The effect, which is not a direct effect of climate change, is particularly pronounced in southern Alberta and frequently brings sudden bouts of summer-like conditions in the dead of winter. While he didn't disagree with DiCaprio's fundamental point, Alberta-based author Chris Turner described the actor's insistence on using a chinook as a case in point for climate change as less than helpful. Regardless of the climate-change controversy, the Alberta government was pleased to see DiCaprio win the award. "I am so proud to be able to say that another Oscar-winning production was filmed right here in Alberta," Minister of Culture and Tourism Minister Ricardo Miranda said in a release. "I especially want to congratulate the more than 700 Albertans who worked as cast or crew on this production, including makeup artists from Canmore, actors from Siksika Nation and production crew from Calgary. I know their work was a significant contribution to winning these awards." Alberta's film and television industry has generated more than $400 million in economic activity over the past five years, Miranda noted. In addition to The Revenant, Alberta has also served as a production location for major Hollywood films like Interstellar and Brokeback Mountain, in addition to television series Fargo, Hell on Wheels and Heartland.

More climate scientists have commented on this topic. Twitter and blog commentary mostly. Nothing we can reasonably cite. NASA's Gavin Schmidt says that although chinook wind plays a role in the region, the baseline temperature on which chinooks occur is increasing (due to human emissions). [3] It also has been pointed out that the unseasonbly warm weather (that members of the crew observed) also enveloped parts of Canada that are not prone to chinook winds. Therefore chinooks alone cannot explain the sustained record warmth and regional upward trend. [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] — TPX 21:44, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Biased entry

This whole account of Leo is completely subjective. This belongs on a fan site not an "encyclopedia". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.143.143.254 (talk) 14:39, 3 March 2016 (UTC) ^^^^^^^^^^^^ literally no — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.232.130.90 (talk) 05:13, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 March 2016

84.55.102.2 (talk) 11:26, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Leonardo won1 oscar

 Not done It's already in there. —Largo Plazo (talk) 11:37, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Name

Just thought it would be beneficial to update his name for heritage sake. His maternal grandfather's name was "Wilhelm Heinrich Indenbirken". The inclusion of "Heinrich" would be good. Also, his great-grandfather was named "Wilhelm Indenbirken".

http://ethnicelebs.com/leonardo-dicaprio (further references within) 2001:558:6012:5A:565:ABEA:FCDE:5BBD (talk) 18:52, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Clinton

please change ((President Clinton)) to ((Bill Clinton|President Clinton))

 Not done - President Clinton already redirects to Bill Clinton.- MrX 19:42, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 July 2016

NilesDean (talk) 01:58, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Not done: Blank request — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:04, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 August 2016

Leonardo DiCaprio's parents are divorced but his mother's name is credited as Irmelin DiCaprio instead of Irmelin Indenbirken in his short biography in the side panel. Request to correct the said error. 59.178.164.179 (talk) 04:29, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. -- Dane2007 ^talk 21:49, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Relationships

Earlier today I added that DiCaprio is in a relationship with Danish model Nina Agdal. It was properly referenced and the relationship has been ongoing since May this year. Another editor declared "we do not need to know about all his relationships" and reverted my edit. I have reverted it back asking him to explain his comments. I cannot see why mentioning he is in a relationship (with references) is a bad thing. Putting this here for reference later in case the editor decides to start an edit war :-S Cls14 (talk) 00:23, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Opening this discussion is fine. Reverting me is not. See WP:BRD. Just because something is sourced (and the Daily Mail isn't a great source - People is barely okay) doesn't mean we have to add it. We are not a fan magazine. I will revert you and expect that you will not re-add the material without a consensus here.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:28, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Agree with Bbb23. See WP:ISNOT. Lots of sites out there to read latest who's-dating-whom gossip; this isn't one of them. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 06:08, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Can't be bothered to argue with you Bbb23. Looking at your user page it seems you do what you want, even if it's not right and it annoys people. So I'll never touch this article again if you're going to be precious about it Cls14 (talk) 22:40, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Atari (film)

Atari (film) redirects here (and is linked from other articles) but isn't explained in this article. -- Beland (talk) 18:54, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

"Environmentalist" title in lead

Are we just gonna sit here and pretend that Leonardo DiCaprio isn't known for his environmental endeavors almost as much as his acting? I mean he literally calls himself "actor and environmentalist" in his own bios. That should almost be enough on its own.Trillfendi (talk) 22:46, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

To give an overview for his 3 highest grossing movies

I already explained why I tried to emphasize his Box office accomplishments in the edit summary.

