Talk:James Gunn/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Removed section re:Slither plagerism

I have removed a section that didn't meet WP:BLP - Diffs - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=James_Gunn_%28film_maker%29&diff=69719178&oldid=69714214 - It's going to need sources cited before it can be acceptable re-inserted. Megapixie 02:39, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

On Analysis of Slither

The term "box office bomb" is not appropriate for a film that made back more than 50% of its budget (the 29.5 budget number is incorrect - the 15 million is closer to the truth). Saying it was "critically acclaimed" and "most well-reviewed" are not POV: they are facts. The truth is the movie has by far the highest rating of any horror movie on Rotten Tomatoes since SCREAM. The movies are listed under genre and you can see them as such. If you want to reword a thing or two (I removed "extremely" at your suggestion), that's fine. But what you're currently doing is vandalism, and will not be tolerated by Wikipedia. Sensorium 19:16, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Can't say "general audience distaste" for this film, POV. 12 million on a 15 million dollar budget is DEFINITELY not a bomb (a much large percentage of its budget has been returned than has Superman Returs or Miami Vice, for instance, which are not in the box office bombs category). Also initial DVD sales are brisk and will probably cause the film to turn a profit, unlike those others mentioned. Just deleted silly unimportant info. 66.159.192.213 01:08, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. You are also being disingenious. Plus since when does your speculation about possible DVD sales matter in wiki? Unless you have a crystal ball, there is no proof that Slither will recoup it's losses on DVD. And unless you can cite sources stating otherwise, then you are violating WK:OR and WK:nPOV. I suggest you refresh yourself with WK:CITATION policy. For starters, the sources and citations listed CLEARLY STATE that the film cost 29.5 million to make this film. The film cost around 15 to produce and an additional 15 to market. Plus, it doesn't matter what your opinion is on the box office. That's why wikipedia has a strict policy AGAINST WK:OR and WK:nPOV. Multiple sources and citations from reputable sources have labeled this film a box office failiure including [1] and [2]. In other words, you are not allowed to edit/delete contributions when those contributions have been backed-up by multiple citations. Your paperthin attempt to spin the facts violates the purpose of wikipedia. This is not a james Gunn fan page or a Slither blog. Please limit your contributions to factual contributions.Tromaintern 09:03, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Costs generally refer to "production costs". End of story. Why am I being disingenious? And what did I ever say about DVD sales? 66.159.192.213 12:31, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

This Page is Horribly Maintained

There's a LOT of POV stuff here.

In reading over, I returned the critical success paragraph that seems as valid as the box office bomb stuff created herein.

I removed the Tolkin/Frank stuff, as almost every single Hollywood film has rewriters who tune up a screenplay. Gunn was still awarded full screenplay credit by the WGA, which means he wrote 75% or more of the film. Those are the WGA's guidelines.

And being the first screenwriter to have back to back #1 hits is definitely notable.

I also deleted a silly paragraph about how the studios won't return his calls, etc, which referenced an artical which said nothing of the sort.

There's a lot more sloppy stuff here, but I don't have the time now to go through it.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.215.44.6 (talk) 13:14, July 2, 2007 (UTC)

I don't want to get involved in a thing here. But while I agree with some of your points, your other points are guided by POV concerns that are inappropriate here. You are spinning some facts. Just because many Hollywood screenplays have rewrites doesn't mean that truth, by itself, invalidates the need to provide the reader with all relevant info. This isn't a promotional website for James Gunn. Our job isn't to paint him in the best possible light. I urge you to read up on Wiki's policy on living biographies. The job is to provide "objective" information. And that WGA claim, true or not, is only valid here if and ONLY if you can provide sources to back up that claim. It doesn't dispute the fact that other writers were a necessary part of the history of that film, Dawn of the Dead. If you want to include the WGA claim IN ADDITION TO the fact that James Gunn was not the solo screenwriter, then please do so. Also, being back to back #1 hits is NOT notable. According to who? It's silly promotional POV crap that belongs on a fanpage, not here on Wiki.
However, I do agree that the unsourced paragraph about Hollywood not returning Gunn's calls should be removed.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Fearedhallmonitor (talk • contribs) 23:32, July 2, 2007 (UTC)

