Talk:Ron Silver/Archives/2013

Date of Death

There is some confusion regarding this. His death was widely reported in the news on March 15, 2009 and the days after. But for some reason, right now (March 8, 2010), evidently the second most-read article on cnn.com is the article regarding his death. However, this article is still dated March 15, 2009. Before the next person edits the date of his death on this article, please provide an accurate source to verify the change. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bunzobunzo (talk • contribs) 07:21, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Former Democrat

Since Ron Silver is not a Democrat, it's incorrect to describe him as a "lifelong Democrat."

Yeah, I tried to fix that by making it "once a lifelong Democrat". Maybe there's still a better to phrase it? Lucky Adrastus 07:03, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I've changed it to "formerly a longtime Democrat". Saying "once a Democrat" is a little vague - it could mean that he was a Democrat for a long time and isn't anymore, or it could mean that he briefly flirted with the Democratic party. Martan 02:02, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, a former long term democrat makes more sense. Once a lifelong democrat doesn't make sense because if he changed he was no longer a lifetime democrat. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdlund (talk • contribs) 20:45, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Heat Vision and Jack

The character Ron Silver plays in "Heat Vision and Jack" is "a very dangerous man - his name is Ron Silver". http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6lWgXDOAJ5s Asat 04:58, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Additions

I have added some info about the actor Ron Silver, about his movie career and mentioned his apperance in Fahrenhype 9/11.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Michellebabe (talk • contribs) 12:15, December 24, 2006

Ostracized?

I have removed the sentence that says "Following his endorsement of president Bush, Silver was ostracized by hollywood..." According to his imdb page, Silver continued to have acting work until his death. Find a citation that says otherwise, please.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Whenelvisdied (talk • contribs) 20:33, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

You actually beat me to the punch. I was actually just about delete it myself. There's actually not a single year that he didn't work. He was never that big of an actor and mostly appeared on television with a movie here and there and very few of them were all that successful. He was probably known more for the political thing as much as he was known for anything other than being Dershowitz in Reversal of Fortune or 'that guy' in slew of TV shows. After his political switch he continued to work in TV and would have movies here and there with a couple that have still yet to come out. His rate of work and the type of work didn't change after his political switch. There is no reason to believe that his political switch caused him to lose jobs. Sure many hollywood actors are liberals but many of the studio heads aren't and there's just no reason to think he'd lose work. There have been far more conservative actors and actresses than him many of whom worked regularly and become successful (Arnold and Mel come to mind quickly). Silver claimed that he hadn't been getting work as much, that he hadn't worked for ten months but even he couldn't point to a single job he lost or was unable to obtain because of politics. Sure maybe some people regarded him different but that doesn't mean he was 'ostracized' or couldn't find a job. Again he did find jobs. Regularly. As regularly as before. It's just baseless speculation to say otherwise. At best someone could put in that he believed that it was harder for him to find work but that there is no evidence that this belief was true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdlund (talk • contribs) 20:43, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

"It's just baseless speculation to say otherwise"?! "there is no evidence that this belief was true"?! And just WHO are you to say that, Jdlund, pray tell? A Hollywood mogul?! An Actors' Guild insider?! Or simply someone whose instinctive, knee-jerk reaction, whenever (s)he hears something seemingly anti-liberal and/or pro-conservative, is to automatically dismiss it as unbelievable or exaggerated?! Are we allowed to quote somebody who knew Ron Silver personally (even if you — probably — don't like that person)?! Will the following citations do?!

"His social standing in Hollywood was revoked the moment he supported Bush and the Iraq War" writes [http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=92155 Ann Coulter] in Silver's Bravery Not an Act. "Ron did lose work, lose friends and lose his entire social apparatus. … Ron sometimes told me of the cruelty directed at him by his former friends, but never with bitterness or for publication."

And: "As with his impending death, Ron mostly joked about his banishment from the plutocracy. When I off-handedly mentioned in December 2004 that I had to get a Christmas tree, he told me he'd like to help, but having recently spoken at the Republican National Convention, the last thing he needed was to be seen walking through the streets of New York carrying a Christmas tree." Asteriks (talk) 20:11, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Whoa, dude, chill. I've given you no reason to attack me so back off and take a deep breath.

A. You don't know me or my politics. No I don't simply react negatively to something because it is 'anti-liberal.' There are many so-called liberal positions, activists, thinkers and ideas to which and to whom I strongly object. There are many people and ideas deemed conservative with which and with whom I agree.

