Talk:Christopher Reeve/Archive 1

Quote

But most will remember this sad day as the day the proudest, most noble man they ever knew finally fell. For those who loved him -- one who would call him husband, one who would be his pal, or those who would call him son -- this is the darkest day they could ever imagine. They raised him to be a hero: to know the value of sacrifice, to know the value of life. And for those who served with Superman in the protection of all life comes the shock of a failure: the weight of being too late to help. For a city to live, a man had given his all and more. But it's too late. For this is the day that a Superman died. -- Superman #75, 1992

R.I.P. Christopher Reeve

I just read that Christopher Reeve has passed away. The article was at the Drudge Report website. R.I.P. Superman. --Demonslave 05:11, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC)

Well it looks like someone reverted the year of death on the Christopher Reeve article (they say they're waiting for independent confirmation). --Demonslave 05:16, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC)

There's no independent confirmation, and Drudge isn't 100% reliable. Wait for some other sources to pick up on it. It's better to be late than wrong, especially about dead celebrities. -- Cyrius|✎ 05:24, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Hi Cyrius, thanks for your message, I appreciate it. :) I will keep my eyes on the various news websites. --Demonslave 05:25, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC)

Well, that didn't take long. -- Cyrius|✎ 05:31, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Yup. :) Heard it on CNN just a few minutes ago. R.I.P. Superman! What a shame, too, I had such hopes that one day he would walk again. Maybe if certain research had been allowed instead of disallowed because of a certain "someone" and their "religious reasons". Oh well. Another legend gone. But his example of strength in the face of a terrible situation will live on. --Demonslave 05:38, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC)

Actually, you didn't get to it first, Jewbacca did. Sorry. -- Cyrius|✎ 05:39, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I just noticed that! :) Thanks. --Demonslave 05:41, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC)

Yes, how dare anyone be opposed to the killing of humans in order to research an unproven treatment. Appalling, really. --Slowking Man 07:15, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC)

Slowking Man, you know better than to try to start flame wars. (Demonslave probably does too, but I can't remember seeing him around and he isn't up for adminship.) -- Cyrius|✎ 12:08, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Hi Cyrius. Actually, from what I recall, (and please correct me if I'm wrong) Christopher Reeve spoke out about this issue in regards to the President's decision regarding the research. My mention of this was not with the intention of starting a "flame war". Quite the contrary, I was merely stating an opinion which so happened to be on track with some of the things Reeve was saying to the public. --Demonslave 07:59, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)

From Slowking Man's wiki page, "I'm a 16-year-old high school student in California. I am a Christian." His naivete is unsurprising. He's up for adminship? That's a laugh. Adraeus 20:48, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

You are correct, Cyrius, and I apologize. Regarding Adraeus's comment, I have little hope of changing his characterization of Christians as "naive", but I hope to at least be a satisfactory administrator. --Slowking Man 00:47, Oct 13, 2004 (UTC)

If you become an administrator, I hope you are more-than-satisfactory. Considering your behavior here, I doubt that you'll change your ways until you gain more worldly experience and educate yourself on stem cell research and morality. You are quite a character. Adraeus 04:36, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Goodbye hero! --Uswzb 12:52, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I think this picture says it all. From [1]. 63.130.195.158 00:54, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Goodbye Superman!

This is a talk page so I want to post my humble opinion: I used to believe Superman was a work of fiction. Christopher Reeves showed me he was the real Superman because of his brave battle after the accident. I was hoping he'd walk, but he broke my heart with his death.

I just want to say good bye Superman!!!

Sincerely yours, "Antonio Tearful Martin"

Someone had to say this So long Superman, your secret identity is safe with me! PMA 09:42, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Thanks, I needed a laugh after hearing this news. --Feitclub 18:16, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC)

If you think some of the Reeve stuff on the net is in bad taste, you should see the 4th Feb 2006 entry at link title

On the death of Superman

I never liked the movies much, nor paid attention to the man - until he demonstrated the remarkable capacity to recover from a catastrophic injury. Reeve was medically reclassified a couple of times during the course of his treatments, regaining movement years after the doctors said it was impossible. They still don’t know how he did it but, at the risk of sounding maudlin, I do: In the breast of but a mortal man beat the heart of a hero. RIP Superman. Kael

There's someone called Maddox who disagrees.

And?…Reeve's position on stem cell research wasn't popular in some circles. I personally don't see how a small fetus - perhaps one that would be discarded by a fertility clinic, anyway - could be considered the moral equivalent of a sentient human being. 68.149.34.143

Coincidences

A couple of random but eerie coincidences that I noticed concerning Mr. Reeve's passing (I haven't read it anywhere, but it's possible that the media has already explored it in some countries):

• Christopher Reeve was born in 1952. He was 52 years old at the time of his death.
• Reeve was 26 years old when the first Superman movie came out (1978). 2004 marks the 26th anniversary of that movie.

I know this barely qualifies as information, but still, noteworthy.

Regards, Redux 19:40, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• Here's another "coincidence:" Reeve was born in New York, NY, and died in New York, NY. Adraeus 02:18, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Picture

I really don't like the new picture. It's very dark. Can we get a better quality? Lord knows it was printed multiple times over the last decade. Mike H 21:34, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC)

• I couldn't find anything of appreciable size. Perhaps if someone owns the book, they can get a better version. -- Netoholic @ 23:57, 2004 Oct 11 (UTC)

• I don't think the current picture is the most definitive one, especially now that he has passed away. Wouldn't it be better to use a photograph from when he was at the peak of his fame and vitality? That's how most people recognise him. A gx7 07:18, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Book

I read Reeves book, the one he wrote after his accident. I like how he noticed the people in the hospital - that were not exactly white collar (in todays society). I bet that he had very good care. I would like to recognize all CNA's or certified nursing assistants who take care of people whom are paralyzed. It is very difficult to reposition people who are paralyzed and to find, prevent and treat (once started) bed sore. A bed sore is also a sign of blood pooling in the heart because people have not been repositioned enough. If we would recognize the CNA and pay this position more attention and more money the good so called assistants, we would have less pressure sores. Frequently RN's are trained that the turning of a patient is the ASSISTANTS JOB. A very important job indeed that it is a two or three person job and should be treated as such. Christopher Reeves nor anyone should have a bedsore in the hospital. This is very preventable. Although I do not know Christopher Reeves personally - I so respect his work on this earth.

'

Strangely, in the same year.....'

"Strangely, in this same year, Christopher Reeve's good friend Robin Williams also became a star " Is it really so strange that they became stars in the same year? It's a coincidence, yes, but it's hardly spooky.

I agree. I've modified that line. - UtherSRG 13:43, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

God rest Christopher Reeve's soul, but it does'nt look like everybody liked him.

Those of you who like Christopher Reeve (I happen to be one of those people who admire and like him), the web page I'm about to show will make everybody who happens to be a fan of Chritopher Reeve very mad. As I was searching for articles about Christopher Reeve on Yahoo, I found this web page written by some sick evil man who claims Christopher Reeve was a selfish person and happens to call him an asshole. I thought that many people would be interested to read this sick article. If anybody checks out this web site and reads the article from this horrible person, please post. I like to read peoples comments about this web site:

http://maddox.xmission.com/c.cgi?u=creeve

Sorry, this isn't a discussion board. Things discussed here should relate to the article, not one person's website. IIRC, that article was linked to from the article at one point, but has since been removed. — Frecklefoot | Talk 14:54, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)

Reeve has received some "legitimate" criticism by the "disabled" community for advocating that people with disabilities are medically crippled and should be repaired (healed to a "normal" state of health). This parallels those in the deaf community who believe that hearing loss is something of an "alternative lifesytle" rather than a disability. Personally, I agree with Reeve and disagree with this outlook, though certainly no one should have any treatment forced upon them either. When I find a more concrete online resource in this regard, I'll add it here.