BLP

This is a WP:BLP article, we need to keep out as much of the contentious material as possible. Quotes about a film he made and its box office performance are not particularly relevant, and keep being inserted by the same editor. That discussion belongs on the page for the film, definitely not for here. Additionally, continued and unsourced references to Gunn's "ex-wife" are incorrect, they are evidentally only separated. Thank you.--Cúchullain t/c 18:15, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Tromaintern et al has not addressed my concerns with WP:BLP. The main problem here is it is poorly sourced negative material about a living person; it also gives much undue weight to the box office performance of one film he did. If you don't stop re-inserting it, I see no choice but to protect the page.--Cúchullain t/c 19:19, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
I have protected the page after the WP:BLP violations were reinserted for the umpteenth time. Discussion can continue on the talk page, but even in the unlikely event that that progresses, the poorly sourced negative material must stay out of this article.--Cúchullain t/c 07:14, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Reception

Okay, so the page has been unprotected for one day, and already there's an issue. Both the performance and the reception of Slither should be mentioned, briefly, on this page. But we don't need to call it a "box office bomb". Just the basics, the rest can be discussed at the film's page.--Cúchullain t/c 04:42, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I see you removed both the box office reception and the critical reception. That might not be a bad way to deal with it, but I think they can be mentioned briefly on here, it's relevant to Gunn's professional biography. Anyone else have an opinion?--Cúchullain t/c 04:45, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
If it is to mentioned briefly, then it is only fair to say the movie was a box office disappointment FACT and the movie was well-received by the critics FACT. Otherwise, both should not be mentioned at all. And until this can be resolved fairly, then I'm removing both from the page. Your POV should not be present on this article if mine cannot. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxador (talk • contribs) 05:01, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Uh, no POV should be in the article. That's the point of WP:NPOV. I already argued that both the film's box office performance and its critical reception should be mentioned at this page, as it's relevant to Gunn's biography. What, exactly, is the problem?--Cúchullain t/c 05:31, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Isn't he hosting a new reality show or something? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.176.78.73 (talk) 22:42, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Today's edit

I'm initiating what I hope will be a constructive discussion regarding edits made by User:Wikipedia Wonderful 698-D. As I've noted on his talk page, where I've reach out in the spirit of working constructively, some of your actions have been aggressive and nonconstructive. This includes leaving edit summaries uch as "REWROTE THIS FANTASTICALLY POORLY WRITTEN ADVERTISEMENT OF A SECTION TO BE VAGUELY ACCEPTABLE. SERIOUSLY, WHO IN THE FUCK WROTE THIS SHIT?" "WHY THE FUCK WOULD YOU CAPITALIZE THE WORD 'TRAILER'" and, at this article, "you fucking nincompoop."

Specifically, this is about my removal of his edits about Gunn's views on science and vaccination. I noted on this editor's talk page that Wikipedia is not a source of WP:INDISCRIMINATE information. If Gunn were a scientist, his views on science would have a place in his article. But he is not, and his opinion about topics outside that for which he is known are non-notable. We don't include Einstein's opinions about baseball or Sarah Palin's opinions on filmmaking.

Finally, I've asked that per WP:BRD he not edit-war but, rather, take his concerns to this talk page. I'm hoping he will do so and be civil. --Tenebrae (talk) 03:14, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 3 July 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved. (non-admin closure). Anarchyte (work | talk) 13:32, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

– 97% of pageviews for the filmmaker, and has had a lengthy career in major film; no other James Gunn has "substantially greater enduring notability and educational value". Nohomersryan (talk) 17:17, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

  • Support per nom. Clear primary topic. PC78 (talk) 17:37, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Support on the merits, and because the disambiguation being used now is ineffective; there's a Jim Gunn who is also a filmmaker (of a sort with which this James Gunn probably doesn't want to be associated).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  20:05, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Roman Catholic?

An anon IP removed a category, former Roman Catholics, that a registered editor restored. The removal seems correct since there's actually no cite at all in the article that Gunn was ever Catholic. Since that's a WP:BLP issue, we'd need an RS citation saying that he's a former Catholic. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:36, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Tenebrae: I listened to that interview he had with Indoor Kids Podcast which has since been deleted from the article, and Gunn actually said he was raised Catholic (at 49:43). He has said that he despises religion in general, but he did not say he's an atheist or something. Personally, I'd say he's a deist, but it would be WP:OR to put it in there since he does not explicitly identify as that. Matieszyn talk 08:28, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on James Gunn. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:50, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

"Better source needed" tag

I added the tag to the "Personal life" statement that Gunn is not an atheist. The cited tweet reads: "Only according to Wikipedia and definitely not when it comes to superhero movies" and without the preceding tweet(s) this statement could be about anything. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:46, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on James Gunn. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:42, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Unreferenced birth date

