Talk:Vivian Kubrick

"her mother is Stanley Kubrick's widow, Christiane Kubrick"

Ahem.. Isn't that obvious? Her mother being married to her father? Maybe write "Her mother is the German actress, dancer, painter and singer ...". What do you think? Thanks Kvsh5 (talk) 10:03, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Not so obvious... Katharina Kubrick was not Stanley Kubrick's daughter as she was Christiane's daughter from a previous marriage. 84.92.158.162 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:31, 22 May 2010 (UTC).

Enormous animal lover

Re this reversion: the reinserted language is ambiguous, colloquial and unencyclopedic. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 14:40, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, I agree 100% that it is somewhat colloquial, & and perhaps therefore not fully encyclopedic. But only ambiguous in a formal sense which was your first court of appeal in your original edit, and still is here.

You can find this phrase employed by:

1) The San Francisco Chronicle's obituary of local doctor Roger Kimball (quoting no one) [1]

2) The New York Times in its obituary of Milton J. Petrie (admittedly quoting his widow)

3) A full length book about pet adoptions "Love Wanted: True Tails (sic) of Love, Loss and Redemption" M. J. Tobin

4) The autobiographical book "Dogs of Proud Spirit" by Melanie Sue Bowles- the co-founder of Proud Spirit Horse Sanctuary. (p. 50)

5) "huge animal lover" appears in the book "Tell Them I Didn't Cry: A Young Journalist's Story of Joy, Loss, and Survival in Iraq" by Jackie Spinner, Jenny Spinner, David Ignatius. The prime author writes for The Washington Post.

6) A real estate ad for a particular Sotheby's real estate agent. [2]

7) The imdb bio for Sylva Kelegian [3]

8) The phrase also appears in a memoir by George W. Bush's speechwriter. Oh, never mind.

I defy you to find a single usage of the phrase "enormous animal lover" anywhere in which it is taken to mean that the person is overweight or that they are devotees of elephants and dinosaurs. In spite of the formal ambiguity of the phrase, everyone knows what it means (from context). IMO, if it's good enough for reporters for the San Francisco Chronicle and the Washington Post, it's at least bordering on acceptable. However, I will change it.--WickerGuy (talk) 18:49, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

An enormous thank you.  :) -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 19:44, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Maybe more should be said about what she has done for animals, as, for someone who has had so many opportunities, she's accomplished almost nothing. 75.48.20.3 (talk) 02:57, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to change that line a bit. Since the article doesn't really talk about her career outside the work with her fathers films, it can give the impression that she "rescues stray animals" as a profession. Personally I don't think it's particularly notable, but I'll let someone else decide that. --173.76.181.37 (talk) 04:59, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

English upbringing

Shouldn't this make more of the fact she was raised in England? She has an English accent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.83.196.246 (talk) 12:16, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Vivian Kubrick. 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/20110215023925/http://www.getalonglittledoggie.net/testimonials02.html to http://www.getalonglittledoggie.net/testimonials02.html

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

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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) 09:49, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Removal of content per WP:BLP

Per the discussion at the Biographies of Living Persons Noticeboard [4], I removed the section of this article sourced to WP:DAILYBEAST, for the reasons outlined in the discussion and per WP:BLP policy. Beccaynr (talk) 23:21, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Scientologist

There is definitely provable evidence that was member of the Church of Scientology, yes some of them are from estranged family members and I understand that is against policy but I can find more concrete evidence that I will add it. Bob3458 (talk) 17:07, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

This issue is also being discussed at Talk:List of Scientologists#Moved from user talk page per WP:TALK (was List of Scientologists), and I think it is best to keep the related discussions in one place. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 17:19, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

WP:OWN

@Beccaynr: You don't get to WP:OWN this article and topic and sit shotgun on it to ensure nothing gets changed that you don't like.

You reverted/removed Bob3458's edit which added content using the edit summary rm per WP:BLPRS , WP:BLPGOSSIP, and WP:BLPREMOVE. This is the same fight you were engaged in over at Talk:List of Scientologists.

The content which you removed was: "She had a falling out with her father during the editing of Eyes Wide Shut and has largely been estranged from her family ever since."