It is worth pointing out, somehow, the core of that issue. The "alternative lifestyle" viewpoint is just another way of saying "learn to live with it, be resigned to it", and Reeve's answer to that viewpoint was, "that's not good enough for me". The former is the "Uncle Tom" position. Wahkeenah 17:01, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Do we need this article?

Do we need the link that was made by George "Maddox" Ouzounian. Reffering to Christopher Reeve as a selfish asshole is very absurd and mean. The man is dead, and was disabled in a horse accident for God's sake. If it's alright with anybody, can I delete the link for Maddox?--Gramaic 23:08, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

We don't. It's a vile rant by no one of any importance, and I've made it go away. - Nunh-huh 23:12, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If you can link to a tribute-page, then you can also link to the opposite. - DJ John

In theory, yes... but the title of the page, regardless of its content, is inherently slanderous, and thus has no place here. And by the way, Reeve became a tireless worker in support of the disabled. What have you done to serve mankind better than Reeve did? Wahkeenah 17:19, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

"What have you done to serve mankind better than Reeve did?"

I did make this article more kick-ass, but you destroyed that, didn't you? However I am also highly regarded as the owner of Diskotek Johnshine, in Denmark. DJ John

Well, running a disco is certainly more important than trying to find a cure for paralysis. Wahkeenah 22:53, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

If this article should be from a neutral point of view, then we would have to see the subject from everyone. What if the George W. Bush article only contained stuff about what a hero he is, and no criticism? I'm adding a NPOV. - DJ John

Being as how you're from Denmark and don't speak English natively, maybe you don't see the point that it's the obscene name-calling on the link to that website that's the slander, not the point of view as such. Also, the chief complaint of that article seems to be that Reeve did not become publicly interested in spinal cord research until after his paralysis. Apparently the author thinks someone with a disability should just disappear from public view rather than doing something positive. I'd still like to know why running a disco makes you somehow more of a contributor to mankind than the work Reeve did on behalf of the disabled... and more specifically, what did Reeve ever do to you? Did he refuse to sign an autography for you or something? Wahkeenah 17:11, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

There are no disputible facts in the article that I can see. Your complaint seems to be with the external links. So I have added yours back, minus the slanderous part, and have taken away the NPOV banner. Wahkeenah 20:24, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

If I may, let me chime in here. First off, I read the "A-hole" article, and I think the author makes a good point: Reeve was never interested in any type of charitible medical work until he would be a direct benefactor. The same could be said for Michael J. Fox, I guess. That being said, however, I don't think the article is very well written or needs to be linked to. If someone wants to make this criticism, it can be done within the article itself (without the name calling).

Reeve did use his celebrity status to try to push the spinal cord research agenda. That benefitted many people besides himself. I don't know if it helped find a cure, but it probably helped push some money to the spinal cord research coffers. But it might've diverted funds from other worthy research projects, such as those trying to find cures for other maladies, such as cures for cancer, diabetes, etc. Which causes are more worthy? That a philosophical question that I'm not going to even attempt to answer.

Owning a disco is a fine and honest occupation. There's nothing wrong with it. But what a person does in life does not dictate the worthiness of his/her contribution to an encyclopedia, especially a wiki. Refusing someone's edits just because they do something some may consider frivilous or unnecessary is not the wiki way. It never has been. Everyone's contributions are welcome, despite what that person does for a living or their lifestyle. If their edits are good and valid, they stay. If not, they get weeded out. Their edits stay or go based on their quality and accuracy alone, not on the person who made them.

So, in the spirit of trying to be as NPOV as possible, the article probably could speculate on Reeve's personal interest in finding a cure for spinal cord injuries—e.g. that they were not 100% altruistic—but linking the "A-hole" article probably isn't the best way to do it. — Frecklefoot | Talk 20:29, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia, not a source for speculations, which is against policy. Besides, the concept of a 100% altruistic person is moronic, and not being 100% altruistic isn't an intelligent criticism. How about all the people who aren't particluarly interested in a disease until their child gets it? Which would be, well, you and me and everyone here. -- 68.6.55.65 03:36, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Michael J. Fox came to my mind also. And Jim Brady, a Reaganite who became a gun-control advocate after his devastating injuries from that Hinkley lunatic. And Nancy Reagan, who has become a stem-cell research supporter after Ronnie died from it. OK, so somebody finds a cause after it finds them, so to speak. What of it? What particular reason would Reeve have had, to focus specifically on spinal cord research, unless either he or someone he cared about was afflicted with it? How does wanting to live something akin to a normal life make him any more "selfish" than anyone else? I know people with spinal injuries who looked upon Reeve as a hero, and their opinion counts for a lot more on this topic than that of some record-spinner in Denmark. My specific objection, though, was mostly to the slanderous name-calling in the link to the article. That not-so-great Dane must have some personal vendetta against Reeve, I just wonder where it came from. Maybe it came from some personal trauma... in which case his desire to slander Reeve is also "selfish". Wahkeenah 20:51, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

I have nothing personal against Christopher Reeve, I just believe that Maddox' article is highly relevant. I find the new way of linking to the page, without naming title, is a great way of doing this. DJ John 14:27, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

The viewpoint of the article, and presumably of yourself, is that the disabled should just disappear from view. Why? Because their infirmities remind us of our own mortality, and that makes us uncomfortable. Basically, the view expressed in that article is fascistic: That anyone who is not able-bodied has no right to try to live a normal life and to try to further the cause of others in a similar plight. Yeh, that's real "relevant". But it's the typical European viewpoint. Wahkeenah 14:45, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

It's also a typical European viewpoint not to censor content because it happens to be the opposite of personal believes. But I can't imagine someone from the USA would ever understand this. DJ John 13:57, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

The link name IS ALREADY IN THE LINK. I have not censored the link. You are restating its name explicitly FOR THE SOLE PURPOSE OF ADVERTISING THAT WEBSITE. That is spam, son. Either you yourself are the author of that website, or you have some personal reason for pushing it. Since you refuse to offer any alternative explanation, I am free to draw my own conclusions. Wahkeenah 14:50, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

I think I finally get the point. That Maddox guy (mad ox, get it?) is a satirist, part of whose mission is to "bait" as many folks as possible. And he got me, along with others on this page. So I have restored your precious link and have changed the description to point out that it's supposed to be satire, not slander. Have a nice Dane, er, Day. :) Wahkeenah 15:30, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

You finally got it ;-) Sorry for the trolling, but it was quite amusing. The truth is that I don't really care if the link is there or not, but hey, it's always great to give people a kick, and you most certainly get a kick out of anger. DJ John 20:53, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

Ah, so you amuse yourself at the expense of others and of WP. Nice violation of policy there. -- 68.6.55.65 03:38, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

POV paragraph

The second paragraph from the article:

Christopher Reeve, the face of disabilities, the face of stem cell research, and the face of Superman, truly changed the world with both his belief in wonder of science and his belief in inner strength and willpower. His dream of standing up from a wheelchair lives on with his name and those he inspired.

