Talk:Kirk Douglas/Archive 1

Archive 1

Family Tree

This section seems incoherent, yet beyond my ability to fix ....99.230.225.64 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 05:39, 3 February 2009 (UTC).

Demsky?

Douglas was born Issur Danielovitch Demsky in Amsterdam, New York to Herschel Danielovitch and Bryna Sanglel

Where does Demsky come from if his father was a Danielovitch and his mother a Sanglel

I've added clarification and appropriate citations regarding the confusion regarding Douglas' last name. When his parents came to the US, his father's brother was using the name Demsky. Doublas was born Issur Danielovitch, but later, his father began using the surname Demsky. He was NOT born Demsky, so please do not change this back. Thanks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:25, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

'Danilovich' (Данилович) doesn't sound like a typical Russian family name, it's rather a patronimic. 'Demsky' (Демский) is clearly a family name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.76.188.103 (talk) 00:46, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

In any case, this comes directly from one of Douglas's own books, Let's Face It. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:20, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Death

We need sources that verify this. For now i will add citation needed tag. Luckyherb 10:27, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

CNN just reported it. It should be on their website.

I just checked, can't see anything yet. I'll keep an eye on it though. Luckyherb

I checked too...I cannot find it even in the CNN Entertainment section (although I see the Grey Poupon guy died...he sorta looked like Kirk). 68.146.221.56 10:36, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Surprised no one wrapped up this section. Kirk Douglas is no longer with us, sadly. Sycorax13 (talk) 16:55, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Michael Douglas was a guest of Jay Leno tonight and said his father is 92 and doing well. 71.254.102.154 (talk) 04:28, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

To be or Notability

Notability is difficult for me to discern. I have a feeling that it is like art. You know it when you know it. I added the notability phrase to publicly announce why I was adding it. I felt since it was the lead idea expressed in the new york times review of the piece, that was enough for me to consider it notable. One the source of the review. Two the fact it was written 25 years after release. Three I forget what three was for. I am not advocating for a return for the notability phrase. I am just satisfied, the entire edit was not deleted. I had this great picture and felt it needed to be discussed, and did not want to get into a is it notable or non notable debate. cheers I am still new in content creation. I am much more a nit picking tidbitter to existing article. --K3vin (talk) 05:50, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

The addition was fine. I just didn't think that the role was notable for that reason, but that it was Douglas in a made-for-tv musical, which was a departure in genre for him. Thanks for the addition! Wildhartlivie (talk) 12:31, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Picture

That is quite an old picture. Any chance of getting a more recent one? Tad Lincoln (talk) 05:07, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Kirk Douglas/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Needs expansion `....(Complain)(Let us to it pell-mell) 06:55, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Last edited at 06:55, 7 August 2006 (UTC). Substituted at 15:12, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

WP:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers priority assessment

Per debate and discussion re: assessment of the approximate 100 top priority articles of the project, this article has been included as a top priority article. Wildhartlivie (talk) 11:15, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Divorce?

The article mentions two divorce dates: 1953 and 1951. Which one is correct? Based on a quick internet search, I'd say 1951 is correct, but I'd just be guessing. Does anyone know for sure? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pim 2 (talk • contribs) 13:43, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Selling snacks to buy milk & bread

Why? Why not just eat the snacks? --Streona (talk) 13:43, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Because doing so would have caused malnutrition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.5.242.75 (talk) 07:15, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Banjo playing on Jack Benny's TV show

I removed a paragraph about a single appearance Douglas made on a TV show, one where he played banjo in a humorous sketch with other celebrities on The Jack Benny Program. The editor returned the paragraph, so I am asking other editors for their take on it. Is this single appearance notable enough for an encyclopedia article summarizing a man's life? Did the single TV episode get notable coverage by outside observers at the time, or in published biographies such as the ones by McBride, Munn and Press?

Response to Binksternet:
Hi Bink and fellow editors, first off, please excuse or at least try to tolerate my newbie status, I am new to actively making contributions. Now then, the impetus for my article addition started with the discovery of this particular acting credit (appearance on The Jack Benny Program) in Kirk Douglas' listing on Internet Movie Database: Kirk Douglas. I then checked the Kirk_Douglas article here and found the same omission, so I added it to the Filmography section.
After watching the episode initially and several times since, I submit the following for consideration: 1) It was part of a TV series that was popular in its time; 260 episodes over eleven years. 2) The episode represents an ensemble cast appearance for Douglas (with several notable actors all of which have Wikipedia articles) which is consistent with his history of appearing with many notable actors of the time. 3) The appearance is unique in that it presents a side of Douglas that was rarely seen relative to his film appearances. Douglas was actually playing a tenor banjo (BTW, using the Harry Reser chord-melody arrangement), not pretending to as in his film appearances as a musician 4) It is significant since it highlights one of Douglas' early TV appearances. According to the credits on IMDb.com it appears to be his first TV appearance. 5) It provided the opportunity to add a multimedia link to where the episode an be viewed. From what I have read so far this seems to be encouraged on Wikipedia as long as it adheres to license policies. Additionally, I made the effort to match the tone and syntax (hopefully successfully in your opinions) of the overall article. Given that in the previous paragraph discussed a feature film about the musician Bix Beiderbecke, I thought the placement was appropriate. The chronological order of the placement with regard to Douglas' career was correct as well. Hence my contribution. To be fair and looking at my contribution from a different perspective, if everyone feels that television is not a significant medium or that other facets of an actor's life and career are not pertinent and worthy of publication, then my points are moot. My newbie unfamiliarity with the Wikipedia guidelines notwithstanding, I respectfully submit my contribution. Regards, Chris Scalhotrod (talk) 21:10, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

If it's the first TV appearance then it deserves mention here. 207.241.239.11 (talk) 22:07, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

OK, great... :) How do I do that? And what is it that I am doing? Scalhotrod (talk) 00:13, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

It would be great to see rich and accurate information in this article, but it appears to me that you are conducting your own research and publishing it here, rather than summarizing the state of Douglas information in books, news and magazines, etc. Read the guideline at WP:NOR to get a sense of the rule for "no original research".

