Talk:Stanley Kubrick

lede photo

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.

---

.

Hey everyone, I would like to propose that we swap the lede image for either of these two that are already in the article body. I understand there has been dispute regarding the current photo in the past, but there were no free/fair use replacements back then.

However, both of these other pictures are in public domain, and Photo 2 is in Commons. Honestly they just seem to better illustrate the article. Most people don't associate the Kubrick persona with his younger self. Those two other pictures are of Kubrick in his prime, so they might be good candidates. Opinions? Intothenight1987 (talk) 00:59, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

• Current lede photo
  Current lede photo
• Photo 1
  Photo 1
• 
  Photo 2

• Support Photo 1 and 2 are much better than the current. Of the two, I personally prefer Photo 1, as it portrays Kubrick in his prime. The current image misses out on Kubrick's full life of 71 years. Further, the current photo is awkward and the fact that it is staged does not make it suitable for the lead image. ~ HAL333 22:54, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose - There is nothing wrong with what is currently there. This is simply more fetishising over the someone wanting to own the top right hand corner of the article. Isn't it odd that the requesting party is a five month old account with only two edits to their name, this being the second. Cassianto^Talk 23:29, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

noise reduction

It must be a conspiracy then. Maybe the fact that the first edit was on 9-11 is a hint. Is it George Bush’s? ~ HAL333 00:51, 5 March 2020 (UTC) Or maybe it was you? You can't seem to let this article go. CassiantoTalk 16:48, 5 March 2020 (UTC) I need to let it go? You're the one with a grudge, who is hostile, and spams my talkpage. I don't appreciate the entirely false accusation that this is a sock-puppet. Go ahead and geolocate the two accounts. If I wanted to begin a discussion on this topic, I would have. Believe me. ~ HAL333 22:19, 5 March 2020 (UTC) "Spams [your] talk page", what on Earth are you going on about? With what? Diff? CassiantoTalk 06:04, 6 March 2020 (UTC) Cassianto, I'd also like to express my distaste for the constant assumption of sockpupettry from yourself and others towards each new editor that arrives here and starts complaining or proposing something. Have you considered that maybe people actually think the lede of the article looks like an unformatted mess with a poorly representative photo? — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)(click me!) 22:39, 5 March 2020 (UTC) Oh well, never mind. By the way, who's the "new account"? CassiantoTalk 05:59, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose The current lead image is engaging and good quality. Johnuniq (talk) 23:36, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support The current image doesn't represent Kubrick when he was most active, even if it is a nice quality image (he is largely unrecognizable, even to those who are familiar with Kubrick's life). Copyright issues unfortunately preclude the usage of most of the best images out there of him, but I would prefer an image that represents what he looked like in his middle years or later years (This is generally what is done with the lede photograph on biographies). I'm happy with either of 1 or 2, though 1 is probably a better representation of him (with his iconic beard), 2 seems to be of markedly better quality. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 01:46, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
  • "Iconic beard"? Who gives a monkeys about his facial hair? Marylin Monroe was known for that photo, but on her WP entry, there is nothing of the sort. Please don't treat our readers as if they are thick. They are perfectly aware, and have the required amount of intelligence to work out for themselves, that the first picture on the Stanley Kubrick article is of Stanley Kubrick. If they want to see him with a beard, they can scroll down to see one. Cassianto^Talk 07:01, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
    • • Cassianto I’m glad you brought up the example of Marilyn Monroe. Note that the image is of her in her prime, with blonde hair, not a photo when she was an amateur 21 year old actor with brown hair. Lede photos should generally be from the peak of their career, or at least when they were fairly notable. Another example would be Frank Sinatra, whose lede image is from 1957, around the middle of his career (versus the available photos of him as a 20 or 70 year old). ~ HAL333 20:27, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
        • Bore off. You're incredibly tedious. Cassianto^Talk 20:41, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