I added this part, to emphasize his accomplishments at the box office because everything seem to be in the shadow of Titanic. Furthermore, the star of Titanic was the ship, this time it's him.

Thx to Rivertorch for the format improvements.

>>> I am also happy with the term ahead instead of far ahead, it is a kind of underlining that Inception grossed more than his Oscar-winning role in The Revenant. <<<

To use the million figures shows if his second and third best movie can keep up with Titanic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.93.144.81 (talk) 20:00, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

OK. I still have reservations about the "Mio"s, though. This is not a common abbreviation, as far as I know, and I keep thinking of O sole mio (and, to be honest, miaow). Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 05:05, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

If we want to make clear this figures are millions we have 2 options: we use an abbreviation or we write million. It seem like the common abbreviation would be m. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Da Vinci Nanjing (talk • contribs) 13:26, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Can someone add the Leonardo da Vinci project?

Can someone add DiCaprio's new Leonardo da Vinci project?

DEADLINE: http://deadline.com/2017/08/leonardo-dicaprio-to-play-leonardo-da-vinci-paramouint-walter-isaacson-appian-way-movie-deal-1202147317/ Paramount just emerged from an intense two-studio bidding battle to win a seven-figure auction for the rights to Walter Isaacson’s book Leonardo da Vinci, which will be crafted as a star vehicle for Leonardo DiCaprio to play the painter/scientist. He and Jennifer Davisson will produce through their Appian Way banner. Paramount had the early lead on this one, but Universal came in aggressively Friday afternoon, and the bidding continued until it just wrapped up moments ago with ICM Partners brokering the deal for Isaacson. This is a big get for Paramount, where Appian Way has its deal and expects to be a big part of the studio rebound. After Universal stepped up, Paramount did what it had to do to win the title.

https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2017/08/leonardo-dicaprio-da-vinci

http://ew.com/movies/2017/08/14/leonardo-dicaprio-da-vinci-biopic/

http://www.slate.com/blogs/browbeat/2017/08/12/paramount_is_making_a_leonardo_da_vinci_biopic_starring_leonardo_dicaprio.html

http://www.vulture.com/2017/08/leonardo-dicaprio-to-star-in-leonardo-da-vinci-movie.html

Leonardo da Vinci project

VARIETY, AUGUST 12, 2017 | 11:53AM PT http://variety.com/2017/film/news/leonardo-da-vinci-leonardo-dicaprio-biopic-paramount-walter-isaacson-1202525806/ Paramount has beaten out Universal in a seven-figure bidding war for the rights to Walter Isaacson’s book on Leonardo da Vinci, Variety can confirm. The biopic will star fellow Leo, Leonardo DiCaprio.

DiCaprio will also produce the film under his Appian Way banner alongside president of production Jennifer Davisson.

ICM Partners brokered the deal for Isaacson and his book, “Leonardo da Vinci,” in advance of its release. Universal attempted to outbid Paramount on Friday with bidding continuing into Saturday morning.

DiCaprio’s desire to portray da Vinci on film is no coincidence. The actor’s mother famously claims to have chosen the artist as her son’s namesake when she felt an in utero DiCaprio kick for the first time while examining a da Vinci piece at the Uffizi Gallery in Florence, Italy back in 1974.