IMDb is not a reliable source; it accepts anonymous entries just like Wikipedia. (In the same sense, Wikipedia is not a reliable source for Wikipedia articles.) If there were a published work on Douglas saying that his Jack Benny appearance was his first TV show, then that would mean we would want it in the article. If the TV show were somehow commented upon by Douglas biographers or reporters, then it doesn't matter if it is first or second or whatever, that mention brings it up out of the general noise of Douglas's various career support activities. Binksternet (talk) 07:15, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

So if I understand your point as you intend it, the basis for your reply is the reliability of IMDb.com as a source rather than my factual description of an appearance credit (which has several sources) and whether my contribution constitutes original research. IMDb.com, although its owned by Amazon.com, it is very much an entertainment industry standard and trusted reference. Is it perfect, no of course not, but in my opinion that is not justification for discrediting it. Books can be wrong too, the difference being that if so that edition is wrong in perpetuity.
With regard to IMDb, let me ask this. What makes filmreference.com a more credible source than IMDb.com. [http://www.filmreference.com/film/30/Kirk-Douglas.html| Filmreference.com] is the source for material about Douglas' early life which was just updated by another editor. The recent edit is just an observation of information already stated, does that amount to "original research"? By the standard you seem to be applying, the source that the information is attributed to should be challenged and the edit potentially removed. By the way, we're getting off the original point of mentioning Douglas' appearance on the Jack Benny show as musician.
On a separate note, thank you for this discussion. I am learning a tremendous amount about how Wikipedia works and the dynamics involved in editing. I appreciate that you have taken such an interest in my efforts. Scalhotrod (talk) 18:52, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi Editors, just a quick update to address one of Binksternet's comments. To quote Binksternet, "IMDb is not a reliable source; it accepts anonymous entries just like Wikipedia." I found this reference that contradicts that statement, "Due to the process of having the submitted data or text reviewed by a section manager, IMDb is different from database projects like Wikipedia or OpenStreetMap in that contributors cannot add, delete, or modify the data or text on whim, and the manipulation of data is controlled by IMDb technology and salaried staff.", IMDb Sources of Data. Emphasis added by me. Scalhotrod (talk) 20:45, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 174.49.10.66, 28 February 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} Please fix Kirk's birth year. I just saw him on the Academy Awards and though he's aged quite a bit, I don't think he's 1,094 years of age. Or born in 1716.

174.49.10.66 (talk) 02:25, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Taken care of by another editor already. Thanks for the heads up though.--v/r - TP 02:28, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

The dates on his 3 Academy award nominations seem to be each off by one year, in no consistent direction. I would just edit this myself but I am not an expert in this domain. :-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.55.27.4 (talk) 19:29, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Broadway debut - two conflicting statements

The article has two conflicting statements on Douglas' Broadway debut:

Douglas made his Broadway debut as a singing telegraph boy in Spring Again.

Douglas made his Broadway debut in 1949 in the Anton Chekhov play "The Three Sisters," produced by Katharine Cornell.[16]

I'm not sure which is correct.

Bentcursor (talk) 15:46, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Date stated on picture of Kirk at Westren Wall in Jerusalem not correct

The Westren wall in Jerusalem was not in Israeli hands in 1966 while filming "Cast a giant shadow". The Western wall was taken by Israel in the 1967 Six-Day-War, therefore the date seems to be wrong. Another indication is that Kirk looks older here than he looks in "cast a giant shadow" - my estimate is the pic was taken in the 1970s. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.69.93.90 (talk) 19:58, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Films Kirk Douglas appeared in

It is not mentioned in his films on his page but he had a major part in "Build My Gallows High" released in 1947 with Robert Mitchum & Jane Greer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.125.18.7 (talk) 11:14, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

File:Douglas-Glory.JPG Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Douglas-Glory.JPG, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests August 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 18:09, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

File:Douglas-Kubrick-Spartacus.JPG Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Douglas-Kubrick-Spartacus.JPG, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests August 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 18:10, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

File:Douglas-Stanwyck-Martha Ivers.JPG Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Douglas-Stanwyck-Martha Ivers.JPG, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests August 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 18:10, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

File:Douglas-Viking.JPG Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Douglas-Viking.JPG, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests August 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 18:10, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

File:Douglas-graduation.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Douglas-graduation.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests August 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 18:10, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

File:Douglas 1956 still.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Douglas 1956 still.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests August 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 18:39, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Family tree

It doesn't show the divorces. The dashed lines represent marriages, but there is no distinction shown between those that have ended in divorce and those that have not. The usual way of indicating divorce is to put two slashes in the middle of the line representing marriage, like this: --------//-------- Jim Michael (talk) 00:35, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Honestly fail to see why the mention of Jewishness is so important in this article. My memory tells me that in interviews with Douglas it becam irrelevant?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.145.70.242 (talk) 17:04, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

The chicken and the ouevre

Two points. Firstly you have not demonstated that ouevre is a specifically US term.

• Ouevre in its present context is incorrect. Ouevre refers to a single work only. What is attempting to be described here is the totality of Kubricks work. Suggest " directorial filmography" as compromise. Irondome (talk) 04:10, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Mmmm, no. Ouevre can mean either an entire body of work or an individual work, with the "entire body" definition being generally listed first.