My analysis of your reasons:

• WP:BLPREMOVE - The content was NOT unsourced or poorly sourced. It was sourced by The Guardian, a publication that consensus in the Wikipedia community has decided is generally reliable. See WP:RSP#The Guardian.
• WP:BLPRS - The content was duly attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. It is noteworthy that the daughter of Stanley Kubrick who was heavily involved in his filmmaking became estranged from the family.
• WP:BLPGOSSIP - I fail to see how you could label an interview with Christiane Kubrick (mother to Vivian and widow of Stanley) as gossip on this topic. From The Guardian, "After four decades ... [Christiane] has fallen victim to a series of tragedies. The one involving her daughter Vivian has been a family secret, but now, on the night of the Paths of Glory screening, she says she wants to talk about it." Silent for 4 decades and now speaking out? Hardly gossip... or a gossiper.

You have no basis to remove the content on these grounds.

Noting an earlier discussions in which you fought long and hard to remove content you didn't like about Vivian Kubrick:

• Talk:List of Scientologists#Moved from user talk page per WP:TALK (was List of Scientologists)

and one where you fought hard to keep this article which was on the AfD chopping block.

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vivian Kubrick

The irony is not lost on me that you would add a lengthy paragraph to this article about Stanley Kubrick's treatment of Shelly Duvall (kind of gossipy), which doesn't even mention Vivian Kubrick so it's not relevant content, while fighting to remove this relevant-to-the-topic content.

It's time to stop the WP:OWNBEHAVIOR on this subject. If you still feel strongly about this change and have no other reasons to present here, then perhaps take the question to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard.

Grorp (talk) 04:21, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi Grorp, as you are aware, BLPs are a contentious topic, and per WP:ONUS please do not continue to add this disputed content with the source based on statements from her estranged relative. This does not appear to be an appropriate source per WP:BLP policy, and there was some agreement about this not being an acceptable source in the previous discussion at the Scientology Talk page, after a discussion about how reliable sources can still contain BLP violations [5]. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 04:28, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Also, Grorp, since you previously banned me from your Talk page and I am not sure how else to communicate with you in a low-key way about conduct concerns, I would appreciate it if you would strike what seem to be uncivil and false statements, including 1) that objecting to WP:BLP policy violations is WP:OWN behavior, 2) that I am motivated by "dislike" of certain content, and 3) that I added content that did not mention Vivian Kubrick in the diff you cite (the content includes reviews of her documentary). Thanks again, Beccaynr (talk) 04:40, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

@Beccaynr: I was referring to your addition of this content:

According to Elizabeth Jean Hornbeck, writing in Feminist Studies in 2016, "[Stanley] Kubrick bullied Duvall into a near emotional breakdown, which took a toll on her health", some of which is documented in the film. In 2019, Alice Vincent wrote in The Telegraph that the film confirmed "her father deliberately mistreated Duvall, belittling her ideas and shutting her down while treating her co-star, Jack Nicholson, as an equal." According to Geoffrey Macnab, writing in The Independent in 2020, in the film, "Depending on your point of view, he is either bullying her or using sly, intimidatory tactics to goad the performance he wants out of her." In 2022, the 1981 Razzies award for "Worst Actress" that had been given to Shelley Duvall for her performance in The Shining was rescinded based in part on footage from the documentary that depicts how her father treated Duvall on set.

The source is clearly talking about Stanley Kubrick; though leaving out that first name makes it seem like you meant Vivian Kubrick, because it's in a Wikipedia article about Vivian (same last name). Whether or not the 4 citations are, or contain, a review of VK's work, the content you added into the article (which remains in today's current version) does not mention the reviews or VK's work. Grorp (talk) 05:58, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi Grorp, a couple things - first, there is no need to ping me, because I have this article watchlisted. Second, you seem to be taking that section out of the context of the rest of the article and how the article currently appears [6] - the content is based on reviews of the film, discusses the film and its impact (which is related to what the film shows). This also seems to be off-topic from the content issue, because it is not clear to me how it relates to the content that has been removed based on BLP policy (and fyi, I edited the section heading in an effort to focus on the content, which seems supported by WP:SECTIONHEADINGOWN). Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 06:17, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

References

Discussion re Vivian Kubrick on BLP noticeboard

The discussion is over. Anyone can read it at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive346#Vivian Kubrick. Grorp (talk) 06:05, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Citation links removed, page numbers changed?