Is pretty incredibly POV. I'm surprised it's been in the article so long. Can we remove it without anyone complaining? — Frecklefoot | Talk 15:10, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Yeh, it's a bit gushy. It would suffice to say that Reeve lobbied frequently for stem cell research, and provided hope and inspiration to many paralysis victims. Wahkeenah 22:45, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

I'd be fine with that change. — Frecklefoot | Talk 14:01, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Feel free to make the change. :) Wahkeenah 21:11, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Two photos

There are two photos at the bottom of the page with no captions or context. What are they photos of? Why should we care? Someone needs to incorporate them into the article somehow (the one that appears to be him as a teen could go in an early history section) and give them Good Captions. I'd do it, but I don't exactly know what they are of. — Frecklefoot | Talk 18:41, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Citation for Quotes

One of the quotes for Reeve is "If there is no great glorious end to all this, if nothing we do matters, then all that matters is what we do."

Is there a citation for this quote? The same words are used in the second season of Angel and a quick Google search suggests that no one but Wikipedia and one guy on a forum attribute this quote to Reeve.

Another gushy POV paragraph

Hello all. I've removed the section that read:
To this day, people see Superman in Christopher Reeve. After leaving the role, he was reportedly greeted and called Superman by those who recognized him in public, but he good naturedly accepted the association and acknowledged it as his most famous role. Additionally, many who knew him found that his real life personality closely matched Superman's, in that he was a genuinely kind, friendly man who was very down to Earth and easy going.
Feel free to put it back if you object, but it seems incredibly POV to me! - Gobeirne 17:57, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

• Ya think? :) Wahkeenah 19:10, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
  • :) - Gobeirne 21:30, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Date of Wife's death

I noticed that the date of his wife's death is different on her page and Christopher's page. Was it yesterday, the 6th, or today, the 7th? When I last checked it said the 7th for Christopher's page and the 6th for her page! 64.107.54.6 21:50, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Family???

As far as I can tell there is really nothing about his family on here. It mentions his wife Dana a few times but it doesn't actually give their marriage date etc. And wasn't she his second wife? I understand he has two grown kids and a young son.–Clpalmore 5:25, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Excess stature

As someone of the same height myself (long upper body) I feel for the guy fighting an abrupt refusal. It makes me wonder how much of his Superman-era musculature he had retained on his chest and shoulders. Regardless of his stance on horse safety, the physics of pendulums and lever-arms were not in his favour in saying goodbye to the horse or hello to the ground. MaxEnt 00:12, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Humor section

• I've removed the humor section from the article as it was dwarfing the other sections and I'm not sure if it even belongs there. It might be better to mention in one of the other sections that Reeve became the butt of many jokes after his accident. I think that a list of the jokes is excessive in this context, as they don't really tell you anything about the subject of the article. RicDod 15:11, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

• Cool deal Ric. I see what you're saying and will make the humor section much more brief. I want to devote another page to Christopher Reeve humor where examples can be listed and expounded upon. Leave the humor as is for now as it gives me the basic rubric to follow for the Christopher Reeve joke page. It is quite the pop culture phenomenon and meme and cannot be ignored. By the same token, that constitutes a seperate page apart of his bio. I guarantee you I'll be through with the joke page ASAP! Thanks, Ric!

-Austin Walsh

Wikipedia is not a joke book. I can see the point of a (very brief) mention of CR jokes in this article, but not a whole list of them. One or two examples should suffice. — sjorford (talk) 17:53, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, the article is about the person, how the person has affected the world in various ways, but repeating a series of jokes which damages the article is not right. You can make a joke of anything, if you are so inclined. So reluctantly I can admit a mention of the phenomenon is possibly justified (if you are so bent), but you can mention it without any gratuitous examples. (People can google for them, right?) So I'm reverting Hobson's Second Choice's putting the jokes back in. Please discuss items added for ha-ha vs. ah-hah value first? Shenme 04:05, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

• I've removed the list of jokes yet again, because I can't see what they add to the article that isn't already said. — sjorford (talk) 08:47, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

• I implore all to join me in condemning these heinous acts of vandalism, censorship, and Nazism. Some would have wikipedians believe that there wasn't an element of society that discriminates against the physically impaired. Some would prefer to overlook the cold and callous way in which an ignorant society treats the physically impaired. I cannot in good conscience condone your excessive bowlderizing of the truth. My mother is paraplegic and it would be a great dishonor to her if I were to bow to those who wish to proliferate ignorance and denial. Why are these handful of people so afraid of the truth? — H2C

That comment doesn't even begin to make sense. There is still an entire paragraph about Christopher Reeve humour, which contains two complete jokes (feel free to replace these with better examples if you wish). The fact remains, Wikipedia is not a joke book, and we don't need a list of every CR joke you can think of. So far, the jokes list has been removed by four different people, and six others voted to delete the spinoff article you created in the brief time before it was speedied. If you can't persuade anybody that this material belongs here, then you might have to accept that it doesn't. Oh, and you keep deleting the quotes section with your clumsy reverting. Thanks — sjorford (talk) 08:47, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

• We don't need a list of jokes, that are not from a reliable source. To be included in an encyclopedia, a joke should be verifiable and not original. However, we should acknowledge the unfortunate truth of discrimination against people with disabilities. See emotional abuse, disablism and disability etiquette. I have attempted to rewrite the section to better emphasize this problem, without direct quotes. Using full quotes works to proliferate the problem, and does not add value to the article. Charm ©† 10:10, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Good job on the rewrite. RicDod 20:05, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

• I, like Ric D, was impressed with Charm's writings. I think they definitely help to bring the point home. I laid off reverting the joke list because I was impressed. However, when saw today that someone felt the jokes were neccesary, I re-posted them when they were removed. I think the compromise is simple. The examples stay, but so does Charm's explaination of the very nature of these jokes and I'll concede the quotes. I will cease in my objection to the quotes (I think they betray the expository nature of the article by rendering it a Lifetime "Intimate Portrait") only if objections to the examples stay. Furthermore, I insist that Charm's analysis of the nature of this Christopher Reeve Humor Phenomenon should stay without debate. Please provide feedback if there are any questions. Thank you.

-H2C —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.144.158.240 (talk • contribs) 13:01, 29 April 2006.

• Thanks to RicDod and H2C for the positive feedback regarding my rewrite. I encourage editing to make it better. Several people have removed the jokes. So, I suggest discussing them here on the talk page before adding them again. Then the Right Thing can be done one time without alternating, and we can all spend our time making a better encyclopedia. Let's consider a possibility the jokes have value to the article. Then per policy, they need to be verifiable and not original. H2C, can you (or anyone else following this discussion) cite reliable sources for some of these jokes? After verifying the sources, it should be easier to discuss their value to the article. Thank you. Charm ©† 22:41, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

You know, this article strikes me as leaning rather towards the positive POV-- better than leaning towards the negative, but still, it seems to portray Reeves as a hero, which, while I agree with the portrayal, is still a POV.... dunno if it warrents fixing but I thoght I'd point it out Kuronue 05:00, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Humor section added again

Personally, I think this humor section is pointless and non-notable; as another editor has observed, every celebrity gets joked about. If we're going to include a humor section, we should use Charm's rewritten version [2]. --Muchness 03:46, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Unitarian Universalist?

I can't seem to locate anything in this article justifying that Reeve be in this category, anyone know anything about this? Homestarmy 05:20, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

The humor section is vandalism and pops up all the time. 67.161.26.190 10:19, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Injury details

I thought I heard once that one reason the injury was so severe was that Mr. Reeve's hands got tied up in his reigns and he was unable to break his fall with his arms (as would usually be the case with such an accident.) Has anyone else heard this? If it can be verified, I think it would be worth adding to the article to avoid giving the impression that horse-riding is a mortally dangerous sport. Tim Bird 17:08, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, he held on to the reigns and when he was thrown off, all of the equipment slipped off of the horse and tied his hands up, so he landed directly onto his head, which was luckily protected by a helmet so there was no brain damage. I read Still Me recently and plan to add a lot more detail to this article when I get the time. 70.231.224.220 09:18, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Vegetable??