B. Who am I say to say that, as you so eloquently put it? Well I laid out my argument in an articulate manner and since you failed to respond directly to it I'll repeat it. He worked every year from the mid-90s until the end of his life. The kind and rate of work (i.e. a few projects a year, mostly on television with a few movies here and there) did not markedly change from the time he publicly supported George W. Bush and the war in Iraq until his death. IMD can attest to the fact that he did not work less nor did he work on a significantly 'lower level' of projects than he had been. The fact was that Mr. Silver was never a big name actor. He had very few well known roles in movies, mostly Dershowitz in Reversal of Fortune, the bad guy from the relatively unsuccessful Time Cop and the small role as a trainer in Ali. Most of his work was on television and that did not change after becoming a conservative. The actor himself could not point to any role he was denied, any job he lost or any director or producer who in some way snubbed him. He felt people treated him differently but that's it. I am sorry but to say that he lost jobs without direct or circumstantial evidence IS pure speculation based on nothing (i.e. baseless). In case you take issue again look up the word speculation. A statement that relies on no concrete evidence, circumstantial or direct, is speculation.

C. So what you have that supposedly is suppose to put me in my place and just show me what's what is Ann Coulter, World Net Daily and an interview where he jokes about not wanting to be seen with a Christmas tree? Yeah...that's slightly underwhelming 'evidence.' Again Silver himself couldn't actually say hey I didn't get x and I have good reason to think it's because I became a conservative. So Silver joking about it or even seriously talking about it is still not evidence since all he was going on was speculation. He felt that he wasn't getting work because of it. Again I see no reason that his belief was true because he continued to work no differently than before and there are plenty of conservative actors who are successful in Hollywood and plenty of conservative directors and producers who would obviously have no problem hiring conservative actors for their projects. What made him so different other than he wasn't that big of a name even when he was a 'liberal?' And so the best you have beyond his speculation is Coulter and World Net Daily. Well I'm not going to just take Coulter's word for it and since she provides no evidence that pretty much takes care of that. She used the words cruelty from former friends, not him, and she is known for emotionally charged and deliberately exaggerated language meant to incite and provoke, so without concrete anecdotes that really does nothing for your position. The actor himself said that he also couldn't point to a single friend that he'd lost so they couldn't have been all that cruel to him if his friends from before were still his friends after. World Net Daily...ugh...fine call it a legitimate news source but there again they provide nothing concrete, nothing circumstantial or anecdotal, nothing that actually reinforces the view point that he was in some way ostracized or couldn't find work. All you have there is a statement that his social standing was revoked. Well how do we know that? What does that mean? What social standing did he even have? What stories or examples can be provided to to back up the idea that it was revoked? Do you have anything other than banal jabs at liberals or how liberal hollywood is or how all liberals hate all non liberals? Do you have anything more than some sort of vast conspiracy in hollywood to deprive non liberals of work even though several studios are run by hardcore conservatives and there's people like Mel Gibson, Chuck Norris, Arnold S., Ernest Borgnine, Drew Carey, Clint Eastwood, Kurt Russel, John Malkovich, Bruce Willis, Gary Sinise, Tom Selleck, Denzel Washington (I can keep going but hopefully I've made my point) running around with, to varying degrees, work and success, both past and present?

D. There can be any number of reasons why a low to medium level actor who's mostly on television would have a stretch of not finding a job or finding less jobs or less appealing jobs than he had been. For one thing reality TV was on the rise around 2002 onward and less and less scripted shows were being put out per year. He was getting older and it is always more difficult for older actors and actresses to find work than younger ones. But again since none of us knows whether or not he was even considered for any specific project, was turned down for any specific project for which he fit what the producer or director was looking for or even how many projects he auditioned for, all of this is idle speculation based in nothing beyond conjecture. Unless an affirmative point can be established with some kind of evidence it is speculation and it shouldn't just be assumed to be true and it shouldn't be in an encyclopedia story.

Well I've rambled on for long enough. Before criticizing me again read what I have to say and actually try and articulate an argument next time. Okay sport? Can you do that for me? Cause if all you got is random quotes that fail to establish an actual argument beyond baseless speculation that shouldn't be in an encyclopedia or personal attacks, take it elsewhere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdlund (talk • contribs) 07:16, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Quick Note: I again deleted the ostracized comment from the article. The reasons are given in a rather long and detailed fashion above. But to summarize why the specific deletion was done, it was because the only source given is an opinion piece which merely says he was ostracized but does not provide a single example, story, piece of evidence or reason to take this assertion as fact. Coulter says there are stories and examples but he didn't want it published, fine I guess that might be true but this can hardly be said as actually verifying the correctness of a claim for the purposes of a Wikipedia article. For all intents and purposes it remains speculation and if it is worded as being speculation or Silver's personal belief, or what have you, in the article it'll be fine but such a blatantly unverified claim should not be put into an article as fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdlund (talk • contribs) 07:38, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

FYI, the point is less that conservatives can not get work in Hollywood than that they will not — unless they (contrary to shrill liberals like Sean Penn and George Clooney) keep quiet about their beliefs.