Hi Grorp, I am reviewing your recent edits to the citations [7], and trying to understand this. If you could clarify this aspect, that would be appreciated. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 00:19, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

In the order you see them in the diff:

1. Duncan2008 isbn didn't net me any version to use for verification, but I found other isbn and copy on Open Library. So I verified the new page numbers for those 2 refs.
2. Duncan was used a second time, so I combined the two refs. Google books is a very poor source to use. If Open Library has a full and complete copy, then that is the prefered version (|ol= parameter).
3. Changed the link.gale.com to a current npr.org URL.
4. The Wired citation was useless and sat right next to another citation that was useful, so I removed Wired.
5. Hughes, likewise, had an Open Library version so I deleted the google books; reverified page number.
6. Egan didn't need a |url= since it had a |doi=. There's some wiki guideline about that. Same with Hornbeck citation.
7. Could not access Abrams, so could not verify that one.
8. Added quote from Broderick (google books was the only copy I could find).
9. The Los Angeles Times was sufficient to verify content without need for the "photographic diary", so I deleted that one.
10. V Kubrick didn't "publish", she "tweeted". I removed one of the two almost identical stories about VK's tweet (removed Variety in favor of keeping The Independent).
11. Updated the now-deadlinked Spanish "Vincent 2019" source and added a translated passage.
12. Updated "hasford" citation to hide the current version (usurped to something you don't want to click on).
13. Update McEntee since I finally figured out that was a chapter in a book. I wasn't able to access that chapter from googlebooks, however googlebooks is fickle and randomly shows/doesn'tshow content, so I put the URL there anyway. The taylorfrancis.com URL wasn't needed since |doi= is present.

Grorp (talk) 01:34, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

The other content you restored is heavy on the name-dropping, none of which is necessary. See WP:UNDUE and several other WP stuff mentioned on WP:NAMEDROP. I shouldn't have to describe everything in detail to stop you from just reverting it out of hand. You don't OWN this article. After 22K+ edits and 9 years, you should be familiar with most of these policies by now. Grorp (talk) 01:42, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Grorp, per WP:BRD, discussion is encouraged, and your edit summaries did not make it clear to me why you were making various removals, and those removals did not appear constructive, so reverting unexplained removals of what appears to be pertinent content and reliable sources, and asking for clarification about changes to citations is part of the content development process. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 02:03, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Then you won't mind if I make the edit again, and explain it this time. Grorp (talk) 03:57, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Grorp, I object to your removal of reliable sources and pertinent information, so I do mind if you make the edit again. I have tried to explain my objections below and I can try to further explain tomorrow, and would appreciate your patience before you contiue removing reliably-sourced pertinent and encyclopedic information that supports the notability of this subject. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 04:16, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply, and I will try to reply more to this tomorrow, but I think reliable sources and pertinent content should not be removed, including because they help determine weight (and notability) and could be used to help further expand the article. Also, urls to citations help establish that sources actually exist - fake citations are a problem, so urls help verify the source, and lets people who can access the source have direct access to it. It also appears one of the books was replaced with an earlier edition. And I adapted the "publish"/tweet edit to reflect the sources, and restore the removed source (Variety) that identified it being published on Twitter - the Independent identified it as an 'open letter', and the source identifying where it was published had been removed without explanation. And there are ways to use GBooks that can verify the content.

And as we have discussed previously, I would otherwise address conduct concerns with you on your Talk page, but you have banned me from opening low-key discussions there, so I continue to ask you here to please stop personalizing discussions with me, and please focus on the content. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 01:45, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

There will be no private side discussions about this article on a user talk page and the page-ban stands; you tried to start a content discussion/dispute about Vivian Kubrick on my user talk page and persisted posting there despite me sending that discussion over to the article talk page. It got ugly, and I won't tolerate a repeat. No, Beccaynr, all discussion with you about Vivian Kubrick is staying right out in public.

Per WP:Verifiability (read first sentence), the purpose of citations is not for determining weight, the purpose is for verifying content in a Wikipedia article. Once there is a verifiable source, duplicate sources are redundant.

If you prefer Variety over Independent, fine. Pick one; use one.

See WP:CITEBOMB. For example, you have three citations to support Abigail Mead and three to support composed music for Full Metal Jacket -- overlapping two sets of three makes for 4 citations. If I read them closely I would probably find that two would suffice, or maybe even one.

I found a lot of overlap of sources, often saying the same thing. When I find 50% more words in the citation section (750) than I find in the article itself (500, not counting table), something is very unbalanced. See WP:REPCITE.