• http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/oeuvre?q=oeuvre
• http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/american_english/oeuvre
• http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/oeuvre
• http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/oeuvre

Even so, I wouldn't object to use of a more common word or phrase; we're discussing Spartacus here, not the "Mona Lisa" and "The Last Supper". But you might do yourself a favor in suggesting a simultaneous change to the verb if you were to use the AmE spelling of "recognize". Fat&Happy (talk) 04:45, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

In that case suggest.."considered it to be part of his directorial achievements" Irondome (talk) 05:04, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Change it, it's fine, but in the US, recogniZe, is spelled witha Z. JOJ ^Hutton 12:47, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Ok JoJ, thanks for explaining the Z usage, didnt know that. Cheers Irondome (talk) 08:52, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Blogging

I have changed 'is' to 'was' in reference to blogging as the preceding statement makes it clear he no longer blogs so he isn't the oldest blogger.

The English is pretty bad in this part but I didn't want to mess too much in fear of breaking links — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.134.197.35 (talk) 19:39, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

It looks like he's still blogging for the Huffington Post at age 97. I don't know the first thing about MySpace; is the term "celebrity blogging" restricted to such sites? Joefromrandb (talk) 05:44, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Pictures

There are way too many pictures currently in this article. All they do is clutter things up. Should some of them be deleted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.92.69.129 (talk) 10:12, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Deletionism at its finest.--92.36.232.23 (talk) 19:16, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

copyediting

The whole article needs some serious copyediting, and source-checking. -- phoebe / (talk to me) 04:52, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Maybe you can list some specific problems or sections that editors can work on. --Light show (talk) 05:21, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

It certainly needs copy-editing. I've been trying to chip away at that task as time allows. I'm unaware of any contentiously or poorly sourced material, and would appreciate specifics, as Light show has suggested. Joefromrandb (talk) 04:50, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Yiddish

Why is his name given in Russian? It should be in Yiddish, not Russian. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.105.30.12 (talk) 08:23, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

If you know the Yiddish version of his name feel free to add it. PatGallacher (talk) 22:39, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Birth name/Family name

The family name was Demsky when Issur was born. Danielovitch was the family name of his father. It was changed to Demsky as last name when the family immigrated to the States. Issur was born in the States, thus with the middle name Danielovitch and last name Demsky. Reading the article references 1-4 carefully supports this. And lots of other sources, other Wikipedias (Belarus (where his parents came from), Russian, German, Simple English etc. etc. etc.) or this entry: Demsky stating Issur Danielovitch Demsky. BTW: transliteration from cyrillic Демский results in: Demskij | Vincenzo1492 (talk) 22:57, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

I meant to address this when it was posted, and I'm going to respond, all this time later, as this issue seems to arise from time to time. The family name was not "Demsky". Demsky was an anglicized name that his uncle began using after moving to the States, and Douglas' father adopted it as well. Herschel Danielovitch called himself "Harry Demsky". Although his son grew up as "Izzy Demsky", his birth name was "Issur Danielovitch". The references–number one in particular– in fact support this. Joefromrandb (talk) 05:50, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Birth year

In the beginning of the article, it says that he was born 1916, but in the infobox, it says 1915. Which one is correct? 83.233.207.16 (talk) 11:33, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

And now it has been changed to say 1916 in both places. 83.233.207.16 (talk) 11:35, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, 1916 is correct. See [1] and calculate back. - DVdm (talk) 11:39, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

His father was born in either 1884 or 1885, not 1878

On page 15 of his autobiography "The Ragman's Son" he notes that his father was born "around 1884". this entry http://www.genealogy.com/forum/surnames/topics/demsky/7/ containing information from the US 1920 census notes that his father, Harry Demsky, was 35 years old during the US 1920 Census which places his birthdate around 1884 or 1885. I have continually seen his fathers birthdate edited on this website to the year 1878, which is simply not true, and that cites a different source which is also incorrect. Given that Kirk Douglas himself cites his fathers birthdate as "around 1884" in 'The Ragman's Son' that should settle it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.207.153.117 (talk) 04:10, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Yet again Kirk Douglas' fathers birthdate was erroneously changed to 1878 on this page today

could whoever is doing it either provide hard concrete evidence that refutes Kirk Douglas' autobiography The Ragman's Son or either STOP doing it. Kirk Douglas himself cites his fathers birth year as 'around 1884' on page 15 of The Ragman's Son. If you have evidence that proves that Kirk Douglas was incorrect on his own fathers birthdate either provide this evidence or STOP EDITING IT. And if you can provide evidence that Kirk Douglas was incorrect about his own fathers birthdate in The Ragman's Son then ALL parts of the Wikipedia entry on Kirk that source The Ragman's Son will have to be removed as the book is shown to be incorrect. STOP editing it to 1878 unless you can provide hard evidence that proves beyond doubt that his father was born in 1878. I have provided evidence in the form of Kirk Douglas' autobiography and the 1920 and 1930 census which both support the year of 1884 or 1885. The ONLY evidence I can find of his father being born in 1878 is a newspaper article published about his father deaths, in 1950, which mentioned he was 72 years old. The article provided NO REFERENCES OR SOURCES to confirm this. I have provided US Census data and Kirk Douglas' autobiography. Unless a source can be provided that proves that Kirk Douglas got his own fathers birthdate wrong in The Ragman's Son, stop editing it to 1878. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.199.160.142 (talk) 01:35, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Who keeps editing kirks fathers birthdate to the incorrect year of 1878?