That — the necessity for silence (or near silence) about beliefs — is the one thing most of the stars you mention all share in — insofar as they are really conservative (see below) and unless they had some outstanding features that was instrumental in their Hollywood career taking off…

• Chuck Norris and Arnold were celebrated stars in their respective careers — karate and bodybuilding — before they came to Hollywood (or Hollywood came calling for them because of what they alone could offer)!

• Some of the stars you mention are hardly seen as conservative (Denzel Washington?! John Malkovich?!) — Plus, you may not realize this, but there are hardly many conservatives who think that (whatever his reputation — in the past — as a tough guy) the director of Flags of Our Fathers, Million-Dollar Baby, The Bridges of Madison County, or Unforgiven is unabashedly pro-American.

• As for the others, they did not become famous because of their conservatism, but in spite of it — i.e., keeping a low profile (as far as beliefs are concerned or, rather, expressing them publically). Gary Sinise can hardly be seen as having a stellar career, nobody in Los Angeles seems to have done much for Tom Selleck for the past decade or two, and, as for Mel Gibson, as soon as he got vocal about his religion, he was subject to one broadside after another.

Who does that leave? A couple of people who regularly fly over to Iraq to be with the troops, but nobody who makes many a press conference thereabout (or about any of their beliefs).

• Oh yes, there's Bruce Willis! And the project of this, a first-rate star with plenty of clout, for a Longest Day-type film of the battle for Baghdad (showing the soldiers as (fighting) human beings rather than cruel psychopaths or powerless victims) was… turned down…

You write: "The actor himself could not point to any role he was denied, any job he lost or any director or producer who in some way snubbed him." You speak of pure speculation based on nothing but — again — unless you are insider or a Hollywood producer, that's what I am assuming (if you will forgive me) you are doing. Are we to believe that unless Ron Silver spoke — on the record — to a mainstream media journalist, listing one name after another of every film or TV show in which a role previously promised was withdrawn, he was lying?! Is it not you who are guilty of assumptions — assuming that he a liar or a fraud or a monomaniac — the typical liberal charge (which is why I assumed you were one).

• Ron Silver spoke out. And yes, he was ostracized. So I am putting back the sentence — although in honor of your sensitivities, I will change the wording; And I hope — I sincerely hope — that the new version will be agreeable to you — and to all… Asteriks (talk) 14:00, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I rewrote the paragraph to read: Ron Silver 'spoke at the United States 2004 Republican National Convention, continued to support President Bush, and was appointed Chairman for the Millennium Committee by New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani. Silver and friends of his said that following his endorsement of President Bush, he was ostracized by Hollywood, and on his blog on the Pajamas Media website, he wrote that his colleagues on the set of The West Wing would call him "Ron, Ron, the Neo-Con." ' So, with "Silver and friends of his said", we have Hollywood's ostracism not as a(n incontrovertible) fact, but as a he said, they said (which is a(n incontrovertible) fact). I trust this is OK with you? Asteriks (talk) 14:11, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not going to bother with another long rant, cause I just don't care nearly enough to do it again. But I'll break it down once more. I'm not trying to prove anything. I am in favor of not adding something. Yes of course I am only merely speculating about reasons why it is possible that Ron Silver found less work. I am not trying to put anything into an article. I am making a point for why something shouldn't be added. I can't prove a negative. I trust you're smart enough to understand that. I can't prove that he wasn't ostracized or that he didn't lose jobs, all I can merely point to is the fact that he did work and every argument that he lost either friends or work is pure speculation. I also can't prove that JFK wasn't killed by the Canadian government but if someone put that into JFK's article and then I pointed out that they are putting in idle speculation based on nothing would they be justified in responding 'well you're just speculating that he wasn't?' I don't care about conservative or liberal, democrat or republican, libertarian or lesbian midget dominatrix, I don't care. There's a very simple principle here: if you cannot verify a point, if there is no evidence to substantiate a claim, it doesn't get put in. Period. It's not about politics it's about what claims you are justified in making.

