Talk:Oliver Stone/Archive 1

Sexual assault allegation (Carrie Stevens)
Carrie Stevens' allegation that Stone assaulted her occurred on twitter. That tweet, by Stevens, is the primary source. That citation was removed by the user Neutrality and replaced with a citation to Variety as the source. Variety is a secondary source. I intend to restore the twitter citation.

Here is the URL of the actual tweet:

https://twitter.com/CarrieStevensXO/status/918648740981780480

Note that the CarrieStevensXO account is verified, which means that Twitter confirms that the account is actually owned by Stevens.

--CarlJParker (talk) 19:57, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Controversy Section
I removed the comments in the controversy section about Natural Born Killers inspring crimes such as the columbine murders. I feel that comment and the one that followed it were less than objective. Attributing the Columbine massacre to a film is completely ridiculous.

Permission to change
I would like to include Stone's recent comments on the holocaust. any objections? (i am not being bold because wikipedians over the last year or two have not taken kindly towards that idea) 69.114.177.238 (talk) 01:46, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

CAUTION: EXTREME BIAS
Whoever recently edited this article has a severe bias toward Oliver Stone. Someone should put in a "neutrality is disputed" box.

I was the last person to edit this article. I gave my reason for my additions directly below here in the 'Jack The Ripper' section, backed up by several press citations. If you have any problem with it, how about arguing your case in that section, rather than adding an unsubstantiated allegation, titled in capital letters, with nothing whatsoever so far to back it up - bingo99 20 October 2007, 04:24 (UTC)

Thank you bingo99, you're absolutely right. I thought the bias was obvious enough to be seen in reading the article, but now that you mention it--I wasn't wild about the sugar-coated way the article addressed "Alexander's" critical and commercial failure; the movie flat-out bombed. In addition, you definitely were not the last person to edit the content in question. The "Jack the Ripper" bit was lovely, really--so no need to take offense. If press citations are your forte, I suggest you finish up your masterwork on this still allegedly uncited article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.171.233.71 (talk) 13:37, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't know about the rest of the article, I just added the bit about the Jack The Ripper incident and its media response as impartially as I could. So I was, I think, a bit peeved by the title of this section. Don't worry, I'll get over it though. And press citations aren't my forte, their in Wikipedia's rules, that demand you back up what you've written. Seems straightforward and reasonable enough to me - bingo99, 13:45, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Jack the Ripper
I've taken out the part of the controversy section regarding the Jack the Ripper joke, because if you watch it on youtube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IUXp0GyohXc), you'll see that it actually got a HUGE laugh and did not go badly at all like the article says it did.

It never got a huge laugh, it got a huge shocked reaction, followed by a few embarrassed laughs. I'm putting it back in, slightly rephrased. The press reaction makes it noteworthy on its own. - bingo99 —Preceding comment was added at 18:57, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Here's a few press quotes.

"But there was a sour note at the ceremony when Hollywood film-maker Oliver Stone shocked the audience with a bad-taste reference to the Suffolk serial killer." BBC News - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/6177591.stm

But his attempt at comedy was met with jeers and gasps of horror from the celebrity audience. Realising his joke had bombed, Stone sneered: "You're a lovely crowd." One audience member said: "If he was trying to be funny, then he failed. To make a joke like that when five young women have been murdered and the killer is still on the loose was in unbelievably bad taste." news.com.au - http://www.news.com.au/entertainment/story/0,23663,20926329-7485,00.html

"Sometimes an audience gets misjudged by what they will respond to favorably, and director Oliver Stone recently this found out the hard way with a badly timed serial killer joke in all places: England." Monsters & Critics - http://people.monstersandcritics.com/news/article_1233530.php/Oliver_Stones_Ripper_joke_backfires

"The only real moment of note came on ITV2 when a seemingly intoxicated Oliver Stone stumbled out and started burbling on about Jack the Ripper, which is hardly the cleverest thing to do given the current mood of the nation. He might have got away with such terrible taste and timing if his remarks were actually in any way funny but they weren’t and Liza Tarbuck very wisely chose not to bandy words with him when it became obvious that he was less than coherent." Digital Spy - http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/tv/a40837/not-having-a-laugh.html

- bingo99 20:24, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

His love for Castro
In this article nothing states how mutch he loves Castro, I think it is pretty important. I mean if you are going to include his vietnam stuff include this.

We've got to rename these pages (perhaps /JFK, /Nixon, etc., or JFK the film, etc.), because the names of the movies overlap with subjects of encyclopedia articles...


 * Now using disambiguating parentheses, like "JFK (film)", see the page source for detail. The Anome

www.joematters.com


 * "Love" might not be the correct word, "admiration" perhaps. And even so, not because he admires Castro it means that he adores communism, on the contrary, many people in the world both admire and loath Fidel Castro as a person, not a communist leader.


 * The original editor here obviously doesn't understand the rules of Wikipedia. Oliver Stone did a series of interviews with Fidel Castro and made a documentary about him. He did not profess love for the man at any stage and no serious media source has stated that he 'loved Fidel Castro' while providing sources to back up their story. So in other words this is a matter of the original editors opinion ENTIRELY.--Senor Freebie (talk) 16:16, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * My, how the passage of a few short years renders previous bewilderment hopelessly passe. By late 2012, there is little doubt in any prudent observer's mind that Stone has now seamlessly incorporated himself within the collective of pro-communist rewriters of history along old Soviet propaganda lines. Of course, when you're a fading has-been who's no longer bankable on your own declining merits, "going commie" in Red Hollywood is an always reliable way to keep the dinner plate loaded for awhile longer. Unfortunately, wholesale plagiarizing and ghostwriter-whoring tends to get noticed.--Mike18xx (talk) 18:24, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Alleged comment in Rolling Stone or Playboy
This entry was just added to the "Persons of debated lesbian, gay, or bisexual orientation" in the List of famous gay, lesbian or bisexual people. Any information about this interview or the "hints?" Cheers, -Willmcw 19:46, May 30, 2005 (UTC)
 * Oliver Stone, hinted at past same-sex relationships in a 2004 interview with Rolling Stone magazine.
 * That's totally unecessary in an article of this length. He made an extremely vague comment in an interview, with PLayboy, I think, about homosexual relationships (sex, really) and his one-time connection with that area in the 60's. That was all. Blintz 23:56, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I just added the bit about his novel, but as I look at this article, it seems a little disorganized. It also seems to lack depth for someone as notorious as Stone. I may take some time tonight to reorganize and expand on this thing... unless anyone has any objections. Dr Ellipso 20:48, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

just changed the bit about mushrooms - it's not stone talking on the dvd, it's a member of cast, I think his producer, talking about oliver pressing on the accelerator and the car swerving all over the road... but it's not stone saying it to the interviewer.