This is getting ridiculous. My edit back to the correct year of 1884 was just reverted by a Wikipedia user who qrote "source?" after my edit even though for MONTHS I have had a source linked to the date of 1884, Kirk Douglas' autobiography THE RAGMAN'S SON where Kirk plainly writes on page 15 that his father was "born in Moscow around 1884". Did you not even look at the sources before reverting it with the comment "source?". I am forced to conclude you didn't because one of the references sources in the 1884 year date is to Kirk's book where HE WRITES THAT HIS FATHER WAS BORN AROUND 1884. 1884 is NOT 1878.

If it gets reverted again I will be forced to assume you are deliberately vandalizing the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.199.39.84 (talk) 04:50, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Stage Name

Where did the name Kirk Douglas come from and when did he start using it? The article just says he changed his name to Kirk Douglas when he entered the Navy, no more explanation. 75.173.124.72 (talk) 17:08, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Quote farm

Was thinking of fixing up this article ......quotes our out of control looks and reads horibly. I will first remove most quotes an then paraphrases the rest that are relevant. I will also fix the bad sourcing problem over the next week or so. -- Moxy (talk) 22:56, 14 June 2016 (UTC).

Sorry, but declaring ownership of an article with an intent to remodel it to your approval, is not the best way to collaborate, or even edit. You should discuss any material you feel does not belong first, along with your suggested paraphrasing. My suggestion BTW is you first tackle Cary Grant's article, which has 300% more, and much longer recently added quotes. I asked you many weeks ago to point out some articles which you yourself have edited extensively as an example of your paraphrasing efforts. Am still waiting, however. --Light show (talk) 23:10, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Oh shit...I see why this article is all fucked i forgot your involved here. I have no wish to edit war with someone who actuly has an ownership problem, For years editors have been explaining how your odd plagiarism makes articles worst. I will move on and hopefully someone that wished to edit war with you will fix this horrible article. It really is a shame you do this quote spamming all over.....should have know by the articles lack a readability this was one of yours. You should read wp:own - declaring that I want to fix the articles is not an ownership problem...you claiming i need to ask you first or show you others works is a problem. After all this time with people explaining the problems you cause..... you still here fucking things up...blocking improvements etc.... Your the kind of editor we can do without. -- Moxy (talk) 00:12, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't like edit wars either. That's why I suggested you put issues on the talk page before just demolishing commentary, quoted or not. I never claim ownership, and no one has ever said I have. What I have done on occasion is try to help explain to users that a cited quote is not plagiarism or even spam, your favorite words. Again, if you have any specific quotes that can better be abbreviated or paraphrased, just point them out or simply edit it yourself. No problem. But some non-editor to this article simply driving by and announcing that they plan on "removing most quotes" is extreme. --Light show (talk) 01:23, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

For once I agree with Light show here, there's little more irritating that a non-editor driving by and moaning about the state of an article and insulting the work of the editor. Moxy, do you do anything but belittle the work of others on here? Cary Grant has a lot more quotes than this article but then the article has been fully researched now and written. The Douglas article still needs development. I don't see excess use of quotes, but I personally try to avoid using quote boxes as much as I can and prefer to paraphrase if I can as I think it makes the prose flow better.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:39, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

The worst thing that happens here is when an editor has an announcement that they wish to help fix and article with others and is kicked in the nuts by those that own the article. After 80,000 edits and a post as to what I am doing ...I am still a drive by editor? Seems to be the same people over and over that block improvements to articles...and even have the nerve to tell editors to ask before editing. From now on i will look to see who has edited the article I wish to improve before doing anything. Dont have this problem with other types of bios.... All i can ask is Dr. Blofeld keep trying to fix the quote problems here and best to no guess as to a person intent in the future. Acknowledging, Paraphrasing, and Quoting Sources. --Moxy (talk) 16:58, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

You might be right. Light show does have an extremely long history of adding block quotes at random to articles and then displaying a hostile attitude to anybody who tries to improve the article. We had to topic ban him from Sellers and Kubrick. Anytime you try to reason with him and be decent to him he responds with a negative. Perhaps it's time Light show was banned from wikipedia entirely. Here though it's not so much the number of quotes as the way they're misused. Perhaps I'll begin working on the Kirk Douglas article soon then, especially as 100th anniversary coming up. I'll have those block quotes removed asap.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:15, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Not many people live to be 100 years old, but Mr. Douglas is one example of those who do, right? Fandelasketchup (talk) 16:41, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Blacklist

Dalton Trumbo's family said Douglas did not really break the blacklist. (Fgskl (talk) 01:53, 20 December 2016 (UTC))

The lead says he "helped" break it. --Light show (talk) 01:58, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

This is not true: http://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2012/07/how-kirk-douglas-overstated-his-role-in-breaking-the-hollywood-blacklist/259111/ (2A00:23C4:6388:7300:51D5:3F5D:F8BB:125 (talk) 22:20, 21 December 2016 (UTC))

Retired

Douglas has not acted since he retired in 2008. (2A00:23C4:6388:7300:51D5:3F5D:F8BB:125 (talk) 17:59, 21 December 2016 (UTC))

It says "years active", not "years active as a Hollywood actor". Douglas is still active as an author, activist, etc. Joefromrandb (talk) 00:25, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Kirk Douglas. 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/20150223012824/http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/1986-07-05/features/8602090161_1_liberty-weekend-liberty-festivities-great-lawn to http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/1986-07-05/features/8602090161_1_liberty-weekend-liberty-festivities-great-lawn
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.hollywoodusa.co.uk/walkoffamestarlocations.htm

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 15:51, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Weird sentence in lead

During a 64-year acting career, he has appeared in more than 90 movies. 64 years between when and when? 1946 and 2010? The article doesn't appear to imply he retired in 2010, but the specific number means there must be a clear beginning and end date. That, plus the use of the present perfect implies that the "end point" is now and that his career is ongoing, which per MOS:DATED is discouraged (64 years ago as of 2017 was 1953, an arbitrary date at which Douglas had already featured in at least 16 films). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:25, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

 Fixed with rephrasing. --Light show (talk) 16:18, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Democrat party

Douglas is certainly a supporter of the party, but is he a member? The article says so, but the reference given does not confirm that is the case. I can find no confirmation of membership on the net. --BeckenhamBear (talk) 21:08, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Infobox could use a better photograph of Kirk Douglas

The infobox could use a better photograph of Kirk Douglas. He has a sinister look on his face, and he is seen holding a cigarette. I don't know if he was a chain smoker, but it is VERY unusual for someone who uses tobacco products to reach age 101.

