Talk:Rod Steiger/Archive 1

England residence
did rod steiger ever have a home in england — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.93.21.105 (talk) 18:56, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Probably. His wife, Claire Bloom, was English. JackO&#39;Lantern 07:22, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

German ancestry
Does anyone have a source that he's of significant German ancestry? I've removed the category until someone provides one. JackO&#39;Lantern 05:15, 5 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Well Steiger is a German surname.

Pigeon-holing
Quote: ''Refusing to sign a seven year studio contract, Steiger later turned down the role in the film version in 1955. Signing a studio contract at that time would "pigeon-hole" Steiger as to the roles he would later play and image portrayed on screen. Those two things Steiger objected to throughout his career.''


 * What are the two things being referred to here? I see only his desire not to be pigeon-holed, which is one thing.  --  JackofOz (talk) 06:05, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

The Hollywood sign
I just wanted to point out that the movie The Hollywood Sign(2001) does not have a page on Wikipedia. The link in the Filmography section goes to the page for the physical Hollywood sign in California. 75.69.0.58 (talk) 23:20, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Daughters
IMDB doesn't mention a second daughter other than his one with Bloom, and Sally Gracie's entry doesn't mention any children. Do we have a source regarding Claudia Myhers? Rojomoke (talk) 22:06, 2 September 2010 (UTC)


 * It looks like some random IP added in the mysterious Claudia Myhers and the two grandkids in July 2009 and they've been here ever since. I can find no source for the three that isn't mirroring Wikipedia. I assume it was vandalism that stuck. Span (talk) 02:51, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

His Last Film Role
His last film role was Poolhall Junkies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.237.34.211 (talk) 05:08, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Images
This is a great article, but what's weird about it is that there are 3 pictures of Steiger (one being a screencap from The Unholy Wife and another just the same but cropped) and all others are not. Aren't there any available images of Steiger to be put in the article? Not really relevant, but it would serve better to illustrate the person in question. Cheers, 189.69.17.137 (talk) 20:18, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Sadly no, we have very strict copyright guidelines which means virtually all photographs of him are copyrighted. Wikipedia needs to produce free content. I'd of course love to have a photograph of him from most years and films to choose from! Glad you like the article other than this.♦ Dr. Blofeld  21:03, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
 * A pity. Other than that, it is a great article indeed. Hope it becomes an FA. Cheers, 189.69.17.137 (talk) 23:06, 15 September 2015 (UTC)


 * These new images and quotes look great, by the way! Cheers, 186.204.89.90 (talk) 22:46, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

No infobox
I recently promoted Meryl Streep and Claudia Cardinale but didn't remove the infobox as the size and content wasn't too bad though I'd rather not have them. But the infobox in this one was particularly long and bloated with five wives and ships listed etc. It really looks better without it.♦ Dr. Blofeld  06:29, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Oppose an infobox for the following reasons:


 * 1) Undisciplined expansiveness: A maximum-inclusion approach to fields that leads editors to place repetitive, sometimes downright silly information in the box. (There needs to be clear, prominent advice about not using every single field in every circumstance, and rather the need to ration the information, shaping it to the context.)
 * 2) Visual degradation: The way infoboxes squash the text to the left, particularly on smaller screens, and restrict the sizing of the lead picture.
 * 3) Prefabrication: The prefabricated feel infoboxes give to articles: here's quick and dirty info if you can't be bothered to read on—the very name of the boxes says it all.
 * 4) Disconnected particles. Their domination of the very opening of an article with chopped up morsels that seem to contradict the continuous, connected form and style of the running prose. (If the justification is that adding an infobox provides both genres, the problem is this utter visual domination at the top—and see the next point.)
 * 5) Uncertain benefit for readers: The failure of anyone who promotes infoboxes to explain how they are read. (Do readers look at them first, before embarking on the lead? Does the existence of infoboxes encourage readers not to absorb the main text? Do readers hop from article to article looking only at infoboxes—an argument I've heard put for retaining blue-carpeted linking practices within infoboxes? Do readers just glance quickly at the infobox and then read the article proper—in which case, what is the relationship between the infobox and the rest, and does the former reduce the impact of the latter through pre-empting basic information that the reader will encounter in the running prose? What functionality is missing when an article does not have an infobox?)
 * 6) Better as lists: The fact that infobox information seems, in design, to be for comparison between topics. (If this is the case, the information would be far, far better in a WP List, where the form is much better suited to comparison, and the relationship between lead and table can be made to work very well indeed; see WP:Featured lists for what I mean.)

Infoboxes work on complicated articles, but this article does not fit into that category. My worry is that it simply has one as that is what people perceive to be "normal". --  Cassianto Talk   06:48, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Info-boxes have their place, but this isn't one of them, in my view. A list of wives is hardly key information; a list of Steiger's films would be, but would also be unwieldy in an info-box, and belongs in its own space. The box in question added nothing worthwhile and cluttered up valuable screen space – a classic instance of a disinfobox. I wholly concur that it should remain deleted.