"Tufano" vandalism
Note that edits inserting supposed information about "Marc Tufano" are vandalism and should be reverted on sight. This has affected multiple articles (Robert De Niro, The Beatles, etc. etc.) -- Curps 18:41, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

criticism
I have heard him criticized for the Doors movie, which embellishes quite a bit despite looking like a biography. Should we add something about this?
 * The Doors really doesn't embellish any more than any other biopic. Blintz 23:56, 9 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Certainly, among Doors fans (real fans) this movie depicts Morrison nothing but on the lines of a drunkard poet (and a hipocrit one from time to time), if well that was one of the sides of Jim Morrison, it wasnt his best side or his predominant one, in fact, people who knew him have the image of a very sensitive man (some even remember him as a cry baby, but thats maybe to harsh), for example Jim never set a closet on fire, that was completely ficticious. The comercial for "come on baby light my fire" for example, well that never happened too and many other factual innacuracies like that. None of the remainning members of the Doors liked the movie, and Manzarek has speaked numerous times against it.

defamation
the discussion of drug use is completely irrelevent. the following quotation criticizing him is completely out of place. this is a disaster.


 * Disagree; he was arrested for doing drugs. This reflects in many ways his prior movies, and cannot be ingnored as a contributor to his outlook on life.

work
I actually think this is a pretty poor article for someone so famous and with such a history with such views. In the latest issue of Empire (UK film magazine) which is September, there was an extremely long interview spanning a few pages (their fourth interview of the man!) which covers all of this article and gives much more detail. Such as, he speaks about being on psychedilic drugs for nine hours straight and his experiencews. I think people with the time and skills should get this magazine, do a little research and make this a FA. I will try my best because I find him so fascinating. 80.47.229.199 23:12, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

picture
Why was the picture changed? I don't like the new one. Can someone come up with a better one? He looks like a deer in headlights in this one. Dr Ellipso 11:45, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
 * The image was changed from an unfree publicity photograph to one released under a free license; if you want a better image, please contact Mr. Stone and arrange to take one yourself. Personally, I find the current image just fine. --SB | T 12:15, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Claim
Stone's films often deal with political matters and are sometimes critical of the US government. JFK, for instance, hypothesizes about many high-level government officials having a hand in the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. In 1991, he showed the film to Congress on Capitol Hill, which helped lead to passage of the Assassination Materials Disclosure Act of 1992

I have heard this many times but does the claim have a source??

I recall him addressing some official gathering in Washington where he talked of conspiracies such as 'Iran-Contra' etc. Mr Stone is a passionate and patriotic American, but can we take his 'JFK' seriously?. Over and over in the Movie he shows the 'Head Snap' shot from the Z film. What you are seeing is a bullet exiting JFKs head and muscle reflexes throwing the head back. Not according to Mr Stones Movie. The bullet somehow (only God knows how?) explodes as it enters the head (turning Newtons physics upside down and driving material 'behind' it) then kicks the Presidents head back while throwing other materials in the opposite direction. No where on Gods Earth (outside JFK) does matter behave like that.Johnwrd (talk) 23:10, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Wall Street?
Am I misinformed or didn't he direct the movie Wall Street? There is no mention of this in the posting. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.211.217.253 (talk) 18:05, 8 May 2007 (UTC).

Stone and FARC
I personally disagree with the title given to the section about FARC. Stone did not visit FARC. He was merely there to shoot the hostage liberation. However, I do agree that by saying FARC is 'heroic' and justifying the hostage-taking, Stone is supporting FARC, at least ideologically. For this reason, I think we should revert the changes some of you made, but I would like to hear your opinions. My proposal is: "Alleged support to FARC", which I don't like but at least tries to compromise. Jedalonso (talk) 17:49, 16 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I could call US soldiers who served during the troubles in Fallujah heroic but that doesn't mean I agree with the US governments ideology. I could call Soviet Red Army soldiers heroic during their defence of Stalingrad but that doesn't mean I agree with their ideology either. If I stated that I was a believer in pre-emptive strikes / capitalism or socialism I would be agreeing with ideology but that has nothing to do with heroism.--Senor Freebie (talk) 16:21, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Insufficient info in Biography
The bio read is confusing. It talks about his time in the Army and then immediately speaks of his making three Vietnam themed films, completely circumventing how he came to learn to make movies and what set him in that direction in the first place. I suggest a remedy, as it's a wide open hole that deserves elaboration. --CmdrClow (talk) 06:27, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Bass/Keyboardist (Ray) & last edit by User:216.197.188.208
Ka'Jong was under the impression that The Doors lacked a bassist, so Ray Manzarek usually played the bass parts on a Fender Rhodes piano Bass. Ka'Jong knows Ray was known predominately as the keyboardist for The Doors and that his signature sound is that of the Vox Continental organ, an instrument used by many other psychedelic rock bands of the era. He later used a Gibson G-101 Kalamazoo (which looks like a Farfisa) because the Italian Continental keys "sticked" and remained "down" without pushing it. Ka' Jong ( Ka' Talk ) 15:23, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Platoon/Pinkville
Needless to say after seeing "Platoon" I now greatly look forward to seeing "Pinkville".

Since I was Infantry in Nam from 1967 thru 1969 during the same time Oliver was there then I can attest to the accuracy of Stone's war films. "Platoon" was so realistic that it made me realize for the first time that I had suppressed the horrors of war so well, (as trained), and for so long that I couldn't even hardly function anymore. For the first time since Nam I wept and waited for hours in the movie theater parking lot before I could even drive home. That's how real Oliver's films are. They will tear at and expose the areas in your warped Psyche until healing begins. Who else can use films and books to such an extent to help others? None that I know of except for Kimberly Peirce who produced "Stop Loss" and Col. Chaplain Jerry Autry who wrote "Gun-Totin Chaplain" and whom I had the privilege to serve with in Nam. He even wrote of my head gun shot wound during the Tet Offensive and the horrors of seeing war torn young soldiers dying every day. True Heroes.

Your Nam buddies and I wish you the greatest success with "Pinkville" and stand ready to assist you in getting this next great war film off the ground. Not that you would ever need us to do it but just to let you know that we are still willing in spirit, just as I freely volunteered to serve in combat and even waived my only child status. We made it, Welcome Home !!!GPageIII (talk) 07:17, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

The following is from Wikipedia's Talk page for its My Lai entry. It is worth reposting here. The last half has been the object of repeated vandalism by hackers who appear to be in Hollywood.

 * This page is being used for advertising. There is no need to mention Oliver Stone. Stone made one half-way decent film in his life, Platoon. The rest was hyped-up trash. Long ago, film-making for Stone became a cover for other activities, like narcotics and prostitution. He was never serious about making Pinkville. He bilked United Artists out of $6 million for a tiny film set in Thailand. Through five years of bull-shitting, Stone managed to make his name synonymous with My Lai. Considering his comments in the press he doesn't know Peers from Koster. So, let's edit Stone out.


 * Some of the 2010 movie My Lai Four by the italian producer Gianni Paolucci can be viewed on You Tube. This film looks like trash. If it is to be mentioned on this page then another movie about My Lai, by a Vietnamese film maker, Le Dan, also released last year, should also be mentioned. This is a film romanticization about William Calley, leader of the first platoon into My Lai.


 * The 2008 British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) documentary, The My Lai Tapes, included a few interesting points. Unfortunately, not many listeners can go to the National Archives to hear all 400 hours of audio tapes of testimony before the Peers Commission. The excerpts played on the BBC program, which ia available on You Tube, arouse interest. But the program seems to leave some doubt that there is really more on the tapes worth hearing. BBC should try again.