There is no reference given for his year of birth. 1966 is simply assumed because it is assumed that he was 18 when he graduated high school. Where is August 5th coming from? If 1970 is untrustworthy, how is August 5th known to be trustworthy? I suggest we change his birth date to whatever is found in reliable sources (rather than simply assuming 1966). 142.167.242.182 (talk) 23:20, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I absolutely agree. I've removed the date of birth for these reasons. Per WP:BLP, it is critical that we get details like this right, and at the moment the date of birth was only sourced to this FilmReference.com entry, which lists "August 5, 1970", in conjunction with this St. Louis Today article, which states Gunn graduated from SLUH in 1984. (Several sources, including IMDb.com, say he was born in 1970, but you do the math.). FilmReference.com doesn't seem to meet Wikipedia's standards of reliability, especially if it is propagating a date of birth which we've admittedly been saying is false. If we can't trust 1970, why can we trust August 5? Finally, it is a violation of WP:NOR to use the St. Louis Today statement "you do the math" and just guess that Gunn was born in 1966. Either find a reliable source that explicitly verifies the date of birth, or don't include it at all. Mz7 (talk) 19:26, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
I've reinstated it with a better source. Gunn has tweeted before that August 5 is his birthday, so that part is likely accurate. With sources referring to him as 51 in the wake of his firing it seems unlikely that August 5, 1966 is false (if there's any challenges to the current source that is). Nohomersryan (talk) 23:08, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
Solid, looks good to me. Thanks, Nohomersryan! Mz7 (talk) 03:57, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
You have to realize that recent "sources" likely take information about his age directly from Wikipedia or Google (which draws from Wikipedia). They are not independent verifications of his age. It's circular. 142.167.242.182 (talk) 03:06, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Section about the scandal

I think we should add a section about his Twitter controversy due to how bad it is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.172.180.75 (talk) 22:10, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Doesn't seem like enough there for an entire section of its own. Career sections good enough.--108.83.146.0 (talk) 22:22, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

I think at most, a sub-heading, but I think we should wait and see how it plays out in the next couple days and whether or not it just blows over like a lot of things in Hollywood. QueerFilmNerdtalk 22:29, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

What exactly are the implications of him parting ways with Disney? Has he lost his chance to direct GotG3? Because the size of that franchise, and him losing the chance to direct it would be enormous. —Approaching (talk) 22:47, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Disney fired him basically because they couldn't excuse or defend what he said. I assume they're on the search for a new director, but they haven't said what's happening with the film yet or who's directing it. QueerFilmNerdtalk 01:10, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Yea, All of the media is talking about him now, I demand that we make the section now! --Zgrillo2004 (talk) 01:36, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

James Gun

James Gunn Fired for offensive tweets. https://www.pscp.tv/Cernovich/1yoKMVYWDejGQ 2601:280:C680:4320:444A:7D63:F286:DD9B (talk) 21:36, 20 July 2018 (UTC) David Talmage Big news today. https://www.pscp.tv/Cernovich/1yNGaXwBLpEKj 2601:280:C680:4320:2953:86C0:D69E:FA5 (talk) 18:20, 20 July 2018 (UTC) David Talmage

Possible Alt-Right Attack On James?

It wasn't just concerned Twitter users, The Alt-Right started this, The same guy who attacked Sam Sedder, Mike Cernovich brought this into light, However, some people are questioning if the Alt-Right went too far with the hashtag #ReHireJamesGunn on Twitter, Dave Bautista (Drax in the MCU) has also stood up for James as well. It is also noted that Gunn apologized for some of the Tweets back in 2012 and since then he's been much more mature. I just wanted to let you guys know that this MIGHT have been an attack and that people are divided over the situation. Something's really fishy with this situation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.172.180.75 (talk) 05:10, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Is that what the Driveby Media told you? stop listening to lies. We didnt do anything about his firing. Stop baiting at people.--Zgrillo2004 (talk) 15:48, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
There is no organization known as the "alt-right". What you're talking about is akin to labelling people who criticized any other number of celebrities to be members of anti-fa or so on just because some of the people expressing concern, genuine or otherwise, happen to affiliate with others holding certain opinions. 2A02:8084:4EE0:6900:515C:4BBF:64B:A7A6 (talk) 23:39, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
This section was created as hysterical political propaganda by an IP user and really should be removed by an admin. Quis separabit? 00:00, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
I agree. that person is probably one of them rabid leftists that want to control everything. --Zgrillo2004 (talk) 18:41, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

