Talk:Steven Soderbergh

Good Article self-assessment post

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Hello all! I'd like to get this article to Good Article status. There are some issues with citations and formatting I can see off the bat. I've opened up this post to be a project page for a self-assessment of what a GA article needs. See: Wikipedia:Good article criteria. I'll begin work and slowly move it over to the main, live article. Feel free to message me here @LivinRealGüd or on my talk. LivinRealGüd (talk) 23:56, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

 Done. Alright, I've done what I can in my GA self-assessment, if anyone wants to take on a full GA review please see: Wikipedia:Good article nominations. LivinRealGüd (talk) 09:56, 20 April 2018 (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.

Soderbergh's second child

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Multiple reputable news sources have stated that Soderbergh fathered a child with an Australian woman. The child's mother filed a paternity lawsuit in February 2011 in New York state. The case settled with an undisclosed child support award. The fact that he has a love child is not a secret. It is supported by numerous reputable sources, including Soderbergh's own lawyers in the paternity suit, who stated that he "has acknowledged that he is the father of the child verbally and by offering to pay various medical and other expenses incurred ... in relation to the pregnancy." This is not gossip. It is fact. And it belongs on his biography. [1] [2] [3] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zeldathequark (talk • contribs)

• LivinRealGüd, I don't see a good reason to keep this out, though the tabloid sources should of course not be used. Zeldathequark, one more insult or accusation from you and I will block you. Drmies (talk) 02:02, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Yo, Drmies. I think the inclusion of this info is totally acceptable its just that whatever this new user is doing is out of my world. I'm just trying to go on with my goin' on and this user came out of left field with all of this. LivinRealGüd (talk) 02:03, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

And Zeldathequark, NO NAMES. I've redacted your comments. Be mindful of the WP:BLP and of people's privacy. (LivinRealGud, thanks.) Drmies (talk) 02:05, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

LivinRealGüd, if you think inclusion of this fact is acceptable, why did you revert to delete it no fewer than a dozen times? Could you please explain your strategy there? Especially since I politely referenced sources for my edits multiple times before things escalated. You also repeatedly deleted my discussion on the issue on the article's talk page. Why? Anyway, as long as the fact that he has a love child is in (and it is supported by other sources), I am fine with leaving out names. But the idea that a director should have his personal life edited to look like a Victorian nun's is not what Wikipedia is about.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Zeldathequark (talk • contribs) 02:07, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Bro, I'm trying to take this article to Good Article status. People reviewing GA articles do not mess around. If you want to jump from talk page to talk page and hurl insults, allegations, and violate BLP thats on you. If he has a second child with whoever, thats cool it just needs to be supported by reliable sources, in line with WP:BLP, and in accordance to Wikipedia:Core content policies. I'm really trying to assume good faith here. LivinRealGüd (talk) 02:12, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

The biggest threat to Wikipedia in the future is not the lack of "GA articles", but paid editing. See, The Atlantic quoting Jimbo Wales on it [4]. It is widely known that a celeb's wiki page may be the first introduction that the public has to their background. So celebrity publicists have a huge incentive to delete any salacious or bad details about their clients. When you repeatedly, without citing a single contradictory source, deleted my reference to Soderbergh's love child, is it not rational for me to assume that there may be some nefarious intent? We must all be on guard. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zeldathequark (talk • contribs) 02:18, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

• Yes, that's not necessarily rational. Now stop. Drmies (talk) 02:18, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

@Zeldathequark, I'm not supposed to cite contradictory sources for anything. I detailed 3 to 4 Wikipedia policies regarding the inclusion of such information. Drmies, would you mind rv'ing the sentence about his second love child until we investigate and find better sources? I don't want to edit war its inclusion anymore. The sources listed by Zeldathequark are things like The Daily Mail and eNews, I'd like something more substantial. When I do a quick search of this it seem as though those are the best sources available online. LivinRealGüd (talk) 02:41, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

New York Daily News is a reputable site. According to Wiki, it is the ninth-most widely circulated daily in America. They reported on the paternity suit and conception. [5] Zeldathequark (talk) 04:29, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Hm. Well sure this is the highest quality source you've got but still a) its the 9th highest in circulation because its based in the largest city in the U.S., b) circulation does not equate reliability or quality c) it is mentioned in the gossip section which is... concerning d) that source says: "The suit seeks to have Soderbergh be legally declared the child's father and to have him pay health insurance and child support." How does that tie into what what you're saying? LivinRealGüd (talk) 04:38, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi LivinRealGüd(talk). Not sure if you suffer from amnesia or something, but if you recall, a moderator recently settled this debate. The fact of Steven Soderbergh's love child stays in. If you have a problem with that, either show convincing evidence that he does NOT have a love child, or take it up with the mod. Don't try to slyly revert the page because I'm monitoring it, and sooner or later, you WILL be banned for violating Wiki policy. Have a nice day vandalizing the Jeff Bezos page, too, judging from your history. Zeldathequark (talk) 02:41, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Hey now, don't bring my baby Jeff Bezos into this. What did the Big Bezos ever do to you? Hm. I might suffer from amnesia... but then again I might not remember. I think Drmies told you what needs to happen for this info to go on the article. LivinRealGüd (talk) 04:54, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