 * Good idea! Until a Hollyood film is actually released let's have no more advertising. Signed: Surfer


 * This is a talk page about this article, not your personal views on Oliver Stone's directorial efforts. Stick to the subject, anonymous Hellbound Hound (talk) 13:26, 7 October 2012 (UTC)


 * -Don’t get emotional, bub. Are you the Hollywooder who hi-jacked this entire site for several months a couple of years ago? Just mentioning known and relevant facts.


 * The $6 million My Lai movie set is below the Karen village of Mae Aw in the south of Chiang Dao District of Chiang Mai Province in Thailand. Go see for yourself. It isn’t worth $60.


 * Stone and Willis wanted to play up the old media myth, which the army found convenient, that Calley was responsible for the massacre. If Calley had F. Lee Bailey on his side he wouldn’t have spent a day in the brig.


 * Stone and Willis wanted to portray Peers as a hero for exposing My Lai and then losing his career as a result. Utter nonsense. Who put them up to that? The CIA called My Lai. Peers, a long-time CIA man with the pacification program in South Vietnam, was sent in to hide that. The Peers Commission was a joke. Like the Warren Commission. Anybody can tell you that. Peers was never persecuted or ruined and he did not lose his career. Only the division commander, Gen. Koster, lost his career. His office was suspected in the massacre and he was damned for trying to “cover-up”. But Stone and Willis don’t want to say that.


 * Stone and Willis should be investigated. Their buddies too.


 * Don’t delete this comment. Don’t call it a personal attack. Or a racial slur. Or whatever. Don’t try to defend or advertise the baddies by attacking an honest Joe.


 * Signed: The Man on the Street (If you read, you know.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beginthebeguine (talk • contribs) 11:37, 2 November 2012 (UTC)


 * No. Why would you ask such a ridiculous question?Hellbound Hound (talk) 13:22, 5 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Now who's getting emotional? This all reads like your POV, but if you've got reliable sources, don't be lazy -- insert them into the article.Hellbound Hound (talk) 13:55, 5 November 2012 (UTC)


 * -Do not vandalize my post again.


 * My comment above is correct. It is common knowledge. If it isn’t on this site’s main page, that’s because no one is taking the page seriously. Indeed, there are people advertising themselves and their buddies. There are people selling pictures . ..


 * If you want to know about My Lai, go to a library. Go to newspaper archives. Go to television archives. Listen to the My Lai tapes. Don’t go by Wikipedia. Nobody in journalism or academia relies on Wikipedia. And you won’t learn a thing from Hollywood.


 * If you want to know something about Stone, go see his “film set” in Thailand, as I suggested. Or read his crap for the past six years about his Pinkville “project”. A lot of it is still on the Internet. Or look at his films.


 * Signed: The Man on the Street — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beginthebeguine2 (talk • contribs) 12:57, 7 November 2012 (UTC)


 * First of all, I didn't vandalize your post. I responded to your comments. Secondly, anyone can edit a Wikipedia article. If what you write is correct, simply insert the information into the article along with the citations. Is this too complicated for you to understand?Hellbound Hound (talk) 09:12, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

The hacking has been from this point on.
There is still talk (on the Internet) of turning out a movie called Pinkville. The most recent claim is that a film is to be released, with the same director but a new cast, in 2014. Frankly, I think this is nonsense. Long ago, Hollywood passed the thing to the Italians and they made a typically brainless action film out of it. Movie audiences today demand a bit more than that. They don’t care so much about the push-buttons in the field. They want to know who’s pushing the button and why. There is no one in Hollywood with the spine, patience, honesty and intelligence to do that. Signed: Zach Lamm (11/8/12) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnnycoffeshop (talk • contribs) 13:58, 8 November 2012 (UTC)


 * A Hollywood director says he wants to make a movie about the general who headed the army’s investigation of the My Lai massacre. That can only mean one thing: An embarrassing expose of the investigator, his higher-ups, the investigation itself and the army courts-martial. But, no! The film is to portray the investigator as a saint who reveals what monsters American soldiers are and is crucified for it. That’s all crap. Who is behind that? Signed: Tom TerrificRetrospection3 (talk) 13:26, 10 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Nicolas Coppola (aka Nicholas Cage) is the latest Hollywood actor to fall into the Pinkville film fiasco. Cage is going to star as Gen. Peers.


 * Cage has appeared in war flicks before. He played the hero. Windtalkers was his best - a patriotic American World War 2 film.


 * So, what is Cage doing in this Pinkville movie? There were no good guys in the My Lai story. No heroes. It was all dirt.


 * The director wants to glamorize Peers as an honest investigator who revealed a big massacre of Vietnamese civilians by American soldiers and got canned for it. That’s not what happened. Peers reported only what he had to. He covered for superiors. The public was not fooled. Peers did not look good. But his career did not suffer. Besides, the army courts-martial were a far more important part of the story.


 * The director wants to demonize one soldier for it all. The army, the press, anti-Americans and wackos did that. But the public was not fooled.


 * Indeed, what is the motive for this Hollywood attempt to perpetuate the old myth of the lone soldier and glamorize an investigator with conflicts of interest? Who paid for it?


 * Cage should get out of the film. Besides, the My Lai story cannot be dispensed with in the run-of-the-mill work Cage likes to turn out. You can’t knock it off with a couple of weeks of filming. Signed: Cookies Galore Podikiw (talk) 16:21, 13 November 2012 (UTC)


 * This Pinkville movie proposal should not have rated more than a footnote in the history of the aftermath of the My Lai massacre. Instead, it became a scandal. The Hollywood mafiosi that caused it should be taken to task. Signed: Me TooTheallseeingeyethree (talk) 08:39, 3 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Stone and Willis are a couple of ass-holes. But is that why they wanted to make a movie about My Lai?


 * A lot of people suspect the army or the CIA bribed them. There might be something to that. But that's not the whole story.


 * Here’s the inside dope. Stone wanted to make a movie about Seymour Hersch. Hersch was the first newspaper reporter to publish anything about My Lai. Willis was to portray Hersch. They would tout the left-wing press and exploit the myth that one soldier was responsible for it all. It would please the army, who needed a scape-goat. It would also please the CIA, who ordered the attack on My Lai.


 * However, Stone and Willis realized eventually that a movie about Hersch would be too obvious. So they decided to make the movie about William Peers instead. General Peers led the army inquiry into reports of a massacre at My Lai.


 * But then they ran into another problem. Peers was CIA. And the CIA was behind many massacres in Vietnam.


 * The more Stone and Willis read about My Lai, the more they realized it wasn’t really about one soldier, or one platoon, or even one village. It involved a hundred or so soldiers, including many officers, spread out over several platoons in several villages, one platoon killing in one place while another platoon killed in another place, and one platoon picking up where another left off, over four long hours. There was much more to My Lai than Stone and Willis had initially thought. So they dropped it.


 * To get out of it, they claimed UA went bankrupt. Well, UA never stopped making movies.


 * Hearing the silly bullshit from Hollywood, the Italians decided to make the movie about My Lai themselves. But theycouldn’t find anyone to play Hersch so they made a typical Italian war flic and said it was based on Hersch’s story.


 * That’s the loedown.