Everything else about Hollywood is besides the point. Frankly you are stretching. I gave you a laundry list of conservatives who have work, who have or had success and each one wasn't good enough. Clint, Arnold and Chuck were always conservatives, and no one cared they still got work. Apparently Denzel isn't conservative enough for you despite the fact that he spoke against gay marriage and abortion. Fine you have worked yourself into a tautology whereby everyone who works is either a. not conservative or b. keeps their conservative beliefs to themselves or c. doesn't work that much. Gary Sinise is a fairly accomplished actor in movies, television and on stage but somehow he doesn't work enough for you to consider him. Mel Gibson received problems because he said that Jews cause all the evil in the world, I don't care what beliefs you have, you say some stuff like that you're going to receive flak. It had nothing to do with his religion, just his hatred of another religion. Your arguments are absurd. You just don't like Hollywood. You take a basic assumption (Hollywood is liberal and hates all non liberals) and if anything doesn't fit with that you simply dismiss it. You do exactly what you accused me of to begin with. But none of that matters and I have already typed more than I wanted to. The bottom line is, with this, as with any article, if you want to put something in it, the burden is on you and only you to come up with evidence to support your claim. You did not have evidence to support your claim. The only thing I am going to change in your paragraph this time is to change Hollywood to former friends and colleagues. Hollywood is not a monolithic creature, in fact it is just a town filled with people who, like it or not, have diverse beliefs and moral customs. Seriously, it's not healthy to think in such extreme absolutes, maybe you should consider relaxing some. It's cool, be conservative, just try being a little less wound up and ready to blow. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdlund (talk • contribs) 05:31, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

…"it's not healthy to think in such extreme absolutes" writes Jdlund, with which I suppose I agree. Would you in turn agree that there is hardly anything more absolute than the sentence, "Your arguments are absurd"? (For someone saying, "It's cool … just try being a little less wound up and ready to blow", you sure write very long paragraphs…)

I am just about ready to let this matter drop, but I will point this out: Regarding Clint Eastwood's Flags of Our Fathers, one conservative website points out that the movie remakes American sacrifice and patriotism during WWII into vulgar excess and ignorance while one (prominent) conservative movie reviewer calls it another leftist distortion of our history, adding that Eastwood’s career suggests a pattern of bowing to the left. ("The film spends so much time on the boys’ ruthless handlers, caricatured politicians, cynical businessmen and shallow glad-handers that (if memory serves) it doesn’t even identify the names of all three who didn’t make it, much less make them full characters … This could have been the great American epic of the Second World War. Instead, the 2006 Flags is a post-modernist’s dream – flashback within flashback within flashback – as Eastwood and his writers 'deconstruct' the 'false' reality to give us the 'truth.' And their truth is a morally corrupted, hypocritical, racist, often silly country (with a fabricated scene about the alleged cynical role of President Roosevelt).") And no, Spencer Warren does not simply rave and rant, he uses reasoning and reasonable arguments…

Regarding the sequel, Warren writes: Typical of the reductionism of our more “sophisticated” age, we see only the subjective perspective of individuals, disconnected from the objective moral and historical context. This makes it hard to understand how these average Japanese guys could have murdered 250,000 – 300,000 people, many of them women and children, in their orgy of destruction in Nanking between December 1937 and March 1938. (The right is by no means monolothic either; here, various conservatives debate the amount of liberalism (if any) in Clint's movies…)

My arguments may be absurd, but there isn't much you have said that proves me wrong. You write, "Gary Sinise is a fairly accomplished actor in movies, television and on stage but somehow he doesn't work enough for you to consider him." Is it unfair to say that you write (or wrote): "Ron Silver is a fairly accomplished actor in movies, television and on stage but somehow he does work enough for you to consider all the" evidence to the contrary — his and his friends' own testimony — rubbish? As for Mel Gibson, one commentator (in the know) suggests that the outcry over what was a drunken spiel would hardly have been the never-ending scandal it evolved into, had Mel Gibson not made a film like The Passion of the Christ, but would have been forgiven much more quickly…

How about, say, Denzel Washington? How many times has he come out against gay marriage?! Once? Twice? We hardly see him making speeches against it all over the nation, do we?! (Contrary to the likes of George Clooney, Sean Penn, Susan Sarandon, Jane Fonda, and their outspoken passion for all their beliefs and pet projects…) Or commenting it as an offside during speeches on their latest film, whether related to the social or liberal subject talked about or not.