• I've added it with a source from the Evening Standard. This shouldn't have been difficult... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 05:47, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Okay, so we're starting to go in the right direction here. The wording is spot on. I'm going to check out the new reference now.

This is what I'm looking at from WP:BLPSOURCE:

...adding that contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion. This applies whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable, and whether it is in a biography or in some other article. Material should not be added to an article when the only sourcing is tabloid journalism. When material is both verifiable and noteworthy, it will have appeared in more reliable sources...

I just quickly glanced on the Wiki article for the London Evening Standard: "is a local, free daily newspaper, published Monday to Friday in tabloid format in London." Am I missing something? Biographies of living people have extra, special rules and guidelines when it comes to sources. This seems like WP:GRAPEVINE to me. LivinRealGüd (talk) 06:38, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

You keep shifting the goalposts, LRG. "Tabloid format" means nothing, certainly not in the UK -- the Guardian's print edition is now published in "tabloid format". If you think there's a problem with the Evening Standard, you can give that one a go at WP:RSN. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:01, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

@Nomoskedasticity, I don't mean to shift any goal posts, I just want to make sure this is done right. I'm all for the inclusion of this information but the sources seem really, really lackluster. If you do a quick search of this topic you get things from "www.celebitchy.com", "eonline", and "www.nydailynews.com" etc. with titles like "Steven Soderbergh's paternity drama is sketchy as hell" and "Lawsuit: Director Soderbergh is my baby's daddy". Do you see where I'm coming from here? Thats specific article cited is just regurgitating an article from Sydney's The Daily Telegraph. Its article on Wikipedia certainly doesn't do it any favors. LivinRealGüd (talk) 07:07, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

I also agree this should go in. We can't use the Daily Mail, or mention claims in a lawsuit, but we have sources that say he is the father, and that the paternity has been proven. I see no problem with mentioning that he has a child. I previously removed the child's name, but simply mentioning the child is not a problem. Multiple editors have now supported including this besides Zeldathequark (me, Nomoskedasticity and user:Drmies) The only response so far at BLPN is from user:power~enwiki , who was only making the point that "love child" was not acceptable wording. Meters (talk) 07:18, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

You're stretching the editor consensus here, Meters. But either way, I'm in agreement. All I am saying is that it should be worded carefully and comply with WP:BLP and WP:WELLKNOWN. LivinRealGüd (talk) 07:25, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

How am I stretching anything? Nomoskedasticity added a neutrally worded version of the material and has suggested that you take the Evening Standard source to RSN if you wan to question it. Dmries said I don't see a good reason to keep this out, though the tabloid sources should of course not be used. And now you have said, for the second time that you agree that this should go in. So we're all in agreement. A neutrally worded version with a reliable source is acceptable. Meters (talk) 07:35, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

I have re-instated Nomoskedasticity's edit to the live article per new found editor consensus. Meters, the problem was finding neutral wording and a reliable source. It was always considered acceptable for inclusion. The problem here was that a single purpose editor pulled together awful sources with biased wording in order to give something undue weight. If indeed the Evening Standard is reliable, then I'm okay with its inclusion. And so it has been included. LivinRealGüd (talk) 07:43, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Haven't looked yet but I assume you took "love child" out, right? That's an unacceptable term, I agree, because that idiom has been pretty much done away with. What's love got to do with it--once we learn all the facts for all the love children we may have to coin terms like "one-night stand child" and "rape child" "the dude claimed it was love and he was going to leave his wife child" and whatnot. Thank you all, Drmies (talk) 16:46, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

No worries. Short, neutral, and referenced. No mention of love children or affairs. After this talk page discussion, and raising it at WP:DRN and WP:BLPN let's hope the SPA Zelda is satisfied. Meters (talk) 18:25, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Short and neutral works for me. I'm not 100% happy as I believe that Wikireaders have the right to know about the affair. Soderbergh was married -- albeit separated -- at the time of conception, which is most people's opinion means he had an affair. But for the sake of moving on, short and neutral is good enough. I hope that LivinRealGüd takes note that there are multiple editors supporting my side, and none supporting hers/his. If he/she tries to revert these edits again in a few months, years, whenever -- like what happened last time -- I'm going to catch it and there won't be second chances.Zeldathequark (talk) 03:21, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