 * Barton Delmore, Hollywood, California — Preceding unsigned comment added by Godhctaw (talk • contribs) 09:37, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

=
The comments in the above content appear to be accurate. But they have been the object of repeated hacking by vandals using various names. They have also blocked the page. This is the second time in the past three years years that hackers, probably the same ones, have blocked the page. About a year ago they deleted 90% of the Talk page. One thing is sure. They are fans, friends, relatives or associates of Oliver Stone. Signed: Johnny Singh (talk) 09:33, 8 January 2013 (UTC)Johnny Singh======

MIA 25th ID
Mr. Stone,,if u have any feeling for MIA listed with 25th ID 1968..PLEASE contact me immediately or anyone in this audience who has contact with Mr. Stone, please see that he gets this article. Contact me ASAP..I have info on an MIA..he is deceased..but am needing guidance to promote the issue before I go ahead with same. Have video evidence taken on 25 April, 1968 near the District of Trang Bang..This is serious..PLEASE no phonies..This is very important. Thanks and PLEASE..if anyone can get this to Mr Stone he will see the value .I was also in 25th ID a grunt, 1968.

Bill

Contact billybee68@yahoo.com

This is NO JOKE!!! Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.93.134.150 (talk) 01:57, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

directing: composer
have been following producers, concerning nbk, and the likes of journalism, and common interests somewhere in the area of doors & platoon. stonehenge seems to capture these compelling, as far as a seemingly voice in common theatric and journalistic persuasions, as if dancing olympia, sometimes. is that bias? yoda christine75.251.72.244 (talk) 12:19, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

FARC-EP: Outdated info
The FARC-EP related article contains outdated information from 2003. Colombian officials say the FARC-EP has some 12000 active fighters, not 17500 as stated in this article. The amount of money from cocaine generated by the FARC is also based on a 2003 estimate found in the same outdated source. Furthermore, the section also contains personal opinions and "wild" conclusions drawn entirely from the source from 2003.

What Is Ignored by Stone (and His Fellow Members of the "Radical Chic") in the Director's Documentaries
I added the following to the Controversy section: The Castro dosumentaries 'were panned by conservatives, as was Stone's more recent South of the Border about Castro ally and Venezuelan leader Hugo Chávez. Investor's Business Daily weighed in with the opinion that "Hugo's a movie star now, with Stone creating a propaganda film in his honor, just as Leni Riefenstahl did for Adolf Hitler." Specifically, the editorial criticizes the film for, say, not paying "attention to those Middle Eastern and Colombian terrorists with Venezuelan passports" and berates Venice's film crowds for ignoring Chavez's "forging deadly links with regimes as brutal as his own — or worse." The IBD concludes with a condemnation, referring to Tom Wolfe's "radical chic", of "the self-destructive propensity of the privileged elites to sidle up to predators trying to kill them".' (Chavez's Deadly Star Turn In Venice by Investor's Business Daily) Asteriks (talk) 11:27, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * And I've removed it. You must have a reliable source; an editorial is a source for only what the commenter thinks, and the IBD is hopeless as a source for anything not financial - and I wouldn't even use it for something financial unless I had 2 or 3 other sources to back it up. This is, let me remind you, the paper which did not know Stephen Hawking was a Brit. Given that, I wouldn't use them as a source that water is wet. KillerChihuahua ?!?Advice 12:46, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I have removed it from Talk:South of the Border (2009 film) for much the same reason. It's not a review in so much as the the author admits only to watching the trailer. Dynablaster (talk) 14:47, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Lloyd Kaufman? Be Serious.
I'm removing this: "Stone and known independent filmmaker Lloyd Kaufman were childhood friends, and have since collaborated on a number of projects."

It's unsourced, and a search on imdb for joint credits comes up empty. Lloyd Kaufman is a self-promoter likely to make a claim like this if he thought it would sell one extra copy of Toxic Avenger. Bustter (talk) 09:27, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

With further research: Stone appeared in a bit role in an early Kauffman film, and was credited as coproducer of Sugar Cookies, cowritten by Kauffman, but according to this source (http://www.avclub.com/articles/lloyd-kaufman,14238/) he now disowns that work.

So far as I can tell, Kauffman is the only source for the "childhood friendship" allegation Bustter (talk) 09:49, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Prophet
Mr. Stone seems to be modern media mogul in films that really have prophesied the future, past, and present. In the film about The Doors, there were controversies, and must be difficult to find places within the media, and virtual reality that persons commonly could relate to, and apply themselves from where they are. Creating films about nations around the globe would require those to live with others and share their stories and beliefs. See, Osiris for special eyes, and hieroglyphs find <|> there should have been mentioned the 5,000 Redwing Blackbirds, or the meteors in Texas & Canada. It would help, instead of stations being afraid of some scare, which in effect invites superstition which is actually worse. There are shows on supernatural events. 75.250.12.16 (talk) 22:31, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Oliver Stone says Hitler an 'easy scapegoat'
This Israeli site: [Ynetnews] tells that Oliver Stone says Hitler an 'easy scapegoat'.Agre22 (talk) 23:16, 11 January 2010 (UTC)agre22

the most notable yet most insignificant director of all time?
while I realize O Stone is a very notable film directory, is there anyone who is less significant? His dishonest portraits of history give his films a shelf life of about 6 months. look at the great directors and film makers of the last 30 years and you can't help but notice Oliver Stone is that smushed up residue on the bottom of the barrel. Popular, yes, significant, no. One day we'll all be saying "Oliver who?" I think this fact should go in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.233.178.254 (talk) 18:55, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, since this "fact" is your personal opinion, I don't see that happening. Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:57, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Current Marriage
In the article we have: He is currently married to Sun-jung Jung. Does anyone have a source for this? Since this is a living person bio, I'm for removing the sentence if we don't have a source. Heroeswithmetaphors (talk) 09:48, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * sourced it. GaussianCopula (talk) 04:05, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Vietnam Vet?
His veteran status is entirely unsourced and perhaps we have only Mr. Stone's word for it that he's a war hero. Given the popularity of his films it seems important to have this nailed down. If sourcing is not provided within a week I will remove the statements on his military life.Dynasteria (talk) 11:56, 30 June 2010 (UTC) This article is so nauseatingly self-congratulatory that I removed the Vietnam statements. I suggest that whoever is the proponent of Stone's biography provide the sources ... other than some filmic website. Dynasteria (talk) 12:25, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed, it says in the lead he was an infantryman, and in Platoon it states it was based on his combat experiences, yet in the prose it just says he was a teacher and a wiper on some Merchant Marine ship. Major inaccuracy? S.G.(GH) ping! 11:14, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Times interview
It's difficult to edit the section on the Times interview without a subscription - at the moment, it appears that the article has been *very* selectively quoted from. In the interests of NPOV, can someone add some context? Pexise (talk) 20:55, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * There are some quotes here: --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:37, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Should have looked here, first, but obviously this information has got to be in the reference, as well as actually telling us what the name of article is, date, etc. Very sloppy work for a BLP which those responsible should correct. And context is important. And mainstream sources. Since partisan ones may blow an incident up, we must make sure that we don't allow it to become WP:UNDUE on wikipedia. CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:02, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

His supposed "Anti-semitic" remarks
His remarks were not anti-semitic. Jews and their supporters just don't agree with what he said and are pulling out the anti-semitic card like they always do.

