Talk:Christopher Reeve/Archive 1

message: 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)
replies: text: *Here's another "coincidence:" Reeve was born in New York, NY, and died in New York, NY. Adraeus 02:18, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coincidences 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Picture 

message: "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)
thread_title:  ''Strangely, in the same year.....''' 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  POV paragraph 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Two photos 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Another gushy POV paragraph 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Date of Wife's death 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Family??? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Excess stature 

message: 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 . --Muchness 03:46, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Humor section added again

message: 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)
thread_title:  Unitarian Universalist? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Injury details 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Vegetable?? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Pinochet 

message: 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)
replies: text: Thanks for that wonderful essay on the importance of nepotism. Christopher Reeves is an actor. He isn't Superman incarnate.~ZytheTalk to me! 17:38, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Son becomes the father and the father becomes the son 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Stem cell research paragraph 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Superbowl Commercial 

message: 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)
replies: text: They changed recently, 0n 14 May 22:29. (see ). Errabee 11:19, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  copyright 

message: :GA review (see here for criteria)
#It is reasonably well written.
#:a (prose):  b (MoS): 
#It is factually accurate and verifiable.
#:a (references):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 
#It is broad in its coverage.
#:a (major aspects):  b (focused): 
#It follows the neutral point of view policy.
#:a (fair representation):  b (all significant views): 
#It is stable.
#:
#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): 
#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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  GA review 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Cause of death 

message: 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)
thread_title:  ancestry 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Please delete South Park commentary 

message: "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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Julliard 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Filmography Split 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Scientologist? 

message: 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)
replies: text: --189.72.205.237 (talk) 22:40, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  South Park episode 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Ethnicity? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Accident details 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Main Photo 

message: 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)
thread_title:  super 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Tribute 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Spouse(s) 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Cause of death (again) 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  ICU Psycosis 

message: 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)
thread_title:  mention on dates section 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Superman Box? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Remove Reeve's website link 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Malaria? 

message: Per the two sources cited, and others such as this , 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)
thread_title: Scientology

message: 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)
thread_title:  Question concerning info box information for Christopher Reeve's place of death 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Christopher Reeve. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/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.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:08, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Substituted at 14:31, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: 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)
thread_title:  Princeton Country Day School 

message: 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)
replies: text: Done – thanks for pointing this out. wbm1058 (talk) 01:26, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protected edit request on 27 February 2016 

message: 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  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)
replies: text: 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)

text: I like that! Want to compromise and agree upon that? --Andymii (talk) 04:01, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: I as well believe any subjective adjectives like 'elite' or 'exclusive' should be omitted. ɱ (talk · vbm  · coi) 01:28, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Done. --Andymii (talk) 02:14, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Princeton Day School]] 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  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 ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:13, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Roles turned down by Reeve 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Language related to disability 

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Locomotor training 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Length and detail 

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

text: 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)
thread_title:  Featured article 

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