This reminds me of something. Jacqueline Kennedy was a chain smoker, she was one of the most photographed women in the world (especially by Ron Galella), but I can't recall seeing a picture of her when she was holding or smoking a cigarette. When a person is seen with a cigarette in a photograph, that person is sending a negative image of himself/herself.

By the way, many years ago I saw Kirk Douglas in person in a department store in Manhattan. Anthony22 (talk) 00:02, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

I have changed the photograph to File:Kirk Douglas 907-3153.jpg. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:56, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Good job of changing the photograph! Anthony22 (talk) 01:01, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

"Years active"

It may be time for a mini-RfC of sorts about this, as it's really getting old. I have professed (and others have agreed) that Douglas' "activities" extend far beyond Hollywood acting, and that he remains active as an author, activist, philanthropist, etc. If the community agrees, I think we should insert a hidden comment warning not to change this without consensus. If consensus is that Douglas ceased being "active" in 2008, that's fine too. Joefromrandb (talk) 07:44, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

I wouldn't consider philanthropy, activism or writing as being being part of his career. He is known mostly as an actor, IMO.--Light show (talk) 07:55, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

What point is there to building a straw man if you're going to leave it standing? You're refuting an argument I never put forth by claiming "writing" isn't part of the career of the author of 11 published books? Joefromrandb (talk) 08:53, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

At the moment the text reads that Kirk Douglas's "years active" go up to the present. As the man died two years ago, this needs revision. Michael Glass (talk) 07:17, 14 June 2018 (UTC) Whoops! That was his hundredth birthday! Michael Glass (talk) 07:29, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

No, he is still alive. What did you drink, Glass? --Edelseider (talk) 07:30, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

No. Stone cold sober, but without my reading glasses. Bad move! Michael Glass (talk) 02:31, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Picture

Block evasion by User:HarveyCarter
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Should we really have a picture showing him holding a cigarette as the main image? (ManyMoonsoons (talk) 19:42, 9 September 2018 (UTC)) Why not? This was a very common pose (with a very common prop) during the period when this publicity photo was taken, and the cigarette did not have the negative associations it has now. Are you proposing a form of revisionism? General Ization Talk 19:43, 9 September 2018 (UTC) I am worried that millions of children all over the world might see the picture and decide to start smoking. (ManyMoonsoons (talk) 19:47, 9 September 2018 (UTC)) I very much doubt that the appearance on Wikipedia of an accurate photo of an actor primarily active from the 1940s-1970s holding a cigarette is going to significantly increase smoking rates among young people. I hope your comment was made in jest, because it's absurd. General Ization Talk 19:51, 9 September 2018 (UTC) Millions of children all over the world might want to emulate Kirk Douglas. (ManyMoonsoons (talk) 20:51, 9 September 2018 (UTC)) As you already said. See above. General Ization Talk 20:52, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Nominated for the main page at ITN

{{ITN nom}} -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:02, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Photo of Kirk Douglas on the set of this film

I have uploaded a photo of Kirk Douglas on the set of the movie Eddie Macon's Run in 1983 to Wikimedia, which anyone is welcome to use on Wikipedia. The photo, I scanned from a physical photo in my mothers personal collection. My mother has the photo because her father (and my gradnfather) wrote the book Eddie Macon's Run, which the film is based on, and she visited the set of the film during it's filming. I'm not sure if the photo should be added to this article or not, but if it should, then feel free to add it. You are also welcome to add it to another Wikipedia articles where it might fit. It's Wikimedia file page is at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Kirk_Douglas_on_the_set_of_Eddie_Macon%27s_Run_(1983).jpg Added at 02:56, 6 February 2020 by Greshthegreat

Thank you. (In future, please create a new message thread at the foot of a talk page, not at or near its head.) Your family possesses the print, but you're unsure of who the photographer was and thus who copyright belonged/belongs to. In view of this, I think it's very likely that the photograph will be deleted from Wikimedia Commons. -- Hoary (talk) 03:13, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

I believe that the photo was taken by either my mom, aunt or uncle (both on my mothers side). I will check with her as soon as she is availible (which should be in the next few hours), and will act accordingly based on who she believes to be the author of the photo. Greshthegreat (talk)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 February 2020

The explanatory note referenced by the sentence about him changing his name states, "Douglas knew that many leading stars at the time had changed their stage names..." I can't check the reference for the note, but surely it should be changed to "...had adopted a stage name...", no? —⁠184.207.145.12 (talk) 03:36, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

 Done. Yes, definitely. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 03:54, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Military career

Article says virtually nothing about his military career. Can this be remedied? Mjroots (talk) 07:26, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Website link for Kirk Douglas

The link on the biography box for Kirk Douglas doesn't seem relevant (wwwDOTspecsypiesliveDOTcom). Has some one put a spam address in there to gain traffic?