 * In passing, do we really need the hatnote telling readers not to think Rod Steiger is Roy Scheider? In reality, is anyone likely to? –  Tim riley  talk    07:34, 25 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, I wasn't sure either. I do think some people confuse the names, but not as obvious as Bill Pullman and Bill Paxman or something. Best removed I think. They'll soon learn than Steiger wasn't in Jaws or All that Jazz!♦ Dr. Blofeld  07:39, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 * You say that, but as a youth, I used to think it was Roy Hudd and Emu.  Cassianto Talk   10:06, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Support infobox: One of the world's largest public information websites has now been creating infoboxes for its searches. Search for a well-known person, place, or thing, and Google now includes an infobox with images, key facts and website links, which almost looks modeled after Wikipedia's. Another strange change is replacing an obviously better lead image with one of the poorest I've come across in a WP bio, lead or elsewhere. But if you all think that listing his wives makes the infobox unwieldly, you must be appalled at David Lean's infobox. As for the size of the infobox, Mussolini's infobox, whose proud image you borrowed, must be downright shocking. --Light show (talk) 17:57, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Disagreed. The colour image is a superior one. It's not the sharpest looking image in the world, no, but the previous one is hardly very good either. And yes, Mussolini's infobox is downright shocking and should be removed too, it's beyond ridiculous.♦ Dr. Blofeld  18:26, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd suggest using this image, which the seller says is blank on the reverse and she will add a scan of the reverse to the listing. --Light show (talk) 19:13, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Brilliant solution, you came up with. Just write some meaningless pretext to get the only good image of him deleted. Combined with your ignoring the above suggestion for getting an even better image, the message is clear. --Light show (talk) 21:13, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Well we'll see how meaningless it is in a few weeks and if others agree or not. You have an extremely long history of uploading copyvios, and also a nasty habit of commenting against editors on articles that they expand or you've uploaded a photo for and contributed to.♦ Dr. Blofeld  07:33, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I laughed aloud at the grotesqueness of the Duce's info-box, though in truth something laughably grotesque is well suited to Mussolini. Not quite clear how he fits into the Steiger discussion, though. Still, Dr B is right. In passing, I think perhaps Light Show has misread the earlier comments, and has got muddled about which potential info would be unwieldy: the roles, not the wives.  Tim riley  talk    21:59, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 * If you think the Duce's infobox grotesque, at a mere 89 lines of information, then take a peep at Winston Churchill's, which has a staggering 166 lines. Unbelievable.  And it still manages to entirely distort and misinform – according to this box, he entered parliament in 1945.  It's a timely reminder of what can happen when the zeal for infoboxes runs unchecked. There are three kinds of infobox: good, bad and dreadful. It's time the zealots turned away from trying to impose boxes on every article, and applied their energies to tackling the excrescences of which the Churchill monster is a supreme example. Brianboulton (talk) 08:33, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Oppose There is no requirement to include something just because Google also have something similar for their searches (possibly the most ridiculous argument that I've heard for inclusion of an IB ever). – SchroCat (talk) 18:48, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Understood. I have on occasion been accused of making "possibly the most ridiculous requests they've heard," as Blo-Schro-Cass note within minutes of each other. --Light show (talk) 15:59, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
 * More snarky incivility? if you continue to spout ridiculous points of view, people will keep pointing it out. Better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a fool than to open it and remove all doubt. - SchroCat (talk) 21:34, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Well if the cap fits Light show. At least your barmy ideas are consistent.   Cassianto Talk   21:38, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm out -- I have content to create. The time wasters below can argue amongst themselves and I'm withdrawing before I tell them what I really think of them and then get blocked. I'm now removing this article from my watch list.  Cassianto Talk   22:42, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

I won't edit war my own comments on a talk page. How threatening that comment must have been to edit war it out! And how against WP protocol. Kind of silly.(Littleolive oil (talk) 21:09, 25 September 2015 (UTC))