The heading Anti-semitic Remarks MUST be renamed to something like "Controversal remarks" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iosephus sanctus (talk • contribs) 20:52, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * According to prominent Jewish rights groups, Oliver Stone's comments were antisemitism and consistent with the classic Jewish conspiracy canards. "Controversial remarks" almost sounds like a euphemism. I changed it to "allegations" of antisemitism. Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:55, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Totally agreed, Wikifan12345. Now it seems adequate. I just added a space before the parenthesis. Walter Sobchak0 (talk) 12:08, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Controversial remarks is a better title for the section since it also contains quotes and not only "Allegations of antisemitism" --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:53, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It is already a subsection of a section named "Controversy" - so calling it "controversial statements" doesn't really add much. The previous name was more descriptive and informational. HupHollandHup (talk) 21:03, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with Mr. Sanctus; the remarks do not prima facie demonstrate anti-semetism (regardless of what you or I may think; e.g., Stone may claim he was commenting on the Holocaust's coverage vs. that of other genocides), and it is driving an opinion if we say they do. They do, however, unquestionably detail the Holocaust, and it's appropriate to include the Jewish rights groups' responses and subsequent allegations. I'm going to be bold and change the title to Holocaust remarks, and leave out the year (what does the year help?). Magog the Ogre (talk) 20:06, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, upon further review, the remarks were unquestionably anti-Jewish in character, and thus by very definition anti-semetic. I've reverted the name change. [[User:Magog the

Ogre|Magog the Ogre]] (talk) 20:11, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I believe it is not our place to judge whether what he said was anti-semetism, that is for the reader to decide. Of course, its a very strong issue and people become incensed, rightly sometimes. My other point however, is that the section is given undue weight. It is a large section discussing in quite alot of detail a sentences worth of remarks from Stone. It is a small part of his career and discusses a relatively small incident in his life. I think the section needs cutting down. There is no need for the weighty analysis quoted from various groups. We just need the remarks themselves and the analysis of "[The following groups} criticised Stone for what they claimed were anti-semetic remarks." Much more fair, and not giving anything undue weight. ValenShephard (talk) 12:09, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Stone anti-semetic? Stone is a Jew.
Oliver Stone is not anti-semetic. After all, Stone is himself a Jew. If his remarks sound anti-semetic that is typical of Jews. Jews are very critical of Jews in general and often express their opinions in terms that sound anti-semetic. Of course, there are Jews who want to make it in the big white world and claim to be Christians and to abhore Jews. That may be the case here. I do not know Stone personally but I have seen him a dozen times in different situations in different places about the world in the past 40 years. Every time he was in in the company of Jews. Some of them were Israelis. That was not a coincidence. His closest friends are Jews. His closest business associates are Jews, including Israelis. Jews are his bread. Jews paved the way for his Hollywood career. Thay are his main backers. User:anonymousuomynona —Preceding undated comment added 10:59, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Wikilink
Stone's reference to "The Jewish domination of the media" wikilinks to the article about the 'Jewish lobby'.

The thing is that this isn't quite true. To make a reference to Jewish lobbies in the U.S., which exist alongside the Irish lobby, Indian lobby, etc., is totally different then saying that Jews control the media. I would prefer to take all links out of Stone's comments and let him speak for himself.173.57.61.233 (talk) 22:52, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * "Jewish domination of the media" could be wikilinked to Jewish domination but I figured Jewish lobby is less controversial. Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:12, 30 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I think the commentary in the controversial remarks section needs a much greater position of accuracy, because theallegation that essentailly a person is racist, ie by posting the aforementioned section that he said a Jewish lobby exists, implicates the acial idea of Judaism. Isn't it fair to assume good faith for the interview in that he articulating the idea that a wider religious lobby exists in the U.S? This actually reeks of bias, because it implies that any and all criticisms of a faith aren't above board. I would warn people about ad hominem attacks in future.--Cymbelmineer (talk) 01:16, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Vietnam Experience & Non-Mainstream Views
I think his Vietnam experience should be elaborated on, since it was formative. A list of his decorations would be helpful, since they relate to actual incidents. What rank did he make? What weapons did he use? What was his MOS (military specialty)? This should be a large section unto itself. As for his iconoclastic views, how much of these were a result of meditation and how much owing to drugs? Since most people just "toady" along with the pop fad of the moment, Stone's iconoclastic views are always refreshing. The history that we're taught in school is such a big lie. When a prestigious filmmaker like Stone has non-mainstream views and he gets lambasted, though, what chance do the rest of us have? The Wright Bros., for instance, didn't build and fly the first powered airplane, about a dozen other guys did it before them; Chuck Yeager was not the first to break the sound barrier, George Welch did it first; Edison did not invent the first light bulb, lots of other men did it before him; Pocahontas did not save John Smith's life, Smith made the story up; Gutenberg did not invent movable type, a Dutchman named Janzoon Koster did it, etc., etc. 64.169.154.183 (talk) 09:35, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Mainstream success
Any reason JFK (1991) is excluded from the "Mainstream success" filmography section? Just oversight, or lack of awards? JFK won two Academy Awards and was nominated for 8. •Λmniarix• (talk) 17:07, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Whitewashing Stalin
In the first part of The Untold History of the United States he narrates repeatedly "Stalin was a brutal dictator. He was, however, on our side and, mostly, a good guy. So we should give him a pass.". There are some very heavy blunders there too but, hey, when you have Stalin as a friend... 78.27.74.89 (talk) 23:33, 14 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, every medal has a shiny and a flippy side. At the time of the Russian Revolution the Russian population was 90 % or 95 % illiterate. Doesn't matter precisely, does it, in that category.


 * I do not know how many people learned to read and write in the short phase of Lenin's rule, (the first phase of Lenin's rule was complete anarchy), so it was Stalin's brutal system that forced parents to send their children to the schools which the Stalinists established. And yes, parents had to be forced because they would have preferred their children to work in the fields illegally. This is what I see as Stalin's legacy; Russia isn't full of analphabets. But for everything, there is a price to pay. 121.209.56.24 (talk) 04:52, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Untold History of the United States
As The Untold History of the United States will be a 10 part series It should have its own page, as most TV series do. There needs to be episode recaps, ratings, and episode air dates all done in a standard chart. The Section here could be used as a good jumping off point and then condensed, with a subsequent link to the main page for the series which could contain the unexpurgated version existing now on this page. I'm assuming non editors cannot start a new page as I see no option to do this. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.118.44.217 (talk) 16:09, 15 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I found this interesting reading: http://rbth.com/international/2014/09/30/oliver_stone_on_why_russia_is_a_natural_ally_of_the_us_40225.html