Phaethon — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiphaethon (talk • contribs) 08:06, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes, they did - on this entry and a couple of others. Thanks for catching that. Larry Hockett (Talk) 08:12, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Illusion

Surprisingly, the article doesn't mention his final film, Illusion. I would like some information on how he came to act in it and anything he said about it. --Viennese Waltz 09:12, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Surprisingly, Wikipedia gives an illusion of professionalism, even though it is written by volunteers.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:19, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Yeah I know how Wikipedia works, I've made almost 2,500 edits in article space. But I'm not going to add this information and I wanted to flag it up so that someone else could. --Viennese Waltz 09:28, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Yep, I've not made like 3.14 million edits in space, and... I forget what I was going to say...--Jack Upland (talk) 09:33, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 February 2020

Website added posthumously links to spam site, remove from bio. 47.7.51.53 (talk) 07:08, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

 Already done See below. JMHamo (talk) 09:40, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Family

His sister, Freida "Fritzi" Demsky Becker of Albany, New York, died in 2015 at 96; survived by her twin sister, Ida Sahr of Schenectady. His sisters' names are listed as Pesha, Kaleh, Tamara, Haska (Ida), Siffra, Rachel in FamilyTron.--Artaxerxes (talk) 15:25, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Anything on when (or why) his parents left Russia?--Artaxerxes (talk) 15:28, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 6 February 2020

Under occupations Kirk is erroneously listed as a Soldier. Douglas was in the Navy not the Army. It should say Sailor. SGT13F (talk) 14:44, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

 Done Request is substantiated by article body text. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:35, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Dimple

Not in his college photo. Was it surgically added? 2.31.34.225 (talk) 20:27, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Would this information somehow be useful in improving the article? Even if easily determined, I don't think so. See WP:NOTFORUM. General Ization ^Talk 20:45, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Also see this. General Ization ^Talk 20:46, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

As visually described by Rich Little, he may have formed it intentionally; --Light show (talk) 03:10, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

If he had plastic surgery, which I doubt, that would be worth adding. I think the missing dimple is just an effect of the light.--Jack Upland (talk) 20:45, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Last words?

Removed from article:--Artaxerxes (talk) 12:25, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

His son, Michael, who promoters Mike Bloomberg for president in 2020, claims his father mentioned the candidate on his deathbed. “I don’t know if he was pulling my leg or not," Michael relates, "but one of the last words he said in the hospital . . he asked me to lean close to him. And I leaned close to him and he looked at me and said, ‘Mike can get it done.’”

References

Belarusian name

What is the rationale behind the inclusion of his birth name in Berlarusian? He was born in what is today Belarus, but it was part of the Russian Empire. I think we should either remove it or replace it with the Russian equivalent, since that was the dominant language in the Pale of Settlement. ----Երևանցի ^talk 12:45, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Remove.--Jack Upland (talk) 18:42, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Haha, no, he was not "born in what is today Belarus", he was born in the United States of America! --Edelseider (talk) 12:54, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Rape

What about the sexual assault allegation against him? Just because he's old as dirt doesn't mean he should get a pass. Many other prominent men have had accusations put on their pages; why not this dirty old goat? 98.10.165.90 (talk) 22:34, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Probably because no formal accusations have been made against him, aside from the anonymous blogger who can't be considered a reliable source for Wikipedia. Suzanne Finstad never outed him in her Natalie Wood bio. Journalists never bothered to research it and interviewers never had the integrity to confront him about it. --2607:FEA8:1160:DB:2C0F:A17F:E0AB:4E92 (talk) 21:02, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Same reason some celebs (Bill Cosby) get nailed for it and others don't (Anthony Anderson). Seven Pandas (talk) 00:11, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

I've taken a look into this, and I don't think there's any reliable sources that say 'Kirk Douglas raped Natalie Wood' (or indeed anyone else); only that there's a longstanding rumour that he did. That hardly seems worth noting, given that it could be entirely false, and such allegations have never been made publicly. Robofish (talk) 19:46, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

The allegation is back on the article. Every source used for this allegation admits that it's a unconfirmed, unsourced rumour. Some even admitting that Douglas being the assailant came from an anonymous blog post. Natalie Wood, the victim, never named Douglas as her assailant. Lana Wood, her sister, never named Douglas. If Douglas were still alive this would be patently defamatory. Why is it here?109.146.179.229 (talk) 12:07, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

It is relevant in a way that Douglas is no longer alive. We don't know how any hypothetical defamation case might have worked out if he was. PatGallacher (talk) 21:14, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Has been removed again.....will need an RFC before it's put back. Fell free to start one at anytime.--Moxy 🍁 21:38, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

This issue has been described as "tabloid trash", but this is not the case, we have a source in The Guardian, which is regarded as a reliable source, see WP:RSPSOURCES. PatGallacher (talk) 23:20, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

The Guardian has also been regarded as a biased source, clearly biased in this case. And what does The Guardian say about it exactly? "he has been dogged by Harvey Weinstein-style allegations of sexual harassment – with persistent but unverified suggestions of a serious sexual assault on a teenage Natalie Wood in the mid-1950s", "but Douglas’s connection to it – unlike, say, the allegations against Roman Polanski, or indeed Weinstein – has never been tested in court" and "Now Douglas is beyond the scope of defamation lawsuits, and amplified by social media, it has swiftly become part of his immediate legacy". The Guardian may not have any journalistic standards but that doesn't mean we should forego ours as well109.146.179.229 (talk) 06:28, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

I've removed it. Don't put it back without consensus. SPECIFICO talk 23:44, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

The "Health issues and death" section is misleading

The celebration of his 100th birthday is not a health issue nor is it related to death. I would suggest moving the unrelated information to different sections OR renaming the "Health issues and death" section to be more accurate. 172.98.149.135 (talk) 19:45, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes definitely. Have moved this to a place based on its chronology. Burrobert (talk) 06:51, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Photo at the top