RFC for Infobox
I am opening this request for comment about the lack of inclusion of an infobox. From my account of it, it appears that some of the editors on this article are against infoboxes entirely. I would like to hear some discussion from additional users on why an infobox should or shouldn't be included. Jcmcc (Talk) 21:01, 28 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Support most infoboxes for biographies. As for this article, the discussion might soon resemble a similar infobox RFC, as the same 3(?) editors are involved. A Google search for Steiger shows Google's own infobox, similar to WPs, but with halfway decent photos. --Light show (talk) 21:18, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Stop your incivility straight away, Light Show. If you want this to go to ANI and for you to be banned from yet another part of the site for your battlefield attitude and incivility, the you're going the right way about it. - SchroCat (talk) 08:41, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * We're not google LS. Google is a search engine in which factoids have more value. We're an encyclopedia.♦ Dr. Blofeld  08:33, 29 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose -- per my reasons above. I can't be arsed to comment further on yet another ludicrous waste of time such as this RfC.  I just think It's pathetically sad that some spend all their time and efforts creating pointless infobox RfCs rather than actually do some good somewhere, like create content.   Cassianto Talk   21:56, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * If you think discussing the construction of an encyclopedia and its manual of style is a "ludicrous waste of time", then why are you here? Jcmcc (Talk) 22:03, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * It's clear I'm here for entirely different reasons than you. For your information I write articles, what's your excuse, other than to waste time on infobox discussions? Why do you assume an infobox forms part of the MoS? They are neither prohibited or required.    Cassianto Talk   22:28, 28 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Soft Support: If the issue is that the original infobox was too bloated and jumbled, couldnt we agree that a trimmed down infobox would work? DaltonCastle (talk) 22:26, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * No, as that would look silly and redundant. Maybe we should just delete the whole article and just have an infobox, filled with the usual bollocks that come within them?   Cassianto Talk   22:30, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * About deletions, just a side note that a discussion about your recent one has been posted, in case you want to comment there. --Light show (talk) 22:34, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I haven't a clue what you're on about. Are you just spewing your usual drivvle Light show?   Cassianto Talk   22:39, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Please remain civil Cassianto. Wikipedia is not a place to make attacks against other editors. Even when they disagree with you. Jcmcc (Talk) 22:46, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * What the hell would you know about civility? Civil editors don't go about trying to delete notable articles and respect fellow editors enough to ask them to expand something. You're trolling here.♦ Dr. Blofeld  07:48, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * 🎉🎉Ding ding!!🎉🎉 That's the first cliche buzz word used in all infobox discussions ("civil"). I wonder how long it'll be before someone mentions "own?   Cassianto Talk   04:43, 29 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Support infobox for reasons given above. Spaghetti07205 (talk) 22:52, 28 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment on lead image: As Dr. Blofeld's very first edit to this article was to replace a pretty good lead image with a blurry inferior one, without comment or rationale, I think the infobox should have the earlier image restored. And if anyone wants to upload this image for the infobox, that's fine with me, as it meets PD status explained here. The only issue with the first image is that Dr. Blofeld also tagged it for deletion with a meaningless pretext (noted above) and did so just minutes after I commented about his image's poor quality. Some might call that implied retaliation. Any other support for the previous one? --Light show (talk) 02:04, 29 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose this attempt by Jcmcc450 to impose this. Highly suspicious behaviour from him, including nominating three of my articles for deletion. I don't think this is an honest proposal. I think it's clear that he was contacted by Spaghetti by email asking him to open an RFC and has been stalking my edits and is trolling here. ♦ Dr. Blofeld  07:45, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Jcmcc450 has not been blocked for sockpuppetry or anything else, so you really should assume good faith. Just because he nominated three of your articles for deletion doesn't make him a sock either, nor does it mean someone put him up to it. In fact, Jcmcc450 created his account all the way back in December of 2007, making your accusation all the more less likely. You should apologize for making such an accusation. Spaghetti07205 (talk) 07:53, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