121.209.56.24 (talk) 04:55, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Cuban Democracy
In the "Documentaries" section the article lists Raul Castro as a democratically elected leader in Latin America. Whatever view one have on the political situation in Cuba it is quite a stretch to call the leader of a country that basically is a single party state democratically elected.Granbarr (talk) 13:59, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Moxie want my book made into
Hello-e-u Oliver Stone: I wrote a book titled "By Bill" from Xlibris.com I am the inventor of "The Breen Maneuver" which is to use your other side of body for any problem. I was a triple crown winner at V.A. Hospital, volunteer, employee and patient. Never in the military but volunteers get free care on duty. I was at Boston V.A. quite a bit. My book I was injured the same spot on the back T-6 as Ron Kovic in your moxie "Born on the 4rth of July." I did recover though. I realize though in service being injured a whole new different world. I, with a WW2 amphibious landing doctor, realized the Vietnam Veterans were our 1917 to 1918 of American World War 1. WW1 was part 1914 to 1915 of WW1. Our WW 2 was 1915 to 1916 of Americas WW1. Korea was 1916 to 1917 of Americas WW1. Then Vietnam was our 1917 to 1918 of Americas WW1. Gulf War 1 was the end of our WW1. Then Gulf War 2 the start of our WW2. "It's over." Telephone number 781-769-4460. Really seriously trying to have my book made into moxie. Put the film in the Norwood Mass Theatre projector years ago. BillBreen3@verizon.net Would be very interested in sending free copy of my book "By Bill." A moxie would be great, but I have been painting for over 28 years now as an artist. I paint quite a lot of portraits. Don't make a lot of money but enough portraits for an artist career. Portraits I have done, Judge Sullivan, State Rep. John Rogers, and attorney James Stanton. Sincerely Yours, Bill Breen 4 Adams St. Norwood, Mass. 02062 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.252.11.114 (talk) 01:32, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Minor Edit to military service
I made a minor change to his military service; his company was listed before his platoon. The Platoon is smaller than a company, so the platoon should be first.

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Oliver Stone. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100617021443/http://www.hollywoodreporter.com:80/hr/content_display/film/news/e3ia69b7a31e057937e0ebb482e4bc5440a to http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/content_display/film/news/e3ia69b7a31e057937e0ebb482e4bc5440a

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 02:08, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

The Zapatista Crisis
Like Danielle Mitterrand, Oliver Stone was a strong international supporter for a peaceful solution to the Zapatista Crisis. On February 9, 1995, Ernesto Zedillo's 71-day old administration ignited a tremendous social crisis. After he announced Subcomandante Marcos to be Rafael Sebastián Guillén Vicente. In counterproductive turn of events, President Ernesto Zedillo made a series of decisions that broke the peaceful solution strategy action plan defined by President Carlos Salinas that had kept the peace since the Zapatista Army of National Liberation uprising and the agreements Zedillo authorized his Secretary of Interior Esteban Moctezuma to compromise with Marcos 3 days before in Guadalupe Tepeyac. No matter there was an amnesty law by Salinas and without knowing exactly who Marcos was, only with the PGR's single presumption that Marcos was a dangerous guerrilla. President Ernesto Zedillo decided to launch a military offence to capture or annihilate Marcos in a televised special broadcast President Ernesto Zedillo alleged Marcos to be a terrorist in Nicaragua. There was a storm of political pressures claiming for a fast military solution to the 1995 Zapatista Crisis. Conflicting signals got strengthened for a fast military solution. Facts seemed to confirm Manuel Camacho Solis's June 16, 1994 accusations that the reason for his resignation as the Chiapas Peace Commissioner, was due to sabotage done by then presidential candidate Ernesto Zedillo. Faced with this situation, Rafael Guillén, childhood friend and colleague, at the Jesuits College Instituto Cultural Tampico Max Appedole played a major roll with the Mexican government to avoid a Military solution by demonstrating that contrary to the accusations announced by Zedillo, Rafael Guillén, was no terrorist. He recognized his literary style in all Marcos manifestos that where published in the media, linked them to their literary tournaments organized by the Jesuits in which they competed in Mexico. Confirming that he had no doubt that Marcos was his friend Rafael Guillén, a pacifist. Max Appedole asked for help from Edén Pastora the legendary Nicaraguan "Commander Zero" to prepare a report for under-Secretary of the Interior Luis Maldonado Venegas; the Secretary of the Interior Esteban Moctezuma and the President Ernesto Zedillo about Marcos natural pacifist vocation and the terrible consequences of a tragic outcome. The document concluded that the marginalized groups and the radical left that exist in Mexico, have been vented with the Zapatistas movement, while Marcos maintains an open negotiating track. Eliminate Marcos and his social containment work will would cease and the radical groups to take control of the movement. They will response to violence with violence. Terrorist activities would begin. The country would be in a dangerous spiral, which could lead to very serious situations because not only there is discomfort in Chiapas, but in many places in Mexico. Under a big political pressure of a highly radicalized situation Mexico Luis Maldonado Venegas reestablish the Mexican Government Zapatista Army of National Liberation dialog to search for peace by demonstrating Marcos natural peace vocation and the terrible consequences of a military solution. Oliver Stone visit Marcos at la Realidad Chiapas México on Mar 27, 1996, at the time the 68th Academy Awards Ceremony, when Oliver Stone work was nominated. Oliver Stone played an important role, his support was crucial as time showed that the peaceful solution to the Zapatista uprising was legal, politically and honorably correct, saving many lives in Mexico.

Discussion
Added here by --Trinity Abbey (talk) 00:48, 3 March 2016 (UTC) at my suggestion. --John (talk) 20:45, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

John
Thanks for raising this here, Trinity Abbey.
 * Initial comments:
 * Too many links. See WP:OVERLINK. Easy to fix.
 * Strange reference formatting. Easy to fix.
 * Problems with neutrality. See WP:NPOV.
 * It's not always clear what you are trying to say. We can go through it line by line and clarify these last two points. --John (talk) 20:45, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * NPOV issues:
 * "counterproductive turn of events"
 * "broke the peaceful solution strategy action plan"
 * "No matter there was an amnesty law by Salinas and without knowing exactly who Marcos was"
 * "Facts seemed to confirm"
 * "demonstrating that ... Rafael Guillén, was no terrorist. "
 * "The country would be in a dangerous spiral, which could lead to very serious situations"
 * "time showed that the peaceful solution to the Zapatista uprising was legal, politically and honorably correct, saving many lives in Mexico"


 * There is no place here for writing like this. They would all need to be rephrased. --John (talk) 08:46, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Trinity Abbey
Happy to do that --John and thank you for the help.

To demonstrate neutrality to the facts in a very complicated historical events, this needs many solid links. To gain legitimacy President Ernesto Zedillo was in a power quest over anything related to President Salinas. In a counterproductive, turn of events, int the fists days of his administration President Zedillo took a series of erratic decisions that started several crises that caused the most complicated political, ethnic, social, economic crisis situation time in modern Mexico. It was dangerous to oppose, to the tremendous political pressure for a fast military solution. Only Mexico Secretary of Interior Esteban Moctezuma who pressure with his resignation and under Secretary of Interior Luis Maldonado who restored the peace talks, opposed against a tremendous pressure; what tilt the balance was Marcos old friend, college classmate activist Max Appedole intervention, he said that opposite to President Zedillo televised acusations, Marcos was no terrorist, Max Appedole ask Eden Pastora, legendary Nicaraguan Commander Zero help to demonstrated that President Zedillo televised accusations of terrorism, where false. All this atracted activist interests of Oliver Stone, Danielle Mitterrand and gain the worlds support and sympathy against the military solution to the Zapatista crisis promoted by President Zedillo, Mexico Attorney General, and its Military forces. Saving the dead of thousands of innocent native Americans and subsequent insurrection of ethics groups spread all over Mexico. --Trinity Abbey (talk) 22:46, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Proposed addition (rephrased)
Hi John.! Here it is all rephrased as you requested. :)