noise reduction

@Cassianto: Please stay civil. Especially to those providing valid arguments. - Thatstinkyguy (talk) 00:18, 14 March 2020 (UTC) Troll. CassiantoTalk 05:36, 14 March 2020 (UTC) @Cassianto: Don't just write someone off like that just because they have a differing opinion. If you want to keep up with that attitude, I have no problem with reporting to ANI for impolite and insulting behavior from you. - Thatstinkyguy (talk) 10:22, 14 March 2020 (UTC) Cassianto, Who cares? I do... I thought that was obvious from my comment. The fact that people who would otherwise recognise Kubrick have to work out that the photo of Kubrick is actually a photo of him from context is a bug, not a feature. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)(click me!) 19:33, 4 March 2020 (UTC) What on earth are you droning on about? What's to work out? It's a picture of Kubrick. Who would anyone visiting Kubrick think it would be? Barbara Cartland? Look at the caption if you're particularly confused to see a man with a camera (kind of his job, right?) staring back at you. People who are visiting Kubrick's page are going there to read about bloody Kubrick, they are not going there to learn about the history of the Sinclair C5, are they? Stop treating our readers as imbeciles. CassiantoTalk 20:44, 4 March 2020 (UTC) Cassianto, I think my first comment speaks for itself to be honest. I'll agree to disagree. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)(click me!) 21:29, 4 March 2020 (UTC) It certainly does. Absolute drivel. CassiantoTalk 18:10, 6 March 2020 (UTC) Cassianto, are you really just trying to provoke other editors with this BS... honestly. Grow up. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)(click me!) 18:42, 6 March 2020 (UTC) Did you not say "my first comment speaks for itself"? CassiantoTalk 19:04, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose They're just not as good quality. If we had a quality colour one of an older Kubrick I might support it but they look horrible. Kubrick looks like he borrowed Rylan Clark's beard dye in the second one and Kubrick looks like he spent an entire year eating pies on the other.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:54, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose The current one is just fine. Unfortunately, it appears that Kubrick wasn't very photogenic (at least as far as free content goes), so my reasoning is similar to Dr. Blofeld's. Jip Orlando (talk) 14:20, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
• Comment I think that the image found here and here is the best public domain image that we have. It's not on commons though, despite two sources that say it is public domain, because Getty images got their grubby hands on a high quality version from an old archive somewhere and started selling it online and claiming the copyright. It's a publicity photo released in 1975 by Warner Bros of him filming Barry Lyndon. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 00:57, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Well, that stinks! I wonder if there's a way to still get it to Commons, and prove that it's public domain. If so, a cropped version of that should be the lede photo for sure!

Thatstinkyguy (talk) 23:44, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose - as the current image is the best quality. PS - If someone can come forward with a quality image of Kubrick in his directing prime? that would be cool. GoodDay (talk) 05:07, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Note: Kinda odd, that the proposer has only ever made 2 edits on Wikipedia, one of which is opening up this Rfc. GoodDay (talk) 15:00, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

...and nothing since, either. Better not say anything, otherwise it'll start snowing. ;) Cassianto^Talk 18:14, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Giggle, giggle. GoodDay (talk) 18:29, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

• Support, particularly photo 1. In the popular imagination, Kubrick is best known for his appearance when he was older and had a beard. Google does it right. If you search for Stanley Kubrick right now, it makes photo 1 the prominent one. Vadder (talk) 16:06, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

• Comment Only as a comment overall to think about: Kubrick was not as visible a person to the public as some directors today like Steven Spielberg, James Cameron, or Quentin Tarantino. Whereas in the case of those three (or similar) there are leading photos that I would expect to be used to match the common we have generally seen them int he public (in which case we might put the recognition over quality if it came to that), Kubrick's face is far less recognizable to the general public, and this would be a case that I think one can argue quality over recognition would be better (particularly when coupled with the reasons no infobox is used here). Yes, I would think the best recognized image if we could would be of a bearded Kubrck but more full on (eg the lede image on this article [1]), but right now, we don't have anything free that works like that. --Masem (t) 19:33, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

  That is a good image, Masem, and if it were free then I would be supporting it. Cassianto^Talk 19:38, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

• Support He is primarily known as a filmmaker so the lede photo should be from his days as a filmmaker. The quality of photos 1 and 2 are not so much worse than that of the current lede photo to override this principle.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 20:06, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support for either photos 1 or 2. They both showcase Kubrick in his prime as a filmmaker.
  - Thatstinkyguy (talk) 22:36, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per Masem. Back on this topic again? - SchroCat (talk) 06:40, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support I immediately recognized the guy in photo 1 with the beard, but wouldn't have recognized who the other pictures are of. You the man(converse) 20:26, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

• Comment - interesting to note that the instigator of this RfC has, since posting this time sink, done absolutely nothing, this being the second of only two edits. Still, no sock puppetry going on here, guv! Cassianto^Talk 11:44, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Yet more noise reduction. Thatstinkyguy, if you can't do anything but shit stir, then don't post at all. You are dramah mongering here, nothing more.