This is no more an "attack" than when Milo Yiannopolus' own sick comments about children were unearthed by BuzzFeed. It's just that Americans on both sides of politics have severe cognitive dissonance on such matters Anarcho-authoritarian (talk) 14:57, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

There shouldn't be any Anti-First Amendmenters on Wikipedia. They already control academia and the mainstream media. Quis separabit? 20:26, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Calling Mike Cernovich an alt-right activist when he is against the alt-right and has openly denounced the alt-right is purposely misleading and a character attack. Framing him as one is dishonest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:569:7798:3B00:4B4:7A7F:FB34:2E4F (talk) 06:45, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Dubious Claim in Daily Dot Article

There's a lot of doubt cast on the Daily Dot article's claim that Cernovich uncovered Gunn's tweets due to Gunn criticizing Trump. The only evidence the article offers is that Cernovich is also going after Michael Ian Black, who is also anti-Trump. I don't know if that is adequate evidence.In addition, the rest of the Daily Dot piece sounds more political than informative as well. So I'm going to tag it as dubious unless someone can find some stronger evidence. —Approaching (talk) 00:10, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

No, I've seen this in a bunch of sources, and it was even alluded to (somewhat evasively) in a Breitbart article, where Gunn's criticism of Trump is brought up seemingly out of nowhere, unless it is read as a direct response to all the mainstream sources that explicitly say he was targeted because of his criticism of Trump. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:58, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
I don't doubt that several sources are making this claim. My doubt is whether this claim is editorializing, or is actually supported by verifiable evidence. I've looked at a number of sources, and their claims to this effect seem conjectural. They might even be right, but there's no verifiable evidence to support it. If you can point to an article that involves verifiable evidence, please let me know. —Approaching (talk) 18:30, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
The verifiable evidence for us is that many, many reliable sources have made the connection. It might be more accurate to say not that it was in direct response to anti-Trump tweets, but that it's part of Cernovich's well-documented strategy to smear and/or get fired outspoken liberal entertainers. This claim is made more often than a direct Trump criticism connection indeed. As time continues to move on, the amount of coverage about Cernovich's role in this is an increasingly large proportion of the coverage of Gunn's firing. We cover what reliable sources say about a subject. We fact-check insofar as making sure we reflect what those sources say, and only use sources with a reputation for things like fact-checking and accuracy (relying on them to do due dilligence before saying such a thing). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 19:33, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. Can you point out any sources that make this case unequivocally? Ideally not op-ed pieces, but ones that rely on factual evidence? For instance, does Cernovich claim anywhere that he's doing this to get anti-Trump/liberal entertainers? I haven't been able to find this, but your help would be valuable here. —Approaching (talk) 02:48, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

The Daily Dot is not only dubious, but wrong. The twitter mob didn't go after Gunn because of his criticism of Trump, it was Gunn's criticism of Ben Shapiro after liberal film maker tweeted "fellow liberal: if you are interested in crossing the aisle you should consider following Ben Shapiro. I don't agree with him much but he's a genuine person who once helped me for no other reason than to be nice. He doesn't bend the truth. His intentions are good." Gunn, then responded to that tweet with attacks against Shapiro and conservatives. Twitter mob then went on hunt. The site mentions Cernovich launched attack after anti-Trump rant, but Cernovich himself says it's because of the aforementioned.Not only is this section wrong, but the link provided is incredibly bias, and completely dismisses and ignores Gunn's tweets. I changed the link to a non-bias source that lists the tweets that Gunn posted. Wikipedia isn't suppose to takes sides, and that is exactly what the Daily Dot article does - it leads the readers' opinions toward an extreme left-wing slant without even mentioning what was said. It's purely "attack the messenger" I've changed the link to one that is impartial and lists exactly what Gunn tweeted - readers' can now decide for themselves if Gunn's firing/rehiring was just. Twizzlerstiks (talk)

Tweets/Disney section

Like many others, I came to this page today after reading some news about Gunn's firing by Disney. I was surprised (sort of) to see that not only had it been covered (which is good, given the amount of coverage it has received), but it formed a large part of the lead and had a massive section at the bottom, complete with full block quotes. There's a ton of coverage of this subject from over his 20-year career. Something that generated news over the span of a couple days just now shouldn't dominate the article or the lead. I've substantially cut it down. It's still quite substantial for something so recent, but seems like a fine length such that we can look back down the road and see if it should be reduced. If the story continues to develop (beyond just more of the same in the next couple days), we can always expand it. The bulk of what I cut were extended quotes, which are sufficiently covered by the sources themselves and don't add any knowledge beyond what we have already summarized. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 16:24, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