How many average people in America, in the world are even remotely aware that Denzel Washington holds, or has held, those beliefs?! I sure don't, and I have worked as a mainstream media journalist (I know, I know, it doesn't prove anything, let's not get further into an argument)… By contrast, who doesn't know about George Clooney, Sean Penn, Susan Sarandon, Jane Fonda, et al — all of whom — contrary to Denzel Washington (!) — are noted for political activism in their first or second Wikipedia paragraphs (usually the first couple of sentences)?!

In any case, you (deliberately?) overlooked the main point (which I deliberately left for the end of my previous post). In a film capital where one anti-Iraq war movie after another is made, a major film star could not get a studio to make one single pro- (or neutral) Iraq war movie?!?! As one critic said (shaking his head), Hollywood did recently make a movie honoring the United States Marine Corps, but they had to disguise the fact.

You claim I don't like Hollywood (isn't that "taking a basic assumption"?). No, Jdlund, what I don't like is unfairness; and what I don't like is double standards… (You sound like I am insulting Gary Sinise, and like you are defending his honor, when I am quite deliberately saying he would have more work — the work (and the celebrity) he quite certainly deserves — were Hollywood as pure as you seem to think…)

Indeed, I also happen to have worked in the film industry, and it is hardly unknown that if you espouse anything but leftist, progressive beliefs, you keep it to yourself or you keep as quiet as possible about them, or you may suffer or be asked to publicly renounce or denounce your views or the views of the film you appear in… (I am surprised you would use gay rights as an example when it is hardly unknown known the storm of criticism that bedeviled prominent VIPs or groups — in California, of all places — who did not support Prop. 8.) Witness also an outspoken conservative's having to "renounce" the conservative movie he was in — which is (normally!, i.e., when it is a liberal-leaning film, i.e, the norm) unheard of in the industry. Asteriks (talk) 17:56, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

It should not be lost on the editors participating in this discussion that Wikipedia is not a forum.  Xihr  22:58, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Death

i met this man at the Obama Inauguration and i commented here just after that that he looked very ill when i saw him. that was removed, and now we find that he has died of cancer. maybe it shouldnt have been removed because he was going thru treatments for it. Statesboropow (talk) 22:39, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

No one said that what you were saying was untrue. It's still inappropriate for Wikipedia since it constitutes original research. Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth; you need to find reliable, third-party sources to make such claims about his health. Due to BLP policies, such claims need to be backed up or removed immediately. That is why your personal experiences are not irrelevant, not to mention the fact that you are not a doctor, did not diagnose him with anything, and so your opinion that he "looked very ill" is completely inappropriate for inclusion in an encylcopedia.  Xihr  10:37, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes Ron has passed away, R.I.P. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.171.37.139 (talk) 22:52, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is about verifiability and not truth? isnt one the other? the only reason i added it to the talk page was to maybe spark a source that might have been able to add something about this mans health problems. i didnt include it in the article, just the talk page. Statesboropow (talk) 12:53, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

No, they are not.  Xihr  23:06, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

…"now there is one less person in the world who never chooses his positions to feed a pompous ego or to stroke his self-image as a thinking person" writes [http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=92155 Ann Coulter] in Silver's Bravery Not an Act. Asteriks (talk) 19:55, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Some truths can be difficult or impossible to verify, such as when the subject has cancer and has been diagnosed with it, yet only he, his doctors, and a few people that know the subject well know about it, and they all keep it secret. It is true that for the last two years of Silver's life he had esophageal cancer and knew it. However, prior to his death, no reliable sources published it, hence we can't. For two years his cancer was an unverified truth. Nietzsche 2 (talk) 17:57, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

"They're our planes now"

Gee, where is the story about this famous line, when Ron Silver complained about military aircraft flyover during 1993? --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 19:02, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

PLEASE find the primary source for it...the text of his speech, or interview, or whatever, so that we can indeed include it. That's the only reason I have not, so far. — Kaz (talk) 05:11, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

speech impediment

Ron had a unique articulation -not really a lisp -anyone got any info on it ?--— Tumadoireacht ^Talk/_Stalk 04:50, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Inaccuracy

This article says that in a Sky News interview, Silver called Sarah Palin's nomination a "deal breaker." The link to which this line is footnoted goes to a Sky News interview where he says no such thing, and in fact that he still intended to vote for McCain, thought Palin was a "brilliant" political choice but someone he had "some concerns" about.71.234.44.10 (talk) 00:09, 9 March 2013 (UTC)