He was rendered a "vegetable" by his accident?? I thought that--somewhat unfortunate--term was used to refer to someone who was completely unaware, or at least apparently so. Christopher Reeve was a quadriplegic. He acted after his accident. He held strong views on some things; while I am diametrically opposed to those views, he was aware enough to express them. 140.147.160.78 18:05, 25 September 2006 (UTC)Stephen Kosciesza

I thought a "vegitable" is a person who cant use his brain anymore and is somewhat "dead" that he can do absolutely nothing but is still considered "alive" since he's still breathing.

Pinochet

What does the following sentence mean: "Chileans began to believe that Pinochet could be overthrown, and he did end up resigning in April 1988"? Pinochet resigning?? -- 146.155.232.13 17:47, 11 October 2006 (UTC) ~~

After reading the Pinochet wiki, I deleted the line from the article. The April 1988 resigning thing is actually in Reeve's autobiography. Maybe it was a mistake. Gunkyboy 03:10, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

The Son becomes the father and the father becomes the son

I think casting brandon Routh as Supemran was a terrible mistake.Warner Bros should have waited ten years before casting William Reeves(The teenage son of Christopher)as Superman.I don't think we need to discuss who looks more closer to Christopher Reeve than his own son. Instead they casted this guy who has funny hair as Superman and also ignored Reeve's outstanding performance in SUperman 3 and 4 by making this a direct sequal to Superman 2. Superman 4 carried an important message for us al from Reeve.I think if WIlliam Reeve takes on the role of his father one day,the movie should be called Superman 5 with better plots than SUperman returns such as placing Batman in the movie and increasing the list of villans such as Lex and the joker together.Nadirali 15:50, 24 November 2006 (UTC)Nadirali

Thanks for that wonderful essay on the importance of nepotism. Christopher Reeves is an actor. He isn't Superman incarnate.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 17:38, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

In use

I've put an in use tag for a few moments, so I can clean up the refs: I had the work all completed and got into an edit conflict with anon - will be done in just a few moments. Sandy (Talk) 14:49, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Done - less than five minutes to clean up the refs. Sandy (Talk) 14:54, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Stem cell research paragraph

Since that paragraph is constantly being edited and turned into a rant against stem cell research, I'll allow you to voice your complaints here. All I have to say is that I find it telling that you always delete the sentence about scientists being unhappy with the old lines because they were contaminated. I can see why you would not like facts, though. I guess they usually go against your beliefs. 70.231.234.224 01:14, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

---

12/11/06 Hi. I am not trying to start a fight with you. I see you have put a lot of time in and improved this profile on Christopher Reeve a great deal. I am not trying to undue any of your work, just correct a part you repeatedly misrepresent. We seem to be at different places journalistically. When writing about a deceased person, the person has a lifespan from their birth to their death and their life's career falls during that time. You seem determined to include controversial stuff on this subject AFTER Reeve died which are not relevant to his personal position on the subject or his personal active lobbying. The way you are going you will have stuff 10 or 20 years after Reeve's death included about the research long after Reeve's lobbying on it is forgotten.

The place to mention the mouse cells is in the stem cell article in the controversy section, not in Reeve's article. This mouse cells stuff did not influence Reeeve's position. Check out August 16, 2001 entry for Reeve's actual position on the subject following President Bush's policy announcement. Reeve released a statement Statement of Christopher Reeve on President Bush's Decision on Stem Cell Research immediately following the announcement which he stuck to and even enlarged to incorporate human cloning or as Reeve liked to call it somatic cell nuclear transfer. I recommend keeping this paragraph of Reeve's position and lobbying on the research to just that--his position and lobbying. Everything else is not relevant to this article. 67.98.154.56 (talk • contribs)

You can cite whatever sources you want, but I cannot take you seriously when you make additions such as Reeve being portrayed as a bloodsucking fetus killer in South Park. The paragraph could certainly use work, but you are doing it completely wrong. Your bias is painfully evident, such as when you praise President Bush for his policy. Everyone knows that Bush's policy was a blow to all stem cell research supporters (i.e. the majority of the country). Everyone back then knew that the old lines were contaminated. If you can come up with an unbiased account of everything Reeve did, then by all means add it. If not, I will continue to revert your edits. 70.132.23.138 00:30, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

---

12/12/06 For one thing Mr/Ms Nasty 70.132.23.138 I cannot take you seriously at all for reverting Reeve's position whether you think he went too far or not. The South Park thing was not mine, I found it archived with the older version of Reeve's position without your bias against President Bush which consistently misreprents his policy. I have supplied a White House fact sheet, President Bush's own editorial he wrote to the New York Times on the subject in 2001, as well as Reeve being interviewed in Australia by Kerry O'Brien talking about his meaning of "unfettered scientific inquiry" which he said was meant to be open-ended, as well as Reeve's own statement he released at the time and the citing of a August 16, 2001 news entry where he contradicted himself from the year before. It sounds to me like you have your mind made up to be bias for this research in this article and can't fairly present the subject. You should refrain from doing any more to this article on this subject.

P.S. Here is a recent poll showing that the public opposes this research New Poll: Americans Continue To Oppose Funding Stem Cell Research That Destroys Human Embryos. Polls, as you know, don't mean anything. They are only snap shots in time that take the pulse on how a question is worded. The polls you only look at probably have the words of diseases and disorders in them to give the idea of false hope and leave out the differing both the controverisal human embryonic stem cell research from the uncontroversial and wide supported adult stem cell research (on fat cells, umbilical cord, placenta, and more)

P.P.S. 70.132.23.138 Now that I know you are a bad faith editor and vandal, I will continue to reverse your changes. 67.98.154.56 (talk • contribs)

70.132.23.138 is a bad faith editor and vandal because he disagrees with you? I didn't see anything mean about anything he said to you. You must be a wacko. No wonder you are against stem cell research and love Barry Manilow. 67.161.26.190 10:59, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

User:67.161.26.190 you yourself are a bad faith editor for also going into personal attacks with those who disagree with you. You and 70.132.23.138 are both unabashedly for this controversial research so much that it clouds your judgement into not being able to write objective prose on the subject. It would be wise to reframe from making any edits on the subject until you both can think less biased about it. 67.98.154.56 21:42, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

There is nothing controversial about the prose. It is not in favor of or against stem cell research. The other user actually cleaned up some of the prose that you wrote, which I never changed because I knew you would just keep changing it back. I don't come to wikipedia very often so I can't really be bothered with that. He just rearranged some of the sentences, and it flows better now. I have looked at some of your past edits on other pages, and you do have a tendency to go into excessive detail and write a lot of run-on sentences. So that's all that was corrected. If someone calls you a name in a discussion page, that doesn't make him a bad faith editor, that just makes him a jerk. I never meant to offend you whenever it was that I did, so I apologize for that. I was just being blunt. I never called you any names, I just called you biased. I think the Activism section looks okay now, so let's just leave it at that. 70.231.237.151 11:28, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Superbowl Commercial

Christopher's appearance in a 2000 Superbowl commercial should be added to his life-story. Here's the link to add to the references: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X5zbEsQYMb0 74.138.222.38 03:23, 5 January 2007 (UTC)Derek

I agree, this was one the most talked about super bowl commercials that year. It should somehow be inserted in there without looking too out of place. Perakhantu 18:28, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Mastocytocis correction

"He suffered from mastocytosis, a red blood cell destroying disorder"