The Zapatista Crisis
Like Danielle Mitterrand, Oliver Stone was a strong international supporter for a peaceful solution to the Zapatista Crisis. On February 9, 1995, Ernesto Zedillo's 71-day old administration ignited a tremendous social crisis. After he announced Marcos to be Rafael Sebastián Guillén Vicente. Breaking the peace negotiations initiated by President Carlos Salinas that had kept the peace since the Zapatista Army of National Liberation uprising and the agreements he authorized his Secretary of Interior Esteban Moctezuma to compromise with Marcos 3 days before in Guadalupe Tepeyac. With the PGR's single presumption that Marcos was a dangerous guerrilla. decided to launch a military offence to capture or annihilate Marcos in a televised special broadcast President Ernesto Zedillo alleged Marcos to be a terrorist in Nicaragua. There was a storm of political pressures claiming for a fast military solution to the Zapatista Crisis. Conflicting signals got strengthened for a fast military solution. Actions concurred with Manuel Camacho Solis's June 16, 1994 accusations that the reason for his resignation as the Chiapas Peace Commissioner, was due to sabotage done by then presidential candidate Ernesto Zedillo. Faced with this situation, Rafael Guillén, childhood friend and Jesuits College Instituto Cultural Tampico colleague, Max Appedole played a major roll with the Mexican government to avoid a Military solution by demonstrating that contrary to President Zedillo accusations Rafael Guillén, was no terrorist. He recognized his literary style in all Marcos manifestos that where published in the media, linked them to their literary tournaments organized by the Jesuits in which they competed in Mexico. Confirming that he had no doubt that Marcos was his friend Rafael Guillén, a pacifist. Max Appedole asked for help from Edén Pastora the legendary Nicaraguan "Commander Zero" to prepare a report for under-Secretary of the Interior Luis Maldonado Venegas; the Secretary of the Interior Esteban Moctezuma and the President Zedillo about Marcos natural pacifist vocation and the terrible consequences of a tragic outcome. The document concluded that the marginalized groups and the radical left that exist in Mexico, have been vented with the Zapatistas movement, while Marcos maintains an open negotiating track. Eliminate Marcos and his social containment work will would cease and the radical groups to take control of the movement. They will response to violence with violence. Terrorist activities would begin in other parts of the country because not only there is discomfort in Chiapas, but in many places in Mexico. Under a big political pressure of a highly radicalized situation Mexico Luis Maldonado Venegas reestablish the Mexican Government Zapatista Army of National Liberation peace dialog by demonstrating Marcos natural peace vocation and the terrible consequences of a military solution. Oliver Stone visit Marcos at la Realidad Chiapas México on Mar 27, 1996, at the time the 68th Academy Awards Ceremony, when Oliver Stone work was nominated. Oliver Stone played an important role, his support was crucial to achieve a legal, honorable peaceful solution to the Zapatista uprising, saving many lives in Mexico. Grateful John thanks.! --Trinity Abbey (talk) 05:29, 5 March 2016 (UTC)


 * A bit better but there are still problems with WP:OVERLINK and WP:NPOV. We cannot use YouTube as a source; what is the actual source there? --John (talk) 11:04, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi John.! I am happy to read it is a bit better, it motivates me that I am one step closer. About the youtube, it is not there as source. The Terrorist accusations made by the President Zedillo turn out to be false, the support and source for this are among them Proceso, Mexico most prestigious political magazine. http://www.proceso.com.mx/243839 http://www.memoriapoliticademexico.org/Efemerides/2/09021995.html The Mexican Government at the time, got all the videos with the Mexican President Zedillo accusing Marcos taken off all Mexican TV Station, that is why it was found in English. Please advise me for next step. Thank you --Trinity Abbey (talk) 08:00, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 01:48, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Cameo
Stone also Cameo's in Savages as the boyfriend of the Heroines mother. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.98.1.13 (talk) 09:34 :29 &:57, 18 May 2016‎

Please provide the sources for USA-based banks behind Hitler
I have called Oliver Stone historian with a credibility since he has been published in a Swedish television channel about knowledge. (Kunskapskanalen) Now I find myself in a conversation with someone who seems to be a supporter of both banksters and Hitler. He claims that he has found no sources for the claims that Oliver stone makes about the banksters: https://books.google.se/books?id=kv0QCgAAQBAJ&pg=PA45&lpg=PA45&dq=oliver+stone+The+Untold+History+Of+The+United+States+banks+Chase&source=bl&ots=BQCbbtzL4L&sig=HqR7wYRBhVwuyZtvZQRGCD99Ni8&hl=sv&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjU97vhqOXOAhXLlCwKHR6CAnsQ6AEIEzAA#v=onepage&q=oliver%20stone%20The%20Untold%20History%20Of%20The%20United%20States%20banks%20Chase&f=false I have very little doubt that these claims are incorrect, since they seem to follow a pattern in history, but I would as a scientist be most grateful for the sources of these claims. Martin Gustavsson - Vetenskapliga partiet (talk) 11:05, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Masculine themes not just because of absent mother
The article sort of implies that Stone's focus on "man" issues is because his mother wasn't part of his life as much but the reference goes to an article which also cites the influence of an all-boys boarding school, all-male college and then the (mostly male) military...going to change it because I think the connection is too facile the way it is now (but open to other perspectives, I just think things like this get overinterpreted a certain way because of the place of Freud in Western intellectual history). (If you think about it how did his father play such an oversized role if he [Oliver] was sent away to boarding school? By definition from sixteen on [or whenever] probably *neither* parent played much of a large role, compared to peers and teachers/professors/officers).Historian932 (talk) 12:21, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

(Please add new sections immediately above this heading) Backup section against failures to add Refs subsections to talk sections that add new footnotes
''The default Wiki handling of refs works pretty well in articles (which is important) and pretty badly on talk pages (which is annoying, but not that important). This section is a quick and dirty fix.'' With a little luck i'll get around to making this talk page's existing refs work better. --Jerzy•t 14:09, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

"He speaks French fluently."
"He speaks French fluently," is false. I am completely bilingual (French was my first language). I've seen his French interviews. He just barely gets by, and is frequently forced to switch to English. I've seen him 'tutoie' an interviewer he didn't know. (Using the correct "you" in French is rudimentary.) You might want to check this source (Stephen Galloway). Stone is not fluent; he just barely gets by. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.99.33.50 (talk) 04:26, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Oliver Stone. 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/20101202151204/http://www.adherents.com/people/ps/Oliver_Stone.html to http://www.adherents.com/people/ps/Oliver_Stone.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101202151204/http://www.adherents.com/people/ps/Oliver_Stone.html to http://www.adherents.com/people/ps/Oliver_Stone.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110610214007/http://www.life.com/image/99379737 to http://www.life.com/image/99379737
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121005105825/http://www.americanhumanist.org/Humanism/Humanist_Manifesto_III/Notable_Signers to http://www.americanhumanist.org/Humanism/Humanist_Manifesto_III/Notable_Signers

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 03:19, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