You're another sockpuppet spaghetti!! It was you who emailed Jc asking him to open an RFC on this! If you think it's not suspicious that he nominated three articles for deletion and then within ten minutes opened this RFC then I'd say your spaghetti is severely lacking in sauce.♦ Dr. Blofeld  07:55, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * No it wasn't!!!!! I don't even know Jcmcc450, I don't know you, and I bear no grudge against you, so why on God's earth would I email him to open an RFC? I'm very well aware of Wikipedia's rules about canvassing, and know that something like that would be improper. Spaghetti07205 (talk) 08:14, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Because you tried to impose an infobox and didn't get your way. You'd have seen Jcm's AFDs of my articles and thought "great, I'll ask him to open an RFC". If Jc did this of his own accord then this amounts to trolling/stalking, given that he clearly knows the history of infobox and civility disputes and lectured Cassianto with the "civility" cliche. This recent backlash by Jc isn't done in good faith, it's motivated by something, possibly Chillum. I have enough experience here to know when there's something dishonest going on. Have you or have you not edited wikipedia under a different account previously?♦ Dr. Blofeld  08:17, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * No, that's the not the type of person I am, I wouldn't canvass other users to support me just because I "didn't get my way". And no, I haven't edited Wikipedia under a different account previously. Spaghetti07205 (talk) 08:20, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * So you won't object to me doing a Checkuser on you then? A quick request will show up previous accounts.♦ Dr. Blofeld  08:21, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I think you're too involved in this dispute to be doing such a thing. Spaghetti07205 (talk) 08:25, 29 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose. There is no requirement to include an IB, and there is little benefit in this case. The well-written lead is sufficient to cover all the salient points, and does so in a way which provides context for the intelligent reader, rather than factoids, stipped of all context or nuance which don't cater for anyone different. One further point for . It is uncivil to write "it appears that some of the editors on this article are against infoboxes entirely": please do not be so uncivil as to assign thoughts, motives or opinions to others - that is for editors to do themselves. I suggest you strike this as being inappropriate. - SchroCat (talk) 08:42, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose – as stated by SchroCat and others; the lead concisely supplies the essential information. SagaciousPhil  - Chat 09:54, 29 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Support. It seams to me that the only arguments against the infobox are "I don't like it" and "it's not mandatory". On the other hand, arguments for having the infobox are more acceptable. Infobox helps new editors to understand the content of the page, it is also consistent with (most of the) other similar articles, and it helps Google search render essential information.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  11:24, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Please do not misrepresent the views of other editor, especially when your own post contains errors of fact. - SchroCat (talk) 11:26, 29 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose. The purpose of an infobox, as we've been told time and time again by editors who like them, is to provide an easy-to-take-in summary of the most essential facts of the article at a glance. Nothing in this box fits this description – there's nothing there that is (a) non-trivial, (b) part of the most essential facts about the subject, and (c) not conveyed more efficiently by the lead sentence(s) of the actual article. Much of the information given is not only irrelevant but actively deflects the reader's attention away from the relevant contents (e.g. the "cause of death" entry). If you want to provide readers with a quick summary at a glance, the lead sentence does that job not just equally well but a hundred times better than any box could. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:01, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Support infobox. I read the discussion (due to it being mentioned at ANI) before I read the article. From the way it was described I thought the infobox must be 500px in with and trailing halfway down the article, but no, it is remarkably brief compared with infoboxes on some other articles. I find the infobox helpful, even when I am going to read the whole article, indeed even after I have read the whole article. Scolaire (talk) 12:48, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Supplementary comment: I think the colour image – even though the quality isn't the best – is a better representation of Steiger than the old one (strange pose and facial expression) or the suggested new one (excessively close up). Scolaire (talk) 12:48, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose This article passed to GA status without one, and we certainly do not need to degrade it by adding a questionable infobox. Whether Wikipedia helps Google search is completely immaterial.  We are not here for Google, we are here for literate human beings.  Those who can't read don't belong in an encyclopedia.  That includes bots, search engines, and pedants.  Scr ★ pIron IV 13:04, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Support as it would be useful for readers. I don't see how a standard infobox would "degrade" the article. --Cavarrone 14:10, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * If you can't respect the opinion of the article writer (me) then I will no longer respect your particular opinion on them.♦ Dr. Blofeld  14:43, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Ooh, can I be the one who uses the second cliché buzz word Own? --Scolaire (talk) 16:07, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * You can, but capitalising it would be wrong.  Cassianto Talk   19:51, 29 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Support. Summoned by RfC bot. Perhaps there is a backstory to this RfC that escapes me, but I don't understand why an infobox would be excluded from this article. They are indeed customary and useful, especially for prominent people with long careers such as Steiger. Coretheapple (talk) 15:00, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Because it had a long list of five wives, hideous flags and excess which just looked plain ugly and long, not to mention being of very limited use. ♦ Dr. Blofeld  15:43, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Well I'd have to look at it, but the fact is that he was married many times, as are a number of performers over the years. Facts are facts. Mickey Rooney was married seven eight times, and all the wives are in the infobox. I can't recall anyone ever objecting to it either. Certainly no reason to exclude an infobox for Rooney or for Steiger either. Coretheapple (talk) 15:51, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * gives a shiny shite who he was married to? If you want trivia, go read IMDb.   Cassianto Talk   19:56, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * And that too would look far better without the infobox.♦ Dr. Blofeld  16:03, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Well you can certainly raise the point on that page. Wikipedia is not censored, and if a person is married eight times the infobox will say so. They are there to be informative, to benefit the reader. The presence of information is a reason for having an infobox, not for not having an infobox.Coretheapple (talk) 16:10, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * It depends what you consider information. The content in it looks rather like trivia to me. Does the average person really need to know what his parents were called and number of children? Is it essential? As a film buff I'd be more interested in knowing what films he starred in, what films he won awards for. That's vital information. And that infobox tells me nothing like that, so its use is always going to be very restricted. A good lede should effectively summarise the article, which in Steiger's case it does well.♦ Dr. Blofeld  16:14, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * That's a classic and utter straw man argument: this has absolutely nothing to do with censorship (absolutely no-one has suggested that it does, apart from you). It's about how to best present information, and IBs are often sub-standard ways of doing that, as they strip out context, nuance and intelligence from the provision of such information. – SchroCat (talk) 16:35, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * So don't have one. I could care less. I was summoned by bot, remember? From what I've seen of this discussion I can see there are some user conduct issues that might need some working on. Meanwhile I'm unwatchlisting this. Coretheapple (talk) 17:20, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * What nonsense: pointing out that someone is using a straw man argument is not a conduct issue. Trying to smear people with opposing views by raising the conduct card is a conduct issue, ironically enough. – SchroCat (talk) 17:27, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Ah the old civility card!♦ Dr. Blofeld  17:21, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Clearly put . We all know why infoboxes are so useful, so the real question is not whether it should be included, IMO, but why so many are so anxious to see it removed. Here are a few basic details I find interesting. The scary infobox that they're trying desperately to hide had only 57 words, after excluding the unnecessary military details (he was no Audie Murphy.) Those 57 words gave many visitors quick and useful details that can't be found now without time and and effort: where was he born? how old was he when he died? where did he die? what caused his death? when was he active? was he married, and to whom and when? did he have children, and how many?