None of us knows what "most people's opinion" is about anything, but fortunately we don't have to worry about that, because it's not something Wikipedia is concerned with. The relevant facts are in the article now, and any individual moral interpretation has to be entirely on the part of the reader, not implied by anything Wikipedia writes. (In other words, no, we don't care if he had an affair, and adding any such details would be unacceptable per WP:BLP as I interpret it.) --bonadea contributions talk 13:58, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Zeldathequark, I want to make sure you understand what just happened. You introduced an edit that was unacceptable. I reverted it accordingly. You began to edit war and Dmries set you straight. You brought it to the talk page. Dmries and I agreed that it was acceptable for inclusion with the right sources. You began to edit war once more. After Dmries threatened to block you, you left for a while. You came back with nothing. Nomoskedasticity stepped in, found a proper source, we debated its parameters and found that it was okay. I added a sentence written by Nomoskedasticity onto the article. Thats what just happened, nothing else. Stop threatening to 'catch' people, you're not Dora the Explorer. I don't know what "there won't be second chances" means, but it better not be a personal attack. As I have said before, that type of behavior will get you blocked from editing. If you want to be more productive go edit something other than this ultra specific portion on Soderbergh's article. Happy editing. LivinRealGüd (talk) 23:03, 8 May 2018 (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.

Copying a lot from Nolan's bio

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Good work on the article, but there is a lot of copying from the Christopher Nolan biography... Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia: "It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to make a note in an edit summary at the source page as well. Content reusers should also consider leaving notes at the talk pages of both source and destination." Sammyjankis88 (talk) 08:43, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Hey there, Sammyjankis88! You (among a select few others) were certainly an inspiration for this article. I saw your great work and decided to use similar formatting here. However, I believe the policy you're citing is for copying specific text from other articles. I wrote most of this article and copied little to no text from Christopher Nolan. Are you referring to the similar formatting between the articles? I believe that is okay and not requiring attribution. What do you mean, specifically, "there is a lot of copying from the Christopher Nolan biography"? If you need me to attribute something, thats not a problem at all; just let me know what I need to attribute and consider it done. LivinRealGüd (talk) 02:08, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Update: Okay so I made this:

I could put that on Steven Soderbergh's talk page and that of Nolan's and/or I could leave an edit history with attribution. Let me know what would be best. LivinRealGüd (talk) 02:46, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Oh, make no mistake, I salute your effort here. Soderbergh deserved a high-quality article, so the world is better for it. I should have been more specific; my reason for posting was not to demand credit, this is Wikipedia after all, it's just that it would have been nice with a heads-up. Not seeking attribution, although I can see that my post suggest so. Obviously you're not obliged to reach out, but I think it's always worth doing so. All the best! Sammyjankis88 (talk) 09:33, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Sounds great, happy editing! LivinRealGüd (talk) 16:17, 31 May 2018 (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.

French New Wave?

I noticed in the infobox that it lists french new wave along with independent cinema as one of his associated movements. While I don't dispute independent cinema and one critic mentioned on the page mentions his technique seems influenced by the french new wave, I don't think it is appropriate to list french new wave on the box. Afterall, he isn't french and his films are produced in America. Plus he started his career long after the french new wave movement died down. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darkchiefy (talk • contribs) 00:31, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Behinds the candelabre

Je ne sais pas comment faire mais dans la filmographie il faudrait rajouter ce film sorti en 2013 (en français Ma vie avec Liberace) qui ne figure pas alors que c'est un de ses meilleurs film.

[I don't know how to do it but in the filmography we should add this film released in 2013 (in French My life with Liberace) which does not appear even though it is one of his best films.]

Merci 2A01:CB00:8145:4C00:91BC:8D4A:4F76:11FA (talk) 00:19, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, I have no idea why that wasn't in there. I had to look for the English title; it's Behind the Candelabra, and I found it in Steven Soderbergh filmography. Drmies (talk) 00:25, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Je viens de me rendre compte en retournant sur la page que c'était la version anglaise. La traduction est tellement rapide que ce n'est pas évident. Il n'y plus de page française et anglaise distinctes pour la même personne comme avant?

[I just realized on returning to the page that it was the English version. The translation is so fast that it is not obvious. There are no longer separate French and English pages for the same person as before?]

2A01:CB00:8145:4C00:ECFD:FF06:D2FB:8DCE (talk) 23:10, 27 August 2022 (UTC)