From DEADLINE: http://deadline.com/2017/08/leonardo-dicaprio-to-play-leonardo-da-vinci-paramouint-walter-isaacson-appian-way-movie-deal-1202147317/ Paramount just emerged from an intense two-studio bidding battle to win a seven-figure auction for the rights to Walter Isaacson’s book Leonardo da Vinci, which will be crafted as a star vehicle for Leonardo DiCaprio to play the painter/scientist. He and Jennifer Davisson will produce through their Appian Way banner. Paramount had the early lead on this one, but Universal came in aggressively Friday afternoon, and the bidding continued until it just wrapped up moments ago with ICM Partners brokering the deal for Isaacson. This is a big get for Paramount, where Appian Way has its deal and expects to be a big part of the studio rebound. After Universal stepped up, Paramount did what it had to do to win the title. Elizabeth Raposo was a big part of making it happen, sources said. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.230.120.240 (talk) 06:42, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Leonardo DiCaprio. 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://web.archive.org/web/20170104164523/http://www.fashionnstyle.com/articles/12090/20131008/leonardo-dicaprio-girlfriend-dating-toni-garrn-2013-linked-baby-spice-emma-bunton-90s.htm to http://www.fashionnstyle.com/articles/12090/20131008/leonardo-dicaprio-girlfriend-dating-toni-garrn-2013-linked-baby-spice-emma-bunton-90s.htm

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After 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 these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 14:55, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 July 2018

Add ... "Leonardo DiCaprio provided $1 million to the United Way Harvey Recovery Fund through his foundation." to ... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonardo_DiCaprio#Philanthropy as verified by ... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurricane_Harvey#Texas_3 which had a source of ... https://www.usatoday.com/story/life/entertainthis/2017/08/29/rock-nicki-minaj-dj-khaled-more-celebs-pledge-donations-for-harvey-relief-efforts/611426001/ Glenneric1 (talk) 03:32, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

 Done --Danski454 (talk) 09:15, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

I disagree with Good article tick, maybe now it deserves it because I got involved (joke)

I want to say everything following Romeo and Juliet is fine. The article is well sourced and I can see that previous editors did a great job. When I was reading about his early career a few things didn't add up with his imdb page. Missing credits, and wrong chronological order. I am surprised that went under the radar. It is now fixed. Let's forget that for this now. Just wondering what made it deserving of a good article tick?Filmman3000 (talk) 16:23, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

This article no longer deserves "Good Article" status. Look at that table of contents. It's a frigging nightmare. At a minimum, please revert the disastrous section headings. Something like "2002–2007: Continuous success. Actor director relationship with Martin Scorsese. Second and third Academy Award nomination" is obscenely and completely unnecessarily long. 142.167.242.182 (talk) 21:04, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

It's pretty clear I wan't read about a milestone you can click on it. Please have a user name log in and go to my talk page not page I work on. I can read clearly the TOC.Filmman3000 (talk) 17:51, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Fixed the order his projects, where his bio is still incomplete, I now understand with this article has a good article tick

I was a bit taken aback by the fact that many credits in his early career were missing or in the wrong order, and later ones too. But the article is well sourced, well written, and much better than what I could do.

Two elements are missing in his career. In his early commercial commercial career credits are missing like Bubble Yum Gum, Visa, Fred Meyers, and so forth. He's also been in many commercials throughout his career for high profile brands.

His producing credits are completely missing.

Filmman3000 (talk) 00:39, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

As the IP above states, the long section headings are nightmarish to read; I have shortened them. FrB.TG (talk) 12:24, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

I made them and found them forward and clear.Filmman3000 (talk) 16:55, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Met you halfway on headings

This is where we disagree.

His Breakthrough is Romeo and Juliet not Titanic. The Titanic brings him to another crazy level, but the first made him a proper star. I changed the heading to Breakthrough and mainstream success.

I disagree with your trim. gluing The 11th Hour, and Body of Lies is confusing two very different projects and represent different milestones. Just because they came out the same year doesn't mean they belong in the same paragraph.

In the case of Out of the Furnace you took out the whole plot. I don't mind you editing it down it or adding your prose but remove it.

The subheadings, in my opinion are clear and forward. And represent each milestone.Filmman3000 (talk) 17:43, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

FrB.TG I want to thank you for your good faith, I don't think I made myself clear on that. Also we have differences but with decency they will be resolved. The ip address is ::::going after all my headings edits so take him with a grain of salt.