 * The main arguments for removing it by one editor were because it was "bloated" with wives, had "undisciplined expansiveness," "disconnected particles," "uncertain benefit," etc. All making much ado about a few words. Yet consider what the editors prefer to include as "encyclopedic:" double that amount of words going into minutia about how his mother's alcoholism caused him embarrassment, with excessive quotes. These 108 words came after the article already stated what caused her drinking and its key affect on her life.


 * Then of course there's triple the number of 57 infobox words placed into a blue quote box, needing 148 words for a single quote about Humphrey Bogart. The entire quote and box are essentially irrelevant filler to Steiger's bio. It was gratuitously placed here as a distraction from the bio, not a contribution to it. Another blue quote box with a 130-word off-topic quote talks about independent filmmaker's and set designer's budgets. Almost totally useless to his bio. So it took me only seconds to find almost 400 words of useless filler, yet so many editors fight tooth and nail, mock the foreign concept called "civility," simply to bury 57 words of useful and common bio details. P.S. This note is for CoretheApple, and no outside comments are welcome.--Light show (talk) 00:36, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * If you comment on Wiki, anyone can respond, LS, not just the people you want to. You've missed the point entirely, but I'm not surprised, given you've never developed any article up to a recognised standard here, and prefer to have quote farms instead of actually writing something. IBs are useful in places (absolutely vital in others) and utterly pointless in some. They are not a one-size-fits-all replacement for text; if they were the MoS would make them compulsory. In this case the important information is held in the lead, where it's presented in its proper context. I know that it is shocking to think people actually have to read something when they come to a text-based encyclopaedia, but the IB is more about dumbing down than the presentation of useful and important information. What on earth does the word count matter when presenting important information? Less is not always better: that's how misunderstandings creep in when they are not properly explained by supporting facts and information. I doubt any of his will sink in, or hat you'll even read this with a partly open mind, but there you go. As to mentioning civility, your constant references to other editors show you have no idea what our civility policy and guidelines actually are! – SchroCat (talk) 06:05, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Oppose info-box – Sometimes useful (e.g. for career stats for sportsmen and -women) but a waste of space here, making Wikipedia look rather amateurish.  Tim riley  talk    16:49, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose Per Blofeld and SchroCat above, I really don't see any benefits. I think an infobox in this instance shouldn't be called for as the information in the lead is sufficient, and more "list-y" statistics in the infobox would ruin organisation. JAG  UAR   16:53, 29 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Note -- I would render this RfC null and void on the basis that it was established on the back of stalking. This should be shut down immediately.  Cassianto Talk   18:37, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment I agree with Cassianto; this whole RFC stinks to high heaven of collusion, stalking, and puppetry.  Scr ★ pIron IV 18:56, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Silliness and info boxes
There is no agreement to remove the info box on this article and strong arm tactics as in removing another editor's comments don't make it anymore acceptable. While I don't care enough about much on Wikipedia to engage in this kind of edit warring; I do care about this kind of ownership and the red herring comments used as reason to remove the info box.The question is not about Info boxes in general but about the info box on this article. If the info box is bloated reduce the bloating. Moving the discussion to info boxes in general is a bit of a red herring. As well, I don't like it is not a great reason to remove something. For the record. (Littleolive oil (talk) 21:15, 25 September 2015 (UTC))


 * , could you please direct me to a diff, or even better paste the desired info box text-coding, here for "article newbies" such as myself to look at? I am sorry, but I do not seem able to find it the moment. Cheers, Drcrazy102 (talk) 10:45, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Example as requested

 * I took this suggestion from a version of 18 September. If you look in the article history, there were previous versions reverted, mostly in July. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:31, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes and it looks redundant and crap. No thankyou.♦ Dr. Blofeld  11:41, 26

September 2015 (UTC) Do you have to cause this disruption while the FAC is going on?♦ Dr. Blofeld  10:48, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Have to agree with the redundant part. Not exactly much relevant information to it. Drcrazy102 (talk) 12:20, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
 * (after edit conflict) The ones reverted had more parameters, - I try to keep things simple. This looks similar to . I have no time to check the rest of the history but would not be surprised if an infobox served readers until rather recently. Why which editors before you installed and which stayed over years in what I would call a stable state? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:29, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Articles change Gerda, hopefully for the better. Would you rather we restored the 2006 version of the article, just so it can have an infobox? You used the same bollocks of an argument over the Olivier article. That an article remains unedited, unloved and grossly inadequate for a long period until somebody can bother to write it properly, is hardly a good way to measure an article condition being "stable". ♦ Dr. Blofeld  10:12, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the effort you have put in to satisfy curiosity, it is appreciated. For now, I bow to consensus (or lack thereof) regarding infobox being added here. Drcrazy102 (talk) 12:47, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Which person are you referring to? If you mean myself, I don't care what any article is a candidate for, except deletes, since there is WP:NORUSH.
 * As for the "disruption", don't archive recently edited/created threads, or threads that are still under discussion, per a) common courtesy, and b) WP:TPG. Cheers, Drcrazy102 (talk) 11:21, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, in the lengthy discussions above, a number of editors supplied several valid reasons for not including an infobox on this particular article. SagaciousPhil - Chat 10:51, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm not going to get into another infobox argument. Drcrazy102 should be trout slapped for encouraging it.♦ Dr. Blofeld  10:57, 26 September 2015 (UTC)