@Cassianto: It is extremely weird that the one who posted this discussion, Intothenight1987, has only made two edits in total and none ever since. I figured since they started this, they would've weighed in again, but I guess not. Thing is though (whoever they are) and agree with it or not, they did bring up a solid argument. In case you were wondering Cassianto, this user (Intothenight1987) is not me. I'm saying that in case you wanted to throw an accusation my way. - Thatstinkyguy (talk) 11:59, 14 March 2020 (UTC) Fascinating. You're ever so twitchy, aren't you. But I'm glad you've thrown me off the scent by saying it's not you. I appreciate that. CassiantoTalk 15:30, 14 March 2020 (UTC) @Cassianto: Not twitchy. I'm just making myself clear. - Thatstinkyguy (talk) 15:41, 14 March 2020 (UTC) Clear as mud. CassiantoTalk 16:06, 14 March 2020 (UTC) Do you really want me to report you to ANI, @Cassianto:? Your type behavior may have gotten you places before, but it is NOT going to work with me. Now, are you going to be civil to everyone here, or are you gonna keep insulting everyone with a different opinion than you? Paraphrasing what Bill Foster from Falling Down said, "In America [and on Wikipedia/the internet], we have the freedom of speech. The right to disagree." - Thatstinkyguy (talk) 16:31, 14 March 2020 (UTC) Paraphrasing what Harry Callahan said in Sudden Impact, "Go ahead, make my day". What makes you think I give a monkey's toss about ANI? CassiantoTalk 19:02, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

ANI is at best a bad joke. Don't expect them to do anything worthwhile that lasts. 2600:1003:B84A:2C3B:F9C2:4730:3D10:60FE (talk) 21:04, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose - Mostly per Dr. Blofeld. Although "Photo 1" is from the period of his greater success, it's an inferior quality image. The current lede photo is much more aesthetically pleasing, conveys more meaning, and is frontally focused. The background and foreground are weirdly blended in photo 1, which strains my eyes (I can't look at it for more than a few moments before my eyes start trying to goddamn autofocus like a cheap digital camera switching between fore and back). And what is up with that hand in the bottom right hand corner? Mr rnddude (talk) 20:28, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

What meaning does the current photo convey to you that the others do not? After looking again, I agree photo 1 is lower quality.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 20:42, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

In the other two photos he's just looking at someone addressing him. In the current photo, although in reality he's just taking a photo of himself, he's successfully created the illusion that he's doing something more meaningful, as if he's at work on a photoshoot (which makes sense he was a photgrapher during this time). Mr rnddude (talk) 20:57, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

I can understand that, but I feel that it is misleading to have the lede image of Kubrick depicting him as a photographer. Imagine if AOC’s lede image were of her as a bartender or if Ronald Reagan's were of him as a lifeguard. A minor career shouldn’t dominate the article in a lede photo. Kubrick simply wasn’t notable as a photographer. ~ HAL333 21:57, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose as per Cass and per the previous RFC which was only 3 months ago!, The only thing I would support is the OP being indeffed from the project. –Davey2010^Talk 21:09, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support. It makes a hell of a lot more sense for the lead photo to show who he was during his career, not his youth. Songwaters (talk) 22:07, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

• He was Stanley Kubrick. Who did you think he was? Cassianto^Talk 22:50, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