Early or late version of a book is irrelevant if the point is "verification" and the content exists in the earlier version. Wikipedia is not some selling point for books or authors.

If you know a trick on how to always see all content in googlebooks, please let me know. Read WP:Google Books and Wikipedia to understand why I move away from google books whenever I can -- in favor of full versions available on Open Library. And ISBN links can lead any reader to google books if they prefer it. You will notice ISBN links are internal to Wikipedia and offer all manner of target websites. The OL link is an external link (like |url= is) and goes straight to the Open Library page for the book. I usually only use those if there is a "borrow" version available to read.

Grorp (talk) 03:57, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Grorp, user Talk pages are used to discuss conduct concerns, and with you telling me that I am banned from your user Talk page after my attempts to discuss conduct concerns with you, but also continuing to engage in conduct that does not seem appropriate to discuss on an article Talk page, I am expressing concern over the lack of a low-key forum to discuss these issues with you, particularly after asking you several times to e.g. focus on the content. And as I have noted above, I will try to further explain tomorrow why I think the reliable sources should remain in the article, as well as why the content appears pertinent and encyclopedic, etc, and I appreciate your patience. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 04:22, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Reliable sources and pertinent content

This is an attempt to organize topics so it is easier to have a constructive discussion. I will plan on adding further comments when I can. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 20:36, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Wired source

[8] - As support for the article content At age 17, Kubrick directed and filmed a 35-minute documentary for the BBC, The Making of The Shining, I restored Brownlee, John (June 7, 2007). "Vivian Kubrick's The Making of the Shining". Wired. Retrieved 14 June 2022. The other source for this content that had been retained [9] is Garrison, Gary (May 6, 2016). "Watch: 35-Minute Documentary By Vivian Kubrick Captures The Making Of 'The Shining'". The Playlist. Retrieved 11 June 2022.. The Wired source, although brief, is a capsule review from an independent and reliable source offering secondary commentary and context about the film. From my view, it is also nontrivial support for the WP:BASIC notability of the subject of the article that further supports retaining the cite. The Playlist appears to be an established website focused on film and television, and its post offers more general background context as well as brief commentary about the film. From my view, while this is not as strong support for notability, it seems to be a potentially useful source for readers. Beccaynr (talk) 20:36, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Variety source

[10] - As support for slightly-edited content In 2016, Kubrick published an open letter on Twitter denying the conspiracy theory that suggests her father helped fake the Apollo 11 moon landing, referring to the allegation as a "grotesque lie.", I restored McClendon, Lamarco (July 6, 2016). "Stanley Kubrick's Daughter Addresses Moon Landing Conspiracy Theory". Variety. Retrieved 12 June 2022.. During the edit with the summary "clean up all the citations" [11], the content of the original sentence "In 2016, Kubrick published an open letter..." was changed to "In 2016, Kubrick Tweeted an open letter...". The remaining source to support the content after the Variety source was removed is Stolworthy, Jacob (July 6, 2016). "Stanley Kubrick's daughter debunks moon landing conspiracy theory". The Independent. Retrieved 12 June 2022. The Independent publishes the text of the letter but does not mention it being published on Twitter. Variety reports the letter was posted to Twitter, and provides some background about Vivian and her involvement. Together, these two sources appear to support the inclusion of this content as WP:DUE, and offer readers pertinent detail and context, so from my view, both should be retained. Beccaynr (talk) 20:36, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

CNN source

In the "clean up all the citations" edit [12], the citation supporting the sentence In 1986, she shot footage for a documentary on the making of the film, but it was not completed. was removed: "A photographic diary of 'Full Metal Jacket'". CNN. February 9, 2016. Retrieved 11 June 2022.. This source includes a photo of Vivian (at 4 of 18) shooting footage, and "Kubrick during filming in summer 1986. "Stanley is amused and a bit embarrassed that Vivian Kubrick and I are both capturing his image at the same time," Modine said. "Vivian is filming him for what would become an uncompleted documentary about her father and the making of the film."" This is a reliable source for content that is further supported by the retained Filmmaker source in the next sentence that also supports other content [13], but the CNN source is also support for the WP:DUE weight of this content, as well as WP:BASIC notability, and offers readers pertinent detail and context, so I plan to restore this citation. Beccaynr (talk) 00:30, 25 March 2023 (UTC) The CNN source is also the only reference for the date, so I restored it to the article. Beccaynr (talk) 01:28, 30 March 2023 (UTC)