Mastocytocis is a WHITE blood cell DISORDER, causing an increase in the level of mast cells. I will change it to "He suffered from mastocytosis, a blood cell disorder"

copyright

I noticed this article is a current GA-nominee. However, the images are copyrighted and do not contain a fair use rationale. This would be sufficient cause for a quick-fail. I'm going to leave this message for a week; if it isn't resolved by then, I am going to fail the nomination. Errabee 18:22, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I just looked over it, and they all seem to be fine. Either they changed recently, or I'm missing something. Wrad 04:17, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

They changed recently, 0n 14 May 22:29. (see [3]). Errabee 11:19, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

GA review

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   a (fair representation): b (all significant views):

5. It is stable.

   

6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.

   a (tagged and captioned): b lack of images (does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):

7. Overall:

   a Pass/Fail:

Some more detailed comments:

• I would leave out the part about Dana from the introduction and other sections; most certainly when and how she died is totally irrelevant; that she outlived him is relevant later on.
• The first paragraph of Early Life jumps from his father to his grandfather to mother back to grandfather etc. This could use some more structure, and personally I feel it contains too much detail when presented in this form. Overall, the early life should not be a short biography of his parents, but should stay focused on those details that impacted Christopher's life, and that impact has to be made clear.
• Several wikilinks link to dabs; these have to be resolved; I've fixed one, but some remain, e.g. The Hostage or My Life, and it is definitely not clear what the correct entry should be. And are you sure The Marriage of Figaro is correctly linked, or is The Marriage of Figaro (play) meant? Or perhaps another one?
• The last paragraph of Superman (above Sequels) is better placed in the section about career, family and political involvement.
• I suggest putting Reeve's filmopgraphy in a separate article and possibly link to that from the career section.
• The career section is very long, and could be split in separate sections detailing his career, family life and political involvement.
• The career section mentions: "He took up horse riding more seriously" without mentioning previously he had taken it up at all. That is mentioned below, in the Injury section.
• Perhaps his political involvement could be placed lower, near the Activism section.
• Almost all of the references are from Reeve's book. As Reeve himself is not an impartial source, the article is possibly biased. Although it doesn't show much, I recommend the writers find other reliable sources. There are some statements that need to be sourced, such as that the Reeve-Irvin Research Center is a leading research center in the world. The article is not very strong on criticism (which he was bound to have, both as an actor and as an activist).

I'll put it on hold for now. Errabee 15:00, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, not much has been done with my comments, so I'm sorry to have to fail the GA nomination. Errabee 19:11, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Introduction picture

Isn't the picture of superman a bit much? Okay, we get it he played superman but this is an article about christopher reeve. Maybe later in the article or on the superman page it would work but by beginning an article on the ACTOR it sort of overshadows the man to show the character. Can we not use a picture of just him, preferably in his later years? I did a quick search on google and thought these were good. However, I make no claims to their legal status for use and post them merely as examples:
http://combatarms.mu.nu/archives/christopher_reeve_supermandead.jpg

http://www.newsday.com/media/photo/2004-10/14609573.jpg

http://news.com.com/i/ne/p/2004/reeve_chris190x239.jpg

http://www.richardavedon.com/images/editorial2004/newyorker/reeve_full.jpg

Personally, the first one is my favorite because you get a nice, good profile of him with his usual cheerful demeanor!

http://www.dialbforblog.com/archives/118/reeve6.jpg

http://worldroots.com/brigitte/gifs35/christopherreeve.jpg

http://i.imdb.com/Photos/Mptv/1318/1202_0031.jpg

http://www.born-today.com/Today/pix/reeve_christopher.jpg

http://www.liu.edu/cwis/cwp/images/famous_faces/Christopher-Reeve.jpg

I agree, however, I prefer professional shots of him that are meant for actor portrayals. Also where he's not defined by his paralysis, since that was only part of his life, but where the focus is on the man--as you said. There are my suggestions. I also think that these would more than likely be released to the public for fair use portrayals of Christopher Reeves.--Hitsuji Kinno 07:58, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Those are all good, I wonder if we can get enough support to change the superman picture to one of these!

Cause of death

According to obituaries, he died of heart failure. He suffered cardiac arrest before he died. Does this have anything to do with myocardial infarction? 74.36.25.237 20:40, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Smallville

He appeared in Smallville as Dr. Virgil Swan and the location of one of Lex Luthers 33.1 facilities in the TV series is called "Reeve's Dam".

ancestry

No mention of his ancestry.Does anyone know? Since I see Val Kilmer's and Brandon Routh's ancestry mentioned so I think it's necessary we add it.Does anyone have info on his ancestry?-Vmrgrsergr 05:30, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Back to business

I think the article should stay in one piece and not separated. Christopher Reeve was a hero off screen as well as on screen. They were the same man- why even think of 2 articles?

Marital status

See John F. Kennedy and Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis as an example of how to display marriage information. JFK's spouse is listed as Jackie. As she was his wife at time of death. Jackie O's information then lists the years of marriage to both JFK and Ari Onasssis. -- TRTX ^{T / C}

Please delete South Park commentary

Why is South Park mentioned? It should not be on the Christopher Reeve bio page!

I agree that the South Park mention is inappropriate and has no place on his entry. He had no involvement with the episode, and as a parody is merely slander. Premium310 (talk) 01:03, 13

It's a noteworthy thing. That's why it's mentioned. If every liberal criticism of Rumsfeld is treated as the most important thing and every Repulbican has 70% of his content on wht Koskids crae about, then I'm going to put South Park in Reeve's page. And in the episode he sucked fetuses brains out. Bad, bad person.

February 2008 (UTC)premium310 2/12/08

        ==South Park parody==

Christopher Reeve is parodied in the South Park episode crazy crips (add link). The episode portrays and implicitly mocks his slow manner of speech after the accident (or perhaps it mocks people's knee-jerk adulation after the accident). Also the episode shows Reeve doing outrageous things like sucking stem cells from fetuses and walking around, and battling versus Gene Hackman as if the Superman plots were real.

---Marma —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.54.91.53 (talk) 22:28, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Reeve was not a politician, he was an actor. By this rationale, then every celebrity page deserves its little article about how South Park made fun of them. And why would anyone do that except to promote South Park? Ridiculous. Neurolanis (talk) 21:37, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Ahem, please stop with the name-calling. Reeve was a great actor and needs a better entry. If I remember correctly, Reeve said a single word in a single episode. Put it on the South Park page, not here.Jarhed (talk) 08:24, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Julliard

"Reeve worked out the schedules of Love of Life and the play so that he would be able to do both." While I'm aware that Reeve played Ben Harper on the Love of Life daytime TV show in the 1970's, this has not been introduced in any way; it just turns up in the quoted sentence. Perhaps a line or two about when and how he got the job with maybe a few interesting details about his participation in a soap opera mght be worthwhile. Dick Kimball (talk) 18:14, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

That's funny I just just noticed this and came here to point it out: I'd change it if I knew when Reeve joined the series. Format (talk) 08:11, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Filmography Split

I am in support of this split. The Reeve page is already very long, and his filmography is VERY long also. A split would be appreciated. Limetolime 01:30, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Scientologist?

He was actually quite hostile towards Scientology, claiming to once have been subjected to an E-meter test and thinking is was a sham. I'm removing this article from that category. Willpower 20:43, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

He wasn't really hostile towards it. In Nothing Is Impossible he talked about trying Scientology out just for kicks, and then using his acting skills to have fun with the psychological analysis. He pretty much just said that it's not for everyone. 70.132.14.230 22:36, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Please thoroughly document any mention of Scientology in this article. Scientology is controversial and should not be mentioned unless documentation thoroughly supports it.Jarhed (talk) 08:31, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

In Nothing Is Impossible, Mr. Reeve said that whilst he was originally intrigued with Scientology, he quickly became disillusioned with it. He also noted that many people have been helped by Scientology, and emphasised that he had nothing against it.Mk5384 (talk) 05:27, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
His brief encounter with Scientology is documented in his own book. The fact that Scientology is controversial is no reason to exclude it.Mk5384 (talk) 05:34, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

South Park episode

The South Park parody should be mentioned. I'm going to be bold and add it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TCO (talk • contribs) 18:06, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Agree --189.72.205.237 (talk) 22:40, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Ethnicity?