I agree that the section did need a solid trimming. Too much details, basically. However, some parts seemed relevant: the support of the GotG cast, Gunn's response, and the fan petitions all receive quite a bit of media coverage, all seem pretty relevant to the whole thing. --Hyliad (d), 20:27, 24 July 2018 (CEST)
As written the article gives the impression that no-one other than Disney is supportive of the sacking. Is this true?202.36.244.197 (talk) 23:26, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

I maintain the section is much too big (WP:WEIGHT). Regardless of the tone of the section (focusing on the firing vs. the response to the firing), it's WP:RECENTISM to have more than 25% of the size of this article dedicated to events of the past few days. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 18:04, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

POV Issues Regarding Disney Firing

Hi people. I've noticed the section on Gunn's firing grow, with a worryingly imbalanced emphasis on criticizing Disney. This is not a Disney page, nor is it a place for your preferences to determine the weight of the content. In my view, the firing should be characterized as controversial without receiving disproportionate emphasis relative to the BLP and the section as a whole. In addition, I'd like to draw editors' attention to WP:RECENTISM, which has helpful guidelines on how to lay out the content with an eye towards long-term, historical reports. —Approaching (talk) 00:22, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

@Approaching: I think you may be misreading it, as it doesn't come across as "anti-Disney" if one interprets it in light of Disney having jumped the gun and overreacted to alt-right trolling. I haven't seen any reference to Disney reacting to the media/fan reaction and doubling down, and we don't imply they did, and there's nothing here that implies malice on Disney's part. It comes across as more critical of the alt-right trolls who got him fired, which is just reflective of the majority of reliable secondary sources. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:54, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
It's just representative of the overall mood towards Gunn's firing. There has definitely been backlash from both the media and the fans, thus making it controversial, and the significant media coverage warrants a mention to the support towards him. If there was a significant number of personalities or fans praising Gunn's firing, it would earn a mention as well, but apart from statements from Ted Cruz and Roseanne Barr, the media pretty much says nothing about it.--Hyliad (d), 15:32, 25 July 2018 (CEST)
@Hijiri88: Thanks for the response. I understand that you're appealing to a certain interpretation of events as reflected in many sources, however I find that interpretation to be both non-neutral for the purposes of Wikipedia editing, and to fall afoul of WP:OR. I assume it's not the job of a Wikipedia editor or article to evaluate the propriety of Disney's decision, so evaluative language such as "having jumped the gun", "overreacted", and loaded language such as "alt-right trolls" or "alt-right trolling" are problematic, per WP:LABEL. I do think we have to make room to reflect the controversial nature of the firing, so I think we can find common ground there, provided, as I said in my OP, we don't give in to WP:RECENTISM. —Approaching (talk) 18:26, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Whether or not it's biased, it's reference bombed to hell. We've got eleven references in one spot just to say a fan petition to re-hire him exists. This subject is way out of my normal area, so I'm not able to sort through and identify the best references which should be kept, but some level of cutting down is definitely necessary. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 16:57, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

On July 20, Josh Wilding at comicbookmovie.com/ said that James Gunn tweets are "homophobic and sexist" and "pretty horrifying".[1] He is not upset that Disney fired Gunn. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CryMeAnOcean (talk • contribs) 07:23, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

As I said before, in a talk section basically the same as this one in purpose, this article gives the impression that literally everyone disagrees with the decision. That's not right. It doesn't matter if everyone mentioned has a source connected with it. It doesn't matter that they all do. The part which is relevant to the article is that there was some opposition. Finding somewhere which collates a whole lot of opposition down into one or two sentences would be useful; and that is not particularly hard. As to the kind of sentences to use perhaps something like, "Disney's decision to fire gunn attracted criticism from colleagues, actors and industry commentators. [relevant references] A fan petition to re-instate Gunn garnered more than 300,000 votes as of 28 July 2018. [reference] However, criticism of Disney was not universal. [reference]"

Now, if it's true that basically everyone disagree with the decision, Wikipedia's guidelines on independent research mean that someone somewhere else needs to synthesise the material that's out there into this assessment. The lop-sided nature of weight of sources and emphasis on the criticism of Disney (not even linked directly back to Gunn) currently creates this impression so it's up to the people editing it into the article to find justifying synthesis... rather than what exists now which is basically "hey, look at all this stuff, wink wink". 122.