To add
To add: an article about Stone's documentary Ukraine on Fire. 76.189.141.37 (talk) 22:06, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
 * It is appears that there are forces here that dislike it110.140.55.178 (talk) 01:58, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

5 Reliable Sources for identifying Stone as a Conspiracy Theorist
Hi 80.111.40.28 I see that we appear to be in disagreement about whether "conspiracy theorist" is a factual, unbiased descriptor for Oliver Stone. I believe that my edit is unbiased and justified because the term "conspiracy theorist" is applied to Stone in the 5 Reliable Sources which I cited: 1. ABC News 2. Seattle Times 3. Chicago Sun-Times 4. Vanity Fair 5. Newsweek

That is the reasonable, mainstream position as evidenced by its preponderance among reasonable, mainstream, reliable sources. JBlackCoffee52 (talk) 22:50, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Two things. The first is that the charge of "conspiracy theorist" is not made in the second source. The second is that "conspiracy theorist" by its very nature is a perjorative.80.111.40.28 (talk) 18:46, 19 December 2018 (UTC)


 * 80.111.40.28 I am sorry, but you are incorrect on both counts. First, In the second source it states "Stone being the conspiracy theorist filmmaker of our time". Second, the term is not "by its very nature" a pejorative. The fact that demonstrates this is that there are numerous other Wikipedia biographies of living people of well-known conspiracy theorists and they are described as such without controversy. Examples: do you believe that it is a "pejorative" to describe such individuals as Alex Jones, Jermone Corsi, and David Icke as conspiracy theorists? Each of them has the term included in their opening sentence, so why should it not be included in Stone's? I have provided 5 RS that demonstrate that this understanding of Stone is reasonable and mainstream. What sources do you have which demonstrate otherwise? JBlackCoffee52 (talk) 22:48, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes it is absolutely a pejorative in those instances. Five cherrypicked source is not a solid rationale to introduce bias into an article.80.111.40.28 (talk) 13:25, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose as this is confusing. A conspiracy theorist implies a person that has an active role in creating new theories, rather than make movies about already existing theories. I don't think the four mentions in the sources warrant inclusion of this word, since a news article may be more playful with such words than an encyclopedia article. I think a description of his attitude toward conspiracies is more useful than a label, per WP:LABEL.-- Farang Rak Tham   (Talk) 14:17, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Per WP:ONUS "The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." JBlackCoffee52 needs to gain consensus to add disputed content. I think there is a concern about conflating someone who makes movies about conspiracy theories versus someone who works is labeled a conspiracy theories. I think there probably should be a section laying out the claim, supported by reliable sources, before adding controversial material to the first sentence of the lead of a WP:BLP. 2600:1700:1111:5940:D9F6:63D1:857A:104 (talk) 22:03, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
 * As stated above, I believe that my edit is unbiased and justified because the term "conspiracy theorist" is applied to Stone in the 5 Reliable Sources which I cited: 1. ABC News 2. Seattle Times 3. Chicago Sun-Times 4. Vanity Fair 5. Newsweek


 * That is the reasonable, mainstream position as evidenced by its preponderance among reasonable, mainstream, reliable sources... Now, please provide your RSs which explain why it is factually inaccurate to characterize him as such. JBlackCoffee52 (talk) 22:26, 14 February 2019 (UTC)


 * I already answered you in that material in the lead must be supported in the body. You can't just change the first sentence of a BLP. This should be supported with text and sources in the body of the article WP:LEAD "Apart from basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article". I also provided a link to the appropriate community policy on how this matters are handled WP:ONUS. 1 is a dead link, 2 could be read as he makes movies about conspiracies theories, 3 looks to support your position, 4 looks to support your position, 5 is an opinion piece. 2600:1700:1111:5940:D9F6:63D1:857A:104 (talk) 23:13, 14 February 2019 (UTC)


 * I have now added a new section with text and sources in the body of the article and re-inserted descriptor in lead sentence. I have also inserted an archive link to replace the dead ABC link. https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/09/bush-knew-more-about-bin-laden-plans-than-we-realized/323784/https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/09/bush-knew-more-about-bin-laden-plans-than-we-realized/323784/ (talk) 22:45, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Lead sentence removed due to no consensus, though I like the material you added. Give people time to respond. 2600:1700:1111:5940:D9F6:63D1:857A:104 (talk) 07:48, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
 * It seems no one else is going to be involved, so JBlackCoffee52 I don't have an issue with your change. 2600:1700:1111:5940:D9F6:63D1:857A:104 (talk) 22:42, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Well the current lead is unfortunaly somewhere between problematic to nonsensical. --Kmhkmh (talk) 00:01, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * a)Why do we need explicit source in the lead that he a writer and director? That seems outright nonsensical.
 * b) Description as conspiracy theorist in the lead. That seems highly problematic to me. First of all in the first sentence of lead belongs what a person is famous/known for (the defining characteristic) and not simply anything he/she might as well. So even if you consider him a conspiracy theorist, it certainly not what is primarily known for. Another problem is that "conspiracy theorist" is usually considered a defamatory description, so claiming that in the article (in particular in the lead) requires high quality authoritative sources. Sources of the type "somebody called him a conspiracy theorist in some publication" aren't curring it. As far as I can see the currently given sources sources are not sufficient in that regard. One is not reachable anymore, the New Yorker One is some mocking short commentary not even calling him explicitly a conspiracy theorist. That leaves the book source on the jfk assassination, which doesn't give a page number and mostly likely not an authoritative source to assess whether Stone is a conspiracy theorist or not.
 * a) Why is it "nonsensical" to identify Stone as a writer and a filmmaker (that is the word used, not director)? Those are 2 of the things he is most well known for doing - making and writing films - and that is attributed in the RS. What do you believe would be a better, more accurate lead sentence?
 * b) Regarding the conspiracy theorist designation, here on the talk page I note 5 sources in particular, all which are authoritative, which describe him as such. Copying and pasting the comment from above, which you may not as seen: As stated above, I believe that my edit is unbiased and justified because the term "conspiracy theorist" is applied to Stone in the 5 Reliable Sources which I cited: 1. ABC News 2. Seattle Times 3. Chicago Sun-Times 4. Vanity Fair 5. Newsweek JBlackCoffee52 (talk) 16:16, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Kmhkmh I have restored these sources to the lead sentence. Thanks. JBlackCoffee52 (talk) 16:22, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Primary source exception
Please help me understand your reversion. Per WP:PRIMARY: primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia. The quotation from Stone's tweet was published in the cited reference [The Guardian], which is a reputable source. Your edit summary is incorrect in stating that this quotation is used against him in BLP. Reproducing the man's own words, reputably sourced and properly contextualized, is not an attack on his integrity. Rinpoach (talk) 15:40, 15 April 2022 (UTC)


 * There's an intermediary step involved. I was responding to this removal of the Guardian source to be replaced by a tweet from Stone. I reverted this person, and trimmed the Stone quote down to the essence. Binksternet (talk) 15:43, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Military Service for infobox
I understand the old infobox went all out about, but this man served in the military. It should say "United States army", [Years of Service] and "wars and battles". Just those 3 at least. PreserveOurHistory (talk) 15:56, 25 February 2023 (UTC)