Nowhere in this article is there any reference to his ethnic backround. It simply states that he is American. Do we have any varified data for his ancestry?--Damir H. (talk) 06:24, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Accident details

Some more descriptive, medical, scientific basis for the injuries he sustained in the accident would be beneficial for this article. It currently states briefly in the first section that he had an equestrian accident and details in the 'Recovery' section that he 'destroyed' his first and second vertebrae, but some more background info on the particulars may be helpful and informative. It could also be construed as salacious and unnecessary by some, but I figured it was worth bringing up as a topic for discussion. Any thoughts? Evixir (talk) 20:48, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

This is a bio, not a medical article. Please link to other articles appropriately.Jarhed (talk) 08:32, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Main Photo

I don't think that the main photo (to the top right) exactly captures Reeve the way he would have wanted to be remembered. Usually celebrities are remembered with a picture that captures them in the peak of their success and health, and I think that Mr. Reeve deserves no less. Neurolanis (talk) 21:32, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Totally agreed --Mark1512 (talk) 17:43, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

If you have a better image then add it. In my opinion, the best image would be of him in one of his broadway appearances. I could care less what he "deserves". This is a bio not a hagiography.Jarhed (talk) 08:43, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

The main photo should be the one that best captures Mr.Reeve for informative purposes. He was as well known as being a quadrapalegic as he was for playing Superman. Furthermore, Mr. Reeve went to great lengths to assert that there is no shame in disability. A photo of him at his most helpless would do nothing to stultify him.Mk5384 (talk) 05:32, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

super

foi super no filme e na tragedia, infelismente acontece coisas ruins com quem não merece

Hi, please speak English on the English Wiki.Jarhed (talk) 08:28, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Tribute

Brandon Routh played the title role in Superman Returns released in 2006.The handsome actor is simple, humble fellow who paid a rich tribute to the late Christopher Reeve, the very successful Superman in four films.

An entire section devoted to a one sentence opinion? The sentence which has very little to do with christoper reeve —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bharryb (talk • contribs) 21:49, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Spouse(s)

How could Dana Reeve have be his spouse from 1992–2006, her death, if Christopher Reeve died in 2004? 84.135.92.231 (talk) 20:56, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Cause of death (again)

You people are an irresponsible bunch. Christopher Reeve died of heart failure. He never had a heart attack. Get your facts straight and correct such mistakes when needed. 74.35.241.214 (talk) 22:50, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

At the risk of causing anger, one point of view is that Chris Reeve died of egotistic thrill seeking. From the time he could shave, he seemed bent upon proving hypermasculinity, to himself or others? Across decades he seemed to taunt injury and fate, although being the father of several children. He took paralysis as a "personal assault" for which he had no responsibility, and up with which he would not put. He soon behaved -see 1996 political party conventions -as if there was some vacant role for National Disability Super-Spokesperson and he was best qualified for the role, bar none. Able bodied persons do not realize how much Chris Reeve came to be disliked or even loathed by a significant percent of PWDs in both the USA and Canada. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.128.142.167 (talk) 00:51, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Whatever the merits of the above, this talk page is for suggesting improvements to the article, not for personal opinions, grand standing, or pissing contests.THD3 (talk) 12:38, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Heads up. Because English has been my mother tongue for 6.5 decades, I am as able as any critic here to separate fact from opinion in the main article. There is a fair amount of it, all meritorious, consequently "I accuse". It is negative opinion that is not acceptable and subject to name calling. I am happy to suggest improvement of the article by opining that Halo Effect is a disservice to the Future. When Chris Reeve gave a short speech to the =disability community= in Toronto, hardly any disabled person showed up to hear him. The crowd was composed of press and ABPs. As a lettered Rehabilitation Counselor I have known spokespersons for the disABLED. Although well intended, Chris Reeve was no Eunice Kennedy Shriver. And to misquote John Paul Jones: "I have not yet begun to piss." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.128.142.167 (talk) 01:06, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

ICU Psycosis

The change from "ICU Psycosis" to "delerium" was a good faith attempt at improving the clarity of this article. However, ICU Psycosis is a specific form of delerium, unique to the situation in which Mr. Reeve found himself at the time.Mk5384 (talk) 21:10, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

The page that "ICU Psychosis" links to says this: "The highest prevalence of delirium (often 50% to 75% of patients) is generally seen in critically ill patients in the intensive care unit or ICU (which used to be referred to by the misnomer ICU Psychosis, a term largely abandoned now for the more widely accepted and scientifically supported term delirium)." So there's that. 76.119.176.226 (talk) 07:02, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

mention on dates section

I don't think the date of Christopher Reeve falling off a horse deserves a mention in the dates section on the front page. It's best left as just mentioning dates of kings taking the throne, wars starting / ending and that sort of thing. Civilians falling off horses just doesn't rate, even if they die from the fall.Owen214 (talk) 11:42, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Superman Box?

Should their be a Superman box at the bottom of the page? I was just wondering if you guys think that Reeve's involvement with the films warrants a link box. Is there perhaps a more specific "Superman in other media" box instead of just a Superman box we should use? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.146.62.126 (talk) 17:35, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I propose the addition of www.Christopherreeve.co.uk to further reading under Christopher Reeve

I propose the addition of www.Christopherreeve.co.uk to further reading under Christopher Reeve http://www.christopherreeve.co.uk it is a Community to share the life and works of Christopher Reeves and has a lot of information and pictures from throughout Christopher Reeve's Lifetime. AlexeiTexasPete (talk) 13:08, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

I disagree with adding the site to the article, as the site is simply a combination blog and forum and it falls under WP:ELNO #1, #4, #10, and #11. - SudoGhost 13:18, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

True the software used to generate the site is blog, but this has been changed to reflect that they are collections under each heading is something relevant to a piece of work, whether it is rare items, unseen photographs, magazine articles, screen used items. If anything it's an encyclopaedia of Reeve's work and most certainly doesn't break 1, 4, 10 & 11 at all?TexasPete (talk) 13:45, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Although it is a "specialized" type of blog, it is still simply a blog and a forum, and arguably a fansite, which is also covered in WP:ELNO #11, and as such it doesn't belong on the article as an eternal link.