That being said I don't completely disagree. I agree, if possible the shorter always the better. Them being nightmarish to read in the TOC I disagree: they are forward, explain ::::which milestone is going to be dealt with. Below I have an excessive example.

"1991–1995: First film: Critter 3. Major projects: Growing Pains, This Boy's Life, Poison Ivy.... Critical breakthrough: What's Eating Gilbert Grape.. First leading role: The Basketball Diaries.

Is it overlong yes. Nightmarish to read in TOC and unclear... Absolutely not or I don't see it.

Regarding sub-heading I think I made them short, neutral, and forward.

Keep in mind that I have been doing this for months until this guy showed up nobody minded.Filmman3000 (talk) 19:36, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

TOC changes

The information added into the TOC headings was great but the headings themselves were extremely unwieldy and unpleasant to look at. I have reverted them to their previous state. SamB135 ^Talk_Contribs 06:21, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Political party affiliation

This link is from 2012 Ltormey (talk) 11:15, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Gulf of Thailand. Movie: The Beach

The movie “The Beach” was actually filmed in the city of Phuket, Thailand and Phi Phi Leh Island (Phi Phi Islands) in the Andaman Sea (Not the “Gulf of Thailand”) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.9.147.74 (talk) 02:09, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

First-dollar gross

Maybe link "first-dollar gross" to first-dollar gross in § 2010–present: Current works. --77.173.90.33 (talk) 16:25, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

 Done NiciVampireHeart 16:29, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. --77.173.90.33 (talk) 16:34, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

The Crowded Room

Several years ago, it was widely reported that his production company had started working on The Crowded Room, hired writers and all that, and this role was gonna get him Oscar buzz, yet apparently this has never moved forth including a decade of dormancy. Is this even worth inclusion?

References

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Trillfendi (talk • contribs) 23:44, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 May 2019

Please change this sentence: "In April 2017, he promoted and protested President Trump's inaction on climate change by attending the 2017 People's Climate March." I'm guessing the object of the verb "promoted" is "the 2017 People's Climate March", but then the object is too isolated from the verb. I suggest simply deleting the words "promoted and". It is a confusing and clumsy sentence as "promoted" and "protested" are antonyms. Thanks. 80.3.78.196 (talk) 12:08, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

 Done Agreed. NiciVampireHeart 12:14, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Political party

Hello, there is "political party: democratic" in his infobox, but absolutely not a single word about his affiliation with this political party in whole article. Could someone shed more light in this? Perhaps mention his affiliation (if there even is any) somewhere in the article? Petrb (talk) 17:19, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Popularity among teenage girls and women -- Leo-Mania

FrB.TG, regarding this and this, something should be included with regard to the "fan worship among teenage girls and young women in general that became known as 'Leo-Mania'" aspect. Yes, many actors' faces appear on various magazines, but not every actor reaches the level of mania that DiCaprio reached, especially among girls (not just teenage girls) and women. In fact, the vast majority don't. A number of biographies and documentaries on DiCaprio and documentaries on Titanic comment on this aspect. It's why DiCaprio mentions "what [his] face became around the world" and that he will "never reach that state of popularity again, and [he doesn't] expect to. It's not something [he's] going to try to achieve either."

If you reply, I prefer not to be pinged since this article/talk page is on my watchlist. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:15, 8 October 2019 (UTC) Updated post. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:20, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

I re-added this piece with an explanation. The source states, "It was his role in Titanic that confirmed his status as Hollywood's leading heartthrob and ushered in the surreal Beatle-like fan worship that became known as Leo-mania." Like I noted during my edit summary, the craze regarding him really was on that high of a level. It's notable enough that many sources take the time to mention it. During that time and a few years afterward, I remember him being labeled a sex symbol because of just how popular he was among girls and women (and gay men too). Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:33, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

We could further tweak the matter, such as adding a bit more for better context or quoting the source directly. But since so many sources comment on this aspect, using WP:INTEXT might not be the way to go. By this, I mean we don't want it to seem like it's just an exaggerated statement by The Daily Telegraph. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:44, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Fine but can we at least get rid of (replace) "worship" at least. I mean I’m sure the fans didn’t literally worship the actor. It sounds like a hyperbole. FrB.TG (talk) 07:04, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