 * As far as I can tell, the result was a "no action", ie "technical keep" per no consensus to remove said info box. I may be wrong however as I only skimmed over it briefly. My desire to see the disputed info box comes from "throwing the baby out with the WP:BATHWATER", ie trying to see if there is anything that can be salvaged and/or reworked.
 * As for you, some civility would be appreciated instead of leaping into a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality. Firstly, don't assume that I am looking to "get into another info box argument", my reasons for asking are the same as what I've just said to SagaciousPhil above. Cheers anyway, Drcrazy102 (talk) 11:21, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Oh the old civility stick. How sad.♦ Dr. Blofeld  11:27, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The RfC was to consider whether to add an infobox and was closed by on 30 July with no action - therefore the status quo was no infobox.  SagaciousPhil  - Chat 11:32, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for clarifying then. Evidently I didn't read enough of the RfC. Drcrazy102 (talk) 12:13, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Indeed. And him turning up here trying to open up an old can of worms is disruptive and needs to be stopped before it escalates into another pointless few days of personal attacks and warring.♦ Dr. Blofeld  11:34, 26 September 2015 (UTC)


 * User:Drcrazy102, I'd thank you not to put words in my mouth which I've never said; as the one who closed that RFC the result was not "technical keep" and at no point did I say anything of the kind. When an RFC is closed as "no consensus" it means "maintain the status quo unless there's a convincing argument to the contrary" (since this was an RFC about whether to add the box, the status quo at the time was no box), not "those in favour of the change, keep shooting until you win" (and yes, in the case of articles that currently have infoboxes that goes equally strongly for those who want to remove them without agreement to do so). I have no particularly strong opinions on whether this particular article should have an infobox or not, as I know very little about Steiger, but I'm willing to trust that those who actually wrote the article are generally going to be best-placed to know whether including any given element is appropriate. On some topics infoboxes are undoubtedly useful, but there are decent arguments to be made on both sides as to whether their inevitable oversimplification is appropriate on biographical articles, which is why each biography is considered on a case-by-case basis. (Since there will always be at least some biographies for which an infobox will clearly not be appropriate, the only alternative to "case-by-case" is the de-wiki solution of banning them from non-sporting biographies altogether, a view with which I'm beginning to feel some sympathy if only to put a stop to this endless bickering.) &#8209; iridescent 11:48, 26 September 2015 (UTC)


 * My apologies, I had thought the RfC was about keeping an infobox, but this clarification changes things. Also, I am unvinvoled from prior editing here having only recently seen the RfC from a bot, so I am not "shooting to win" as you say it. Drcrazy102 (talk) 12:13, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, exactly, "endless bickering". My attempts to suppress this were to avoid just that. I don't want another pointless infobox argument and personal attacks while it is at FAC. Pointless. And yes, this editor and now Gerda are disruptive in trying to reopen it.♦ Dr. Blofeld  11:54, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

At the moment, you're the only one attacking. Calm down and relax. I admit to making a mistake about the intent behind the RfC, and I was only wanting to see if there was anything that was salvageable from the infobox. I was not trying to reopen any arguments or discussions. Drcrazy102 (talk) 12:13, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm watching a film, I'm perfectly calm thankyou, and please stop with the personal attacks argument.. You may not have intended doing so but you couldn't trust my judgement. Already this has been a sorry waste of time since you couldn't let it rest.♦ Dr. Blofeld  12:19, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Doc's just "pumped up" a bit here as the article's at FAC and he's worried (as am I) that it would not get promoted to FA because of this discussion. Let's all cool down cool down cool down (quoting comedian Vadivelu there, the "cool down" bit). —  Ssven2  Speak 2 me 12:22, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think this will have any bearing on the FAC, I just don't want any form of nonsense going on while it's at FAC or infobox wars resuming.♦ Dr. Blofeld  12:28, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't like edit/content wars either. I much prefer users who say "yea", "nay, here's how to improve with a compromise". In this case there can't be a compromise since it's an either/or feature. Don't worry, I won't trouble this page again, but I hope it passes the FAC for what it's worth. Drcrazy102 (talk) 12:47, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

About the infobox, I generally support infoboxes, but this one is quite unnecessary indeed, since all the information is in the lede. Birth date and place, check. Death date and place, check. Actor, it's obvious. Even age of death is in there. Just for convenience sake, I guess, but really out of place. Cheers, Katastasi. Message me! 14:08, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment It looks to me that the current consensus here is to exclude the infobox. Anyone wanting to add one would first need to build a consensus for that, but too much time is wasted around here arguing minutia, and this article is currently at FAC, so the timing of this discussion is very bad. RO (talk)  21:42, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