How about looking at the other links listed there first? If that is your argument why aren't you objecting to those? One link doesn't even go anywhere?TexasPete (talk) 14:06, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Please stop continuously inserting the link. You've been shown why the link doesn't belong, and have provided no reason to include the link, other than "but other links are there too". If you want to discuss the other links, you're more than welcome to, but this link you're attempting to add is the only one I've seen added since I started watching the article, so that's the one being discussed right now. As your only contributions appear to be related to inserting this link, I suggest you take a look at WP:COI. Basically, if no other editors think this link belongs, and can show why WP:ELNO doesn't apply, the link doesn't belong on the article. Please don't try to reinsert the link, if it is found to be suitable to the article, someone else will gladly place it in the article. Thank you. - SudoGhost 15:03, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your Orwellian views! I didn't realise that it was your personal site (Wikipedia). So far your the only one who has said that it doesn't belong? I don't see why your views count and mine don't? It doesn't contravene any of this rules whatsoever? What have you got against Christopher Reeve?TexasPete (talk) 15:21, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

The website falls under WP:ELNO, which is Wikipedia's guideline on what links do not belong on Wikipedia. WP:ELNO is not my personal view, it is a consensus-based guideline. That is why it counts. You have yet to demonstrate why the link belongs, and have instead resorted to edit warring and making baseless attacks against my character. I strongly suggest you stop both, or you may find yourself blocked from editing. - SudoGhost 15:37, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree with User:SudoGhost's interpretation of the guidelines with regard to this link. The website is clearly a fan site and fails the very explicit standard ("as a minimum standard, recognized authorities always meet Wikipedia's notability criteria for people") specified in #11. It should not be added. (Disclosure: User:SudoGhost was asking for a second opinion (neutrally and in the open) on IRC. That's how I found out about the discussion.) wctaiwan (talk) 15:48, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm happy to let another editor decide if it belongs or not. I'm also happy if another user decides to re-add it. I have simply stated that I do not believe it infringes any of those and yet all you can do is quote the rules? I have stated why it should be there, for example if you wish to know more about the Apern Papers you can see what the story was, who starred, list of characters, what is it based upon, where it was staged and many more I am simply implying that the Wikipedia article is good but can't go into the depth required hence the further reading? Is there not Compromise of sort? TexasPete (talk) 15:43, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi Wctaiwan, I think it passes number 11 as it's not a blog or a fan site it is simply a community of content exactly the same as Wikipedia the only difference is that it focuses on Christopher Reeve, Nothing is heresy everything comes direct from source and is a community effort meaning people can add and edit thanksTexasPete (talk) 15:55, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Whether a site is helpful (by your standard) does not necessarily determine whether it should be linked. For example, a very good reason for not linking to a fan site, even if it is extremely well-maintained, would be that those who maintain the site have an interest to promote the subject. Wikipedia means to provide encyclopedic information that is neutral, and so while the site may be a great resource for a fan, it is not a reliable (fact-checked with a clear editorial process) or neutral resource for readers of Wikipedia. This has little to do with whether the site is good. The content guidelines exist to maintain Wikipedia's quality as an encyclopedia, even if some rules are at odds with some other good purpose.

In addition, Wikipedia, by its own standards, is distinctly something we can not link to, if it were an external site, exactly because it's community-written and thus not reliable. Ideally, readers should get information from Wikipedia, but always verify the information against the reliable resources cited in the References section in each article. wctaiwan (talk) 15:58, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

I have again reverted the addition of the link. It is not appropriate for all of the reasons already mentioned. We don't link to fan sites, Pete. LadyofShalott 16:11, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi whilst I disagree that it is a fan site, I will agree with the masses and not attempt to add it again, unlike Wikipedia the information is reliable and can be very clearly fact checked with no errors. I regret that people wishing to know more about Christopher Reeve will not be given the opportunity.TexasPete (talk) 16:27, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Remove Reeve's website link

The listed website for Reeve: (http://www.christopherreeve.com) appears to have lapsed and should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xyl56 (talk • contribs) 07:29, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Malaria?

Did he really suffer from malaria; it doesn't usually exist in the USA. Where's the evidence? Francis Hannaway (talk) 12:30, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Scientology

Per the two sources cited, and others such as this [4], Reeve never became a member of Scientology, and at most briefly took some introductory services, thus his inclusion in the category of "Former Scientologists" is inappropriate. It was his skepticism that compelled him to not join the Church to begin with, as every source available indicates. Laval (talk) 14:42, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Question concerning info box information for Christopher Reeve's place of death

Christopher Reeve was a Pound Ridge, New York resident, but he died of a heart attack while he was hospitalized at Northern Westchester Hospital in Mount Kisco, New York. Pound Ridge and Mount Kisco are two towns that are only a few miles apart. Reeve's info box gives his place of death as Mount Kisco, even though he actually lived in nearby Pound Ridge. It's my belief that a person's place of residence should be listed as his/her place of death, even though that person might have actually died at a nearby hospital. It's silly to give the location of a hospital as a person's place of death when that person might have lived for many years in a neighboring town.

My question is, should Christopher Reeve's info box show Pound Ridge or Mount Kisco as his "place of death?" I think that Mount Kisco would be the correct choice. I don't know what Wikipedia's policy is on this issue, but I do know that MANY people died in a hospital that is NOT located in their city of residence.

I know that this issue pertains to many Wikipedia articles. For example, the actress Zita Johann lived in Orangeburg, New York, but she died at nearby Nyack Hospital, in Nyack, New York. Johann's info box gives Nyack as her place of death, even though she was an Orangeburg resident.

In Christopher Reeve's case, should his info box show Pound Ridge or Mount Kisco as his place of death? I need an answer to this question.

Anthony22 (talk) 23:19, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Christopher Reeve. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090310175449/http://www.reeve.uci.edu:80/chrisreeve/index.php to http://www.reeve.uci.edu/chrisreeve/index.php

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

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

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:08, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Assessment comment

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

Very complete and everything is properly sourced. Gunkyboy 09:49, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Last edited at 09:49, 19 October 2006 (UTC). Substituted at 14:31, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Princeton Country Day School

@Beyond My Ken, Andymii, and Spacecowboy420: This regards the wording and sourcing see in this diff. Instead of edit warring, can you three hash out your dispute on the talk page? IMO, even with a proper source, I think the description of the school is bordering on WP:UNDUE. Does it really help the reader to know the history of the school or that it's considered exclusive (especially considering they can simply go to Princeton Day School for such information)? clpo13_(talk) 23:54, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 27 February 2016

The article states that the film The Bounty Reeve was offered a part in was a "remake of Mutiny on the Bounty". This isn't the case - it's simply another film also based on the same historical event. Angmering (talk) 22:20, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Done – thanks for pointing this out. wbm1058 (talk) 01:26, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Princeton Day School

Got an editor who's removing the description of Princeton Day School as "exclusive", despite it being supported by a cite from a reliable source. (I had a previous RS as well, but he refused to accept that one.) The editor clearly knows nothing about the elite,m exclusive prep schools on the northeast, and is using his own lack of knowledge to describe my edit as "subjective" -- but any school whose tuition is $30,000 a year [5] is, by any definition, exclusive, since only a small portion of the population can afford the $400,000 it takes to send one's child there from Pre-K to graduation from high school. BMK (talk) 23:55, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Go to Phillips Exeter, Phillips Andover, The Lawrenceville School, and other schools that are, by your definition, "elite." Non of them mention eliteness. That is because eliteness has no clear definition. By school spirit, anyone could say their school is elite. No Wikipedia page of a school uses such adjectives because "elite" and "selective" are peacock terms. Even many public colleges are $30,000; are you counting them as "elite" too? It depends who is talking. "The school is elite" is not a fact, but rather an opinion of yours, because someone else could potentially disagree. --Andymii (talk) 02:13, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

I see a citation to a self-published book from iUniverse that describes the school as "exclusive". That's obviously not good enough. Is there a reliable source that calls it that? It's a bit peacock-y, yes, but it's not the worst thing in the world. Per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV, we could quote someone else who calls it exclusive. If nobody bothers to highlight that he went to an exclusive school, then we shouldn't make a big deal of it. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:33, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

I like that! Want to compromise and agree upon that? --Andymii (talk) 04:01, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm afraid I have to disagree. "Exclusive" is WP:PEACOCK because there is no objective standard for what that means. Is it "expensive"? So are a million other schools. Does it only allow in students of a certain very high GPA? I doubt that, if the parents can afford the tuition. What exactly does the non-quantifiable term "exclusive" mean specifically, in this context? --Tenebrae (talk) 20:03, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