• Support. Specifically I'm in favor for Photo 1. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 10:02, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
• Comment About a week ago I sent an email (found here) to Kubrick's widow asking if she might share a quality image of Stanley. I have not yet received a reply. It was worth the try. ~ HAL333 20:54, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose I came here thinking about closing the discussion, but found myself forming an opinion as I read through the comments and evaluated the pictures, so thought I'd better !vote rather than close it. MOS:IRELEV indicates that there are two factors we should consider here - the quality of the image, and how well it illustrates the subject. There seems to be universal agreement that the current photo is the highest quality picture - the other two are fuzzy, mottled and basically pretty poor. All three of the images indisputably illustrate the subject, so we come down to weighing which aspects are the most important to consider. The current image shows his full face, and he is also shown holding a camera, which is relevant given the nature of his career; it is however from earlier in his career than the reader might expect. Photo 1 is almost in profile, which to my mind is not such a good way to illustrate him; it is from later in his career, which is a plus point, and he has a beard in it which is apparently a good thing from comments above. Photo 2 is also later in his career, and shows more of his face than Photo 2; however, he is clean-shaven, and the blurry white thing in the foreground is somewhat distracting. On balance then, I think that there are pros and cons to each of the images in terms of how the subject is presented, so I come back to image quality - Image 1 is far and away the best from this perspective, and so I think this is the one we should use in the lead. GirthSummit _(blether) 11:50, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
• Summary The count is 9 Support (including the original proposal) and 9 Oppose, hardly a consensus either way. If someone changes the photo or leaves it as-is, there's really no complaint. Truthanado (talk) 23:41, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Great, time to shut this "discussion" then as "no consensus" to change the image. Cassianto^Talk 07:36, 18 April 2020 (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.

Disable the talk page

Whatever sanctions are imposed, people will find a way to continue wasting time here. I'm seriously beginning to think that this talk page would be better off locked from all discussions and anybody editing it. It's one of the worst pages on the entire site, I don't think I've ever once seen a decent conversation which is productive or actually benefits the article.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:07, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

That's a non-starter solution. Wikipedia requires a place to discuss issues. And I will say, in comparison to the usual "this needs an infobox" the question on a different image is a fair enough proposal. But we do need to stop new discussions from editors that clearly have not read the top of the page or the archives from asking the same questions over and over. --Masem (t) 17:11, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Oppose per Masem and opinions (expressed in a civil manner) SHOULD NOT be silenced. The big thing is, there's other users that go out of their way to provoke other (see the things @Cassianto: said to HAL333 and to me in the "lede photo" section just up above). We should not take a nuclear route like this.

- Thatstinkyguy (talk) 17:33, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

It's not a proposal. Just an expression of sheer disgust at the trolling going on here. It stinks.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:35, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

@Dr. Blofeld: I get you. I don't like it either. I think something we should all do is just not feed the trolls, because when we do, we bring out some of the worst in not only others but ourselves too. If someone is trolling you (as in any of us), throwing insults or the like, we should just ignore those replies and messages. Something to consider however is not everyone is trying to troll or harass others. For those of us having civil discussions (no insults, harassing, etc.), we could possibly start to work things out everywhere, not just here.

- Thatstinkyguy (talk) 17:43, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Even if it's civil it's usually a waste of time discussing things and gets nowhere, there's millions of articles needing more urgent attention..♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:46, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

With the infobox situation, yes (I was wrong to post about it some days ago on messageboards). We shouldn't have to deal with that particular thing till next year. I think it's fine to discuss other things here, such as the lede photo (and because it barely has anything to do with an IB, it's valid for now). That being said, I don't think we should close the discussion on the lede photo, at least not yet. During this time, and after though, yes, let's try to help out more articles. I know I need to.

- Thatstinkyguy (talk) 17:58, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

FWIW this User:Thatstinkyguy/Project: An Infobox for Stanley now exits. While not exactly prohibited by the sanctions on this article IMO it is trying to skirt them. It is also redundant as all anyone has to do to see the article with an infobox is dig into its edit history. There is also more than one (including this Talk:Stanley Kubrick/Archive 11#Why is there no infobox?) in the talk page archives. It is clear to me that this editor is simply waiting for the calendar to pass by and then start the whole rigamarole over. MarnetteD|Talk 20:10, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Mind if I tell you some things, @MarnetteD:? I did start that sandbox project yesterday as a way to express freedom of speech. I also made the infobox from scratch. I copy/pasted info from the article. In regards to how long I've been involved with the whole infobox: not long; 2-3 days. And in regards to me "simply waiting for the calendar to pass by and then start the whole rigamarole over," no, I won't be the one who actually starts it. Once it does get started, I will put in my vote and opinions.