In the Heat of the Night won Best Picture Oscars
Not that of a big deal but WP:LEAD says that lede should summarize the whole article. While the lede covers the fact that said film won the Best Picture, I don't see a mention of that in the career section. Again, it's nothing to worry about. I was randomly reading his article, and it was just something I noticed. ツ FrB.TG (talk) 15:10, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Gratuitous essay and extraneous commentary
I removed an unnecessary essay about details during HUAC hearings which do not mention Steiger. That lengthy 200-word commentary is gratuitous since a cited sentence already covers the key facts relevant to Steiger: "In a 1999 interview with BBC News, Steiger said he probably would not have done On the Waterfront if he had known at the time that Kazan provided the House Un-American Activities Committee with names of performers suspected of being Communists." The article should not be used to incorporate only slightly related commentary since every other fact in the article could also warrant such essays. --Light show (talk) 07:46, 25 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Peer Review "I would give whatever info you have for the benefit of readers who know who Kazam is and why he was/is controversial." If you had been involved with the article aside from the infobox question and questionable photos, you would have known why this was there. Why not tend some of your quote farms?  We hope (talk) 11:27, 25 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Per my right to avoid interacting with you from here on, please respect this Interaction ban, and avoid commenting on anything I write. Your irrepressible snideness and hounding is not welcome. Thank you. --Light show (talk) 00:55, 26 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Until now, this from last August is the last time there was any interaction. Go to AN and see if you can get an Iban on that basis. You're not the only one able to voice an opinion. We hope (talk) 01:32, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Added to the first comment, now that another extraneous note was restored, that material is also off-topic and a gratuitous digression into degrading the article with trivia. The sentence in the article already states, "Steiger played an obnoxious film tycoon, loosely based on Columbia boss Harry Cohn." The note is unnecessary and further clutters the article. --Light show (talk) 01:09, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Anti-infobox fetish
Some people, like me, read slower and we really like the summary information at a glance provided by the Infobox. It offers superior functionality under certain circumstances that are quite common. The arguments against the Infobox, here and elsewhere, are made by editors who simply have their own style preference (it's a fetish, really) against the Infobox, and those editors have successfully gamed the Wikipedia governance system to get their way. This is too bad, because as a reader, I find the Infobox to be very, very helpful. 73.73.162.232 (talk) 02:15, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I believe you need to read these discussions . --  Frankie talk 18:29, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I've found this to be something I'd liken to a fetish as well, and an utterly stupid one at that. It only occurs with some articles, where particular groups of editors unanimously decide infoboxes are tacky or pointless, which there simply is no grounding for. The argument seems to be that they are "not necessary" or there is some aesthetic aversion to them. The fact is that the majority of casual readers on Wikipedia are appreciate of infoboxes for vital details. The editors who have decided this are doing it purely for themselves, and not for the general readership. --Drown Soda (talk) 08:29, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Rod Steiger. 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/20150928052224/http://www.playbillvault.com/Person/Detail/Obituary/109787/Rod-Steiger to http://www.playbillvault.com/Person/Detail/Obituary/109787/Rod-Steiger
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150928060407/http://www.goldenglobes.com/rod-steiger to http://www.goldenglobes.com/rod-steiger
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150928064700/http://www.jonathanrosenbaum.net/1996/12/flirting-with-disaster-3/ to http://www.jonathanrosenbaum.net/1996/12/flirting-with-disaster-3/

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) 09:18, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Not to be confused with Roy Scheider or Rob Schneider
How could anyone confuse "Rod Steiger" with either of those two names? Why not mention Roy Rogers as well? And Rod Stewart? And Rod Serling? And what about Roddy McDowall? Not to mention bRODerick Crawford? And let us not forget Rand Steiger (American composer) and Rolf Steiger (Austrian football coach)! Arcanicus (talk) 06:41, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Watching American football for several hours
The article reads:

He became increasingly reclusive during this period, often confining himself to his apartment, watching American football for several hours.

Watching American football for several hours is nothing remarkable.

I suspect that the passage should read something like "... watching American football for several hours every day for months".