It really did resemble worship. But I understand your point about hyperbole. Here, you can see that I added this 1999 "Titanic: Anatomy of a Blockbuster" source, from Rutgers University Press, pages 74-83, which goes into the craze and analyzes how DiCaprio's fans felt about being described with terms such as "rabid," "obsessed," and so on. Hyperbole when describing them was par for the course. But some of the hyperbole really was accurate. I changed "fan worship" to "intense adoration," because "adoration" is given as a synonym for "worship" (and it's without the hyperbolic aspect) and because "intense" covers the craze part of it. Just saying "adoration" without "intense" doesn't seem to do the description justice. Even "intense adoration" doesn't encapsulate what that time was really like. So, after that sentence, I'm tempted to add "The Daily Telegraph compared DiCaprio's popularity to the craze surrounding The Beatles in the 1960s." Or "The Daily Telegraph compared DiCaprio's popularity to the popularity of The Beatles in the 1960s." Or "The Daily Telegraph called fans' reactions to DiCaprio 'surreal' and compared them to Beatle-like fan worship." Something like one of those sentences. I don't like that last sentence I listed as an option, though. The academic source has material that can be used for more on the matter, including the fact that (like other sources have noted) DiCaprio wanted to dissociate himself from his teen idol status, and that included dissociating himself from Titanic. Because Titanic was so widely thought of as "a film for teenage girls" since they went to see the film repeatedly and commonly in groups, DiCaprio's acting in it was often overlooked or downplayed and he didn't feel that he got the respect he deserved as an actor. This can happen when films that girls and women love are titled "chick flicks" while films that boys and men love can be viewed as more valid even when they are low in quality or are just bad films. Titanic was obviously critically praised, but has a "for teenage girls" stigma attached to it. Quite unfortunate.

Pinging Betty Logan, who watches and edits the Titanic (1997 film) article with me, and is very familiar with aspects related to the film, in case she feels she can offer any helpful thoughts on this matter. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:45, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes indeed. This biography describes the "Leo-Mania" in a very detailed manner. I’m fine with “intense adoration” although I had “fan craze” in mind but yours is just as fine. FrB.TG (talk) 06:12, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

With this edit, I added The Beatles content after the "I have no connection with me during that whole Titanic phenomenon and what my face became around the world" piece. It reads as "John Hiscock of The Daily Telegraph compared DiCaprio's popularity during that time to the popularity of The Beatles in the 1960s." Seems to flow well there. I then moved the "Bilge Ebiri of Rolling Stone called his performance as Jack his best role" piece after that.

This "Really That Good: TITANIC" review on YouTube, although not a WP:Reliable source, speaks to what I stated above about how men (and companies by extension) treat media that is aimed at girls and women or is simply very popular among girls and women, and how DiCaprio was impacted as a result. The "things that are important to girls and women are trivial or silly" topic starts at 13:50 and the impact this line of thinking had on DiCaprio's career starts at 18:03. The author of the video (moviebob) also notes that, as one of the men having belittled works of art enjoyed by many girls and/or women, he was part of the problem. Really good analysis on these matters. It further convinces me that we should include a little on how the "it's a girl movie" belief impacted DiCaprio's image.

On a side note: A number of sources are clear that Titanic had wide appeal and that it wasn't just teenage girls that drove that film to its box office success, that no film can achieve what it achieved without widely appealing to both sexes. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:29, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

I see that you added a "Reception and acting style" section. A bit of the "teen idol," "girl movie actor" perception can go there. I mean, how he was viewed after Titanic and how he, according to commentators, sought to move away from that. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:48, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

I added this piece. I included the "teen idol" and "romantic lead" aspects because they were both a part of his image, especially after Titanic, and (as the source and other sources note) he wanted to dissociate himself from that. And he did. Like the material you included in the section relays, the source also mentions that DiCaprio shunned the mainstream blockbuster route. The rest of what you included in the section is clear about the image he eventually crafted for himself. Good luck with the FA nomination, although you won't need it because you never do. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:13, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Not sure how I missed your post about the teen idol bit but thanks for adding it. I agree it needed to be mentioned. And thanks for wishing me luck. I definitely need it. FrB.TG (talk) 05:34, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 October 2019