File:Kirk Douglas Tonight Show guest host 1975.JPG isn't bad. But File:Kirk douglas photo signed.JPG is far better. (Do I really have to explain how?) -- Hoary (talk) 13:19, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

I suppose I will agree. I thought that 1975 one would be an improvement, but I didn't really have a closer look at the signed one until a moment ago, it is much better quality really. Sorry everyone. DTH89^{(sexy talk page)} 13:59, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

If you enlarge the 1975 photo, you will notice that it is not sharp. --Edelseider (talk) 14:15, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I've just noticed that. Looks like pixelated garbage up close. I still think that a better infobox picture could be used other than that creepy, evil looking headshot that is there right now, but obviously this is not the one. DTH89^{(sexy talk page)} 14:21, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Didn't he describe himself as an actor known for playing "sons of bitches"? I really like him, but a "creepy, evil looking headshot" (in the eye of the beholder, that is) seems totally accurate. --Edelseider (talk) 16:16, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

By what measure are you judging the "years active"?

It says he was "active" from 1946 - 2008, but "active" in what? Even though he stopped appearing in movies in 2008, he continued to write books up until 2017 https://www.amazon.com/Kirk-Anne-Turner-Classic-Movies/dp/0762462175 the year his final book was published.

Also, he may have been only "active" in movies from 1946 but he was an established stage actor from 1941 onwards, acting on many productions until his first movie in 1946, and even after he started doing movies he continued acting on stage

It seems the years active simply measures what years he appeared in movies from his first to last movie, which isn't an accurate reflection of Kirk's career, especially since this page is about EVERYTHING noteworthy he did, not just his movies — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.101.5.166 (talk) 06:26, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Request for comment

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

As an involved editor, per WP:ANRFC. I'm closing this discussion as a snow close. Result: Do not include allegations.

---

Should the article mention allegations that he sexually assaulted a well-known film actor when she was 16? PatGallacher (talk) 23:57, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

• No - Because they are allegations or "rumors" and he is not yet found guilty. Meatsgains^(talk) 01:15, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
• No - They are only rumors, with no reasoning or detailed circumstance to support any claim of credibility. SPECIFICO talk 01:53, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
• No never has been addressed by either party....they are not allegations by the so called victim just an anonymous blogger’s claim on Gawker. Then we have Lana Wood (Natalie sister) ..who does say she was raped.... but does not name anyone The New York Times. Pure speculation!!!--Moxy 🍁 02:01, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
• No I removed that claim once because the source (at that time) said it was iledged and this is a BLP. - FlightTime Phone (open channel) 02:08, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Agree BLP still applies as per WP:BDP . ".... the policy can extend for an indeterminate period beyond the date of death—six months, one year, two years at the outside. Such extensions would apply particularly to contentious or questionable material about the dead that has implications for their living relatives and friends, such as in the case of a possible suicide or a particularly gruesome crime.'" (bold added) --Moxy 🍁 02:16, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

• Yes the allegations are from a reliable source per WP:RSP and are listed as allegations. Compare to Robert Wagner who is still living and has a section on his alleged involvement in the death of Natalie Wood. Why one and not the other? --Mr. Vernon (talk) 04:40, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Pls review WP:BLPSPS and Wikipedia:Other stuff exists(essay).--Moxy 🍁 04:55, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Furthermore: it's undisputed fact that Wagner was one of the last people to see Wood alive before her death, and he was involved in the police investigation afterwards. There's no comparison here; there's no suggestion that Douglas was ever investigated by the authorities, for this or any other reason. Robofish (talk) 14:56, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

• No As this is what is said about Gawker in WP:RSP it doesn't sound like a reliable source to me: Gawker is an inactive gossip blog that frequently published articles on rumors and speculation without named authors. When Gawker is the only source for a piece of information, the information would likely constitute undue weight, especially when the subject is a living person. When another reliable source quotes information from Gawker, it is preferable to cite that source instead. In the 2019 RfC, there was no consensus on whether Gawker should be deprecated. PhilomenaO'M (talk) 09:19, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
• No We should not echo rumors. Even if we consider him to be a public figure and WP:BLPCRIME may not apply, I don't think we should include this kind of information just based on reported rumors. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 15:57, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
• No. Besides, it seems (to me, at least) that the people who have lumped Douglas together with Weinstein, and Polanski (looking at the Guardian) are more preoccupied with finding fault with Jews than anything else. The Guardian article is vitriolic. Reminding us that Douglas, Tony Curtis, Edward G. Robinson were not WASPS - but not that Natalie Wood (not Jewish) wasn't either. And diminishing Curtis and Robinson by calling them "Bernie" and "Manny". And this is only the factual part. We should not feed the conspirational beast. --Edelseider (talk) 16:31, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
  • You could be getting into some controversial issues here. I was not aware until you raised this that Edward G. Robinson was Jewish, and not aware that there were any allegations of sexual assault or harassment against him. And indeed Natalie Wood was not a WASP either. PatGallacher (talk) 18:32, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
    • Not that it matters, but your comment makes it clear you didn't give a careful look at the Guardian article, based on your misrepresentation of its content. SPECIFICO talk 18:38, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

      @SPECIFICO: are you referring to Edelseider's comment or PatGallacher's?  — Amakuru (talk) 18:43, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

      • @Amakuru: He must be referring to PatGallacher's, who acts surprised that Edward G. Robinson was Jewish after quoting an article outing Robinson as "Manny" (sic) "Goldenberg". --Edelseider (talk) 18:50, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

        • Yes, that piece is all over the place with the film critic's speculation and I see nothing associating Robinson with charges of abuse. The Guardian piece is bizarre. SPECIFICO talk 19:29, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Request snow close - - FlightTime Phone (open channel) 16:38, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