I as well believe any subjective adjectives like 'elite' or 'exclusive' should be omitted. ɱ (talk · vbm · coi) 01:28, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

• It bears mentioning if it has been mentioned in RS sources about Reeves, which it clearly has per the citation. It speaks to his abilities, character, experiences, and so forth, and is clearly relevant in a biography of him. Softlavender (talk) 01:46, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

• Again, why not simply put it in a quote? That way, we avoid having the encyclopedia's opinion being that the school is selective, but rather that the source's opinion that the school is selective. --Andymii (talk) 16:14, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

That seems like a reasonable middle ground — put it in quotes and cite it. Otherwise, it is full-feathered PEACOCK. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:40, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, that would be fine, as long as we're not quoting that self-published book that's in the article right now. It has to be a reliable source. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:23, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

It seems pretty irrelevant to the article if his school was or was not exclusive, elite or any other peacock term that is proposed. As has been proposed above, a quote from a reliable source might be a good compromise. Besides, it's not really controversial or disputed content, so a quick and easy resolution is best for all involved. (especially those who got rather upset and decided to vent on my talk page.) Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:22, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Deleting that PEACOCK word would certainly be my preference as well, concuring with ɱ and Andymii. I can live with the compromise, but really, there's no quantifiable justification for calling this school "exclusive". --Tenebrae (talk) 23:18, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Considering the conversation has died down, I'm assuming we've agreed to remove the PEACOCK terms? --Andymii (talk) 04:22, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm certainly all for that. For reasons I don't want to go into, I probably shouldn't be the one to remove it. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:12, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Done. --Andymii (talk) 02:14, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Christopher Reeve. 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 User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot*this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/030811/11spotlight.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:13, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Roles turned down by Reeve

The subsection, "2001," lists the following information:

Prior to the filming of Hannibal, Reeve was offered the part of primary antagonist Mason Verger, based on his work as a wheelchair-bound police officer in Above Suspicion. Not having read the novel, Reeve was delighted with the opportunity to return to acting. However, upon realizing that Verger was a quadriplegic, facially disfigured child rapist, Reeve withdrew from the project in disgust. The role was later accepted by secondary choice Gary Oldman.[56][57]

I was interested in learning more about Reeve's withdrawal from the mentioned role, but was unable to turn anything up with some quick searches. I followed the references 56 and 57 and was unable to find any information regarding the claim. I have never edited Wikipedia before. Not sure what to do here. The information simply does not appear to have anything to do with the references. --P — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.139.82.103 (talk) 22:55, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Language related to disability

The phrase " He was confined to a wheelchair" is not appropriate language and can be offensive to those who use wheel chairs.

I would suggest the phrase to saw "He used a wheelchair and portable ventilator" rather than "confined to".

Wheelchairs are not simply devices that people are confined too, but rather a device to help people use the world that they would not be able to access due to constraints in our communities that don't accommodate their disability otherwise.

Further the term "A quadriplegic" is used. A person is not "A something" they are a person with something. And quadriplegia is being used less frequently in disabilities studies.This language would be best if it said "He developed tetraplegia".

4/4/2017 Marley — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.182.112.75 (talk) 22:59, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Reorganization proposal

Hi everyone,

I think a bit of reorganization would make the overall arc of Reeve's life more clear. I propose putting the content on his political advocacy, which is currently covered in multiple sections, into one section. This would make it clearer how he was actually really experienced at this stuff before the accident, and also help the reader quickly find out what his views were. I also propose putting the developments of his personal life into a Personal life section to make that story easier to follow. Thoughts? Take care, Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 05:19, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

P.S. I think a good model for this article in terms of organization would be Katharine Hepburn, which is a Featured Article. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 20:43, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Reorganization done. I think it's clearer now. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 05:37, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Locomotor training

I've removed the following:

The Foundation has funded a new technology called "Locomotor Training" that uses a treadmill to mimic the movements of walking to help develop neural connections, in effect re-teaching the spinal cord how to send signals to the legs to walk. This technology has helped several paralyzed patients walk again. [medical citation needed]

All human biomedical information, especially claims about the efficacy of treatment, require Wikipedia's guidelines for reliable medical sources to be followed. The sentences I removed are probably undue emphasis for this section anyway, as locomotor training is just one of the many interesting research initiatives that the Foundation has funded. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 05:20, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Detail cut from article

I've removed the following passages from the article. It's true, as far as I know, but I think it's too much detail for an encyclopedia article. "Early life" sections are usually kept brief. Best, Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 05:25, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Reeve's father was a Princeton University graduate studying for a master's degree in Russian at Columbia University before Christopher's birth. Despite being born wealthy, Franklin Reeve spent summers working at the docks with longshoremen. Reeve's mother had been a student at Vassar College in Poughkeepsie, but transferred to Barnard College to be closer to Franklin, whom she had met through a family connection. They had another son, Benjamin, born on October 6, 1953.

Later that year, Franklin Reeve married Helen Schmidinger, a Columbia University graduate student. Barbara Pitney Lamb married Tristam B. Johnson, a stockbroker, in 1959.

In a workshop, he played a scene from A View from the Bridge that was chosen to be presented in front of an audience. After the performance, actress Olympia Dukakis said to him, "I'm surprised. You've got a lot of talent. Don't mess it up." The next summer, Reeve was hired at the Harvard Summer Repertory Theater Company in Cambridge for $44 per week. He played a Russian sailor in The Hostage and Belyayev in A Month in the Country. Famed theater critic Elliot Norton called his performance as Belyayev "startlingly effective." The 23-year-old lead actress in the play turned out to be Reeve's first romance. Her engagement to a fellow Carnegie Mellon graduate ended when he made a surprise visit to her dorm room at seven in the morning and found Reeve with her. The relationship fizzled a few months later when the age difference became an issue.

Length and detail

This entry reads a bit more like a romance novel than an encyclopedia entry. How does one go about editing it down? Avocats (talk) 13:38, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

An example:

Late in his freshman year, Reeve received a letter from Stark Hesseltine, a high-powered New York City agent who had discovered Robert Redford and who represented actors such as Richard Chamberlain, Michael Douglas, and Susan Sarandon. Hesseltine had seen Reeve in A Month in the Country and wanted to represent him. Reeve was very excited and kept re-reading the letter to make sure of what it said. Reeve was impatient with school and anxious to get on with his career. The two met, but Reeve was surprised to find that Hesseltine strongly supported his promise to his mother and stepfather to complete college. They decided that instead of dropping out of school, Reeve would come to New York once a month to meet casting agents and producers to find work for the summer vacation.[16]

While a freshman, Reeve was recruited by Stark Hesseltine, a high-powered New York City agent who had seen Reeve in A Month in the Country. Hesseltine had Reeve come to New York monthly to meet casting agents and producers while completing college.[16] Avocats (talk) 13:59, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

That's my impression too. I removed some detail but the article needs a deeper pruning. To answer your question, just be bold and do it. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 15:56, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Featured article

I would like to push this article to featured article status because of the hard work that the late great Christopher Reeve put in as a champion of those living with disabilities and other afflictions that would otherwise leave others living with what he lived through as a true man of steel and has continued to do great work through his charity Kirbopher2004 (talk) 20:34, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Great idea. Go for it! Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 21:45, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Far too detailed and unsourced to be a feature article. Reeve’s notable activism is buried in fluff. Avocats (talk) 13:40, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

The article needs work for sure. Let's encourage that work - if a volunteer is inspired by the goal of bringing it to FA, great. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 15:58, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

south park

add in mentions of him in south park please!! 2606:5D00:9802:2F00:19C8:BB55:33DA:95E4 (talk) 06:22, 6 July 2023 (UTC)