79.43.134.201 (talk) 22:43, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Please change the sentence " In the 2010s, he starred in the science fiction thriller Inception (2010), the western Django Unchained (2012), the biopic The Wolf of Wall Street (2013), the survival drama The Revenant (2015)—for which he earned an Academy Award and a BAFTA Award for Best Actor in a Leading Role—and the comedy-drama Once Upon a Time in Hollywood (2019)."

to:

" In the 2010s, he starred in the neo-noir psychological thriller Shutter Island (2010), the science fiction thriller Inception (2010), the western Django Unchained (2012), the epic romantic drama The Great Gatsby (2013), the biopic The Wolf of Wall Street (2013), the survival drama The Revenant (2015)—for which he earned an Academy Award and a BAFTA Award for Best Actor in a Leading Role—and the comedy-drama Once Upon a Time in Hollywood (2019).

 Done Gaioa (T C L) 08:29, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 October 2019

95.252.160.59 (talk) 13:59, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Please change this sentence: "He achieved international fame as a star in the epic romance Titanic (1997), which became the highest-grossing film to that point."

to:

"He first achieved international fame as a star in the romantic crime drama Romeo + Juliet (1996), and then subsequently in the epic romance Titanic (1997), which became the highest-grossing film to that point.

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. - FlightTime (open channel) 14:27, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 October 2019

82.59.149.109 (talk) 14:04, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Please, change the sentence : "He achieved international fame as a star in the epic romance Titanic (1997), which became the highest-grossing film to that point."

to:

"He played Romeo Montague in the romantic crime drama Romeo + Juliet (1996), which earned him for the first time international recognition. He then achieved worldwide fame as a star in the epic romance Titanic (1997), which became the highest-grossing film to that point."

 Not doneThere are already enough films mentioned in the lead. FrB.TG (talk) 17:04, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 October 2019

79.43.131.3 (talk) 13:39, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Please, change the sentence "He had his first major film role in This Boy's Life, and received acclaim for the supporting role of a developmentally disabled boy in What's Eating Gilbert Grape (both 1993), which earned him an Academy Award nomination."

to this:

" He had his first major film role in This Boy's Life, and received acclaim for the supporting role of a developmentally disabled boy in What's Eating Gilbert Grape (both 1993), which earned him an Academy Award nomination, then he starred in the romantic crime drama Romeo + Juliet (1996). "

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. See also the previous request immediately above this one. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 14:35, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 November 2019

Please change the sentence " In the 2010s, he starred in the science fiction thriller Inception (2010), the western Django Unchained (2012), the biopic The Wolf of Wall Street (2013), the survival drama The Revenant (2015)—for which he earned an Academy Award and a BAFTA Award for Best Actor in a Leading Role—and the comedy-drama Once Upon a Time in Hollywood (2019)."

to:

" In the 2010s, he starred in the neo-noir psychological thriller Shutter Island (2010), the science fiction thriller Inception (2010), the western Django Unchained (2012), the epic romantic drama The Great Gatsby (2013), the biopic The Wolf of Wall Street (2013), the survival drama The Revenant (2015)—for which he earned an Academy Award and a BAFTA Award for Best Actor in a Leading Role—and the comedy-drama Once Upon a Time in Hollywood (2019). 79.13.190.51 (talk) 17:14, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

 Not done. The list is not exhaustive; there's no need to add this one specific extra. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 20:04, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 November 2019

Please change this sentence:

In April 2017, he protested President Trump's inaction on climate change

as follows

In April 2017, he protested against President Trump's inaction on climate change

You can "protest your innocence" (defend your innocence), but you protest against something you disagree with. From Latin protestor, -ari‚ "to testify publicly". Thank you. 31.4.156.78 (talk) 15:47, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

 Done MadGuy7023 (talk) 17:07, 5 November 2019 (UTC)