• No. As I've already commented above, this rumour is simply not well-attested enough to be worth including in a serious biography. As The Guardian notes [2], the 'source' was an entirely anonymous, now-deleted blog, written half a century after the alleged event, by God knows whom. If we're going to include such tabloidesque gossip, we may as well include the similarly baseless rumours about a well-known actor (not named here as he's still alive) doing obscene things with rodents. Robofish (talk) 14:48, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
• No — Rumors, speculation, gossip, sourced to an anonymous blogger – hell no. Isaidnoway (talk) 06:10, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
• No - Until the rumors are substantiated I see no need to create potential WP:POV issues. We are not a news source, we don't have to include current news stories until they are sussed out and the truth (or at least some sort of final decision one way or the other) is more clear. Give it a while, see what comes of the allegations and decide later. Nightenbelle (talk) 19:29, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
• No - remove it. Maineartists (talk) 18:17, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
• No. Such libellous content has the potential of turning Wikipedia's online encyclopedia into a cheap tabloid found on the streets of London.Davidbena (talk) 00:23, 28 February 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.

Cause of Douglas' death

What exactly was the cause of Douglas' death, saying it was kept private? --TheLennyGriffinFan1994 (talk) 23:15, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Natalie Wood

So all other pages about Hollywood stars report on scandal, alleged rumors, etc., yet nothing on here about the very persistent belief of what Kirk Douglas did to a teenage Natalie Wood? Heather07170 (talk) 01:02, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Because it is nothing more than a slander. A belief among whom?, are we bound to ask. I wonder why people do not harass Christopher Walken 24/7 with accusations that he killed Wood, since he actually was present the very night she drowned. Oh, because he is not Jewish? No further questions. --Edelseider (talk) 07:14, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Kirk Douglas Child Picture

Do you have a picture of Kirk Douglas as a Child?

There's one on this page but idk if it's fair use: https://www.biography.com/actor/kirk-douglas @2607:fea8:561f:fbbe:b18b:702:a8ee:822d Gabrielle103 (talk) 01:56, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Kirk Douglas

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Kirk Douglas's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "NY Times":

• From Anthony Hopkins: Lidz, Franz (29 September 2002). "FILM; The Scenery, Though, He Won't Chew". The New York Times. Retrieved 27 October 2017.
• From Spartacus (film): "Kennedy Attends Movie in Capital" (PDF). New York Times. February 4, 1961. Retrieved January 20, 2012.
• From Chinatown (1974 film): "NY Times: Chinatown". Movies & TV Dept. The New York Times. 2012. Archived from the original on October 18, 2012. Retrieved December 29, 2008.
• From Terms of Endearment: "Terms of Endearment - Awards". Movies & TV Dept. The New York Times. 2009. Archived from the original on 2009-10-22. Retrieved 2009-01-01.
• From The Turning Point (1977 film): "The Turning Point – Awards". Movies & TV Dept. The New York Times. 2011. Archived from the original on March 16, 2011. Retrieved December 30, 2008.
• From Anne of the Thousand Days: "NY Times: Anne of the Thousand Days". Movies & TV Dept. The New York Times. 2012. Archived from the original on 18 October 2012. Retrieved 27 December 2008.
• From Gene Kelly: "Hello, Dolly!". Movies & TV Dept. The New York Times. Retrieved April 8, 2016.
• From Becket (1964 film): "NY Times: Becket". Movies & TV Dept. The New York Times. 2012. Archived from the original on 18 October 2012. Retrieved 25 December 2008.
• From The China Syndrome: "The China Syndrome (1979): Awards". Movies & TV Dept. The New York Times. 2012. Archived from the original on October 18, 2012. Retrieved 27 June 2018.
• From Johnny Belinda (1948 film): "NY Times: Johnny Belinda". Movies & TV Dept. The New York Times. 2012. Archived from the original on 2012-10-18. Retrieved 2008-12-20.
• From Audrey Hepburn: "NY Times: Sabrina". Movies & TV Dept. The New York Times. 2009. Archived from the original on 2 April 2009. Retrieved 21 December 2008.
• From The Song of Bernadette (film): "Movie Award Goes to Jennifer Jones". The New York Times. United Press. 2 March 1944. Retrieved 5 September 2017.
• From Seven Days in May: "Seven Days in May". Movies & TV Dept. The New York Times. 2012. Archived from the original on 2012-03-01. Retrieved 2008-12-25.
• From Is Paris Burning? (film): "NY Times: Is Paris Burning?". Movies & TV Dept. The New York Times. 2009. Archived from the original on 9 June 2009. Retrieved 26 December 2008.
• From Out of Africa (film): "NY Times: Out of Africa". Movies & TV Dept. The New York Times. 2012. Archived from the original on 2012-02-17. Retrieved 2009-01-01.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. Feel free to remove this comment after fixing the refs. AnomieBOT⚡ 02:57, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Quotes out of control

Reads like 7th graders copy pasted from Wiki Quotes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moxy (talk • contribs) 12:20, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Concerning blacklist paragraph

The following contains valuable information but needs organization and rewriting.

In fact, Douglas did not announce Trumbo as the credited screenwriter of Spartacus until August 1960, seven months after producer-director Otto Preminger's January 20, 1960, announcement that he had hired Trumbo to adapt Leon Uris' novel Exodus for the screen. Douglas later successfully denied Trumbo a sought credit on the film Town Without Pity as he worried that his continued association with the screen writer would hurt his career. and Kirk Douglas publicly announced that Trumbo was the screenwriter of Spartacus. Further, President John F. Kennedypublicly ignored a demonstration organized by the American Legion and went to see the film.

Rich (talk) 03:08, 11 January 2024 (UTC)