- Thatstinkyguy (talk) 20:57, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

freedom of speech? gimme a break; sounds like something a 10 year old would say. MarnetteD is bang on in assessment. Ceoil (talk) 09:55, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, looking back, it was dumb of me to put it that way. StrangeloveFan101 (talk) 14:43, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Oppose That is a ridiculous proposition. It is articles like this that need a talk page the most. The main issue here is that many editors have a mentality that they own this page and resist any constructive changes. I would understand your frustration if this were a featured article with little room for improvement, but that is simply not the case. All you have to do is look at the featured articles for directors (e.g. Andjar Asmara, Rudolph Cartier, D. Djajakusuma, Aaron Sorkin, etc) and you’ll notice a few glaring differences. ~ HAL333 21:49, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

re OWN, you mean, like you are so desperately wanting to do? Cassianto^Talk 22:25, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

While it is a silly proposal I can see the point; this talk is a magnet for people taking pot shots at specific editors. A word beginning with "t" comes to mind. Ceoil (talk) 09:22, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

I don't consider myself an owner of this article. I've not purchased it. GoodDay (talk) 23:56, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose on principle. Disruptive discussions can always be deleted. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 02:32, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
• Wow... no. Oppose — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 02:34, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Just a thought

I was thinking that it might make more sense if the signature png was moved to the top right, under the lede photo, as is done at Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart. His signature has little relevance to his legacy. If it is going to be included, I think it would make more sense as more of an overarching item. Interested to see what you think. ~ HAL333 18:05, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

HAL333, I'd support this. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 22:02, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

I've waited six days. I assume no one else has a strong feeling about it. ~ HAL333 01:49, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Stanley Kubrick in Dr. Strangelove Trailer (4) Cropped.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:08, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Kubrick's first film

Kubrick's first film Flying Padre can be found here[2]. I'm really bad with copyright but since this was made in 1951, is there any way to upload this to commons? ~ HAL333 01:47, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Why doesn’t Stanley Kubrick have an information box?

Other famous award winning directors have these. Such as Steven Spielberg, George Lucas, Alfred Hitchcock, Quentin Tarantino, James Cameron, Peter Jackson, Martin Scorsese, Wes Anderson, Francis Ford Coppola, Christopher Nolan, Tim Burton, Ridley Scott, Woody Allen, and Clint Eastwood. Not to mention many more. Why is Kubrick the only one that doesn’t have the information box? It just doesn’t seem fair. Cj7557 (talk) 00:23, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

See the FAQ box above. Editors have come to a consensus here that Kubrick's career is too difficult to summarize easily in an infobox. --Masem (t) 00:41, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

How could it be "too difficult to summarize"? Does the subject of the article have a date and place of birth and death? Wouldn't that "summarize" the article? Bus stop (talk) 01:09, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

I don’t see how it’s too difficult to put the place of birth and date. Place of death and date. Name of his wife and possible children. Possibly his resting place. Not sure if he went to college but if he did you could put that there pretty easily. Cj7557 (talk) 02:14, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Cj7557—you might not know the history of this. See this for instance. I argued for an Info-box, but WP:CONSENSUS was to not have an Info-box. Bus stop (talk) 02:20, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

@Bus stop I went to the link you supplied. I have to say I am sad to see the results but I have to except them. Thank you for your time. Cj7557 (talk) 02:36, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

My time is not valuable. Thank you for raising the issue. Bus stop (talk) 03:07, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Cj7557, "possible children"? An infobox presents them as fact, so why introduce misleading material in the interests of "quick facts, now!"? And it's not a "resting place". He's not "resting", or "sleeping", or "waiting for god". He's dead. It's a burial place. Cassianto^Talk 09:00, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

@Cassianto You need to lay off! I get it you don’t like me. To bad. You’re being incredibly impolite. Cj7557 (talk) 09:09, 17 August 2020 (UTC)