Karl gregory jones (talk) 19:35, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

WP:TFARP
This article has been listed at WP:TFARP for his birthday, April 14. Unfortunately, there is a WP:TFAR for the same date, so that probably won't happen. I could run it on July 9, his death date, or on an unrelated date if you're happy with that. If the latter, let me know asap Jimfbleak - talk to me?  14:48, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

info box and awards content
Why is there no info box and awards content? User:The One I Left
 * For no infobox, see Talk:Rod Steiger/Archive 1, and the awards are in a separate article, - too many ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:02, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
 * User:Gerda Arendt I may have missed it, but I didn't see an awards article linked to this one. -User:The One I Left
 * Now that I checked I also don't see it. It would of course be linked from an infobox if their was one ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:06, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Marnette, you mentioned an awards article in the edit summary, but the search functions only returns "on stage ...". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:09, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
 * My mistake - apologies. Rather than put all of the awards here I would suggest creating an awards article from scratch and linking to it from this one. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 18:13, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with MarnetteD (I'm a poet, and I didn't even know it).  Cassianto Talk  18:46, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
 * and your feet don't show it because they are longfellows - oof now I'm 5 years old again :-) I should have mentioned that - per Manual of Style/Film - make sure to only mention awards that have an article on Wikipedia. Also make sure to add references and please do not use IMDb as they have been known to include awards that never existed. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 19:01, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

User:Cassianto, User:Gerda Arendt, Look at the discussion board and my talk page, I was asked to create the awards article for this page. Please revert back the changes that were made. User:The One I Left


 * we asked you to create the awards article and link to it from this page. We didn't ask for an awards table here and at the new article. I have restored the link to the awards article but IMO we don't need the same info at two different places. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 05:20, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
 * User:Cassianto It's common practice among many actors pages to have the academy award nominations listed on the page for readers to easily see without having to got to the awards articles, see Robert De Niro, Leonardo DiCaprio. User:The One I Left
 * (waking up to this:) How about just having the awards separate, with just the link, same as in this article for "on stage ...", polish them, and THEN see if any should go in the biography, and if yes what? ... and how about staying factual? (The sentence "you need to relax", telling me what to do, would upset me, for example). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:16, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't really care what your talk page says, or the "discussion board" (whatever that is), or who has asked you, you cannot add what you like to a featured article without gaining a consensus first. The current consensus is the FA version which carried no awards table.  Not only that, but the awards table you are trying to insert is both vague (what awards are they?), scant (he won more than what the table suggests - where do you draw the line before you end up with a replication of the awards article) and the sources that you are using, are they reliable?   Cassianto Talk  05:25, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
 * User:Cassianto Woah you need to relax, I don't believe I added anything out of the ordinary or objectionable except a small table as a sample of the academy awards he was nominated for. I believe I stated that in the reverted edits. It's a small and common addition I didn't know you'd object to it so adamantly. The reader can obviously surmise he won more awards hence, the added link to the awards article. The One I Left (talk) 05:35, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't need to relax. You, on the other hand, need to listen to those advising you that the table you've tried inserting is against the current consensus. Like I've already said, if you added your preferred awards, where do you draw the line when someone else comes along to add theirs? This could potentially go on until eventually everyone has added the awards that they think should be included and we end up with a direct copy from the awards article on this one.  No, leave the table off please.  Thanks.   Cassianto Talk  06:24, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
 * User:Cassianto I'm sorry you're upset, but the table wasn't against current consensus that i could see other that your objection which honestly doesn't make sense. It is common and not completely unfounded practice, since its the highest honor in his profession and the highest award he received so it makes sense to highlight it on his page as well as a separate awards article. People wouldn't add to it because there is a added link to a separate awards page so I don't understand your confusion, but I'll relent since you're so upset about this.The One I Left (talk) 07:03, 30 May 2020 (UTC)User:The One I Left
 * Firstly, I'm not upset in the least. It was against consensus (see the link above in one of my posts) as a number of editors - me not included - considered the article to be of FA quality without a table being in place. Therefore, the onus is on you to gain another consensus if you want this table inserted. Secondly, if other people who are wanting to add their preferred awards have to adhere to the fact there's a separate awards article, then why can't you with the ones you're trying to add? Lastly, you cannot keep claiming that simply because other articles have something, then this must too.  It's this kind of absurd uniform approach that causes the infobox issues.   Cassianto Talk  07:13, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
 * please see WP:OTHERSTUFF Just because some article are done a certain way does not mean that they all do. This applies even more in the case of a FA. Also please learn to sign you talk page posts usunf 4 tildes ~ so that the timestamp indicating when you made your post will be attached to the post. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 05:29, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Infobox 2
I'm not sure if consensus of the infobox removal of Steiger is a good one. Feature articles of it doesn't mean you remove the infobox. Doesn't really matter if feature articles means you should remove infoboxes. BattleshipMan (talk) 23:39, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

You are there
Hello, Rod Steiger is not the actor who played the role of Rudolf Hess, in the serie You are There (series). It's Peter Cushing. CapsuleX (talk) 15:05, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Here is the most ancient source i found that probably started the lie: https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-xpm-1991-05-12-9102120281-story.htmlCapsuleX (talk) 15:13, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

POSSIBLE TYPO
The passage that reads 'the newspaper London Evening News referred to him as "the man you would love to hate if you had the coverage"[206]' at footnote 206 looks like it should read "courage" rather than "coverage". But I have no access to the source quoted. Could someone who does please check the passage? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2403:4800:348e:4801:a49c:b269:94a4:e74b (talk) 23:49, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅, thanks! The error was introduced with this edit. Favonian (talk) 22:49, 11 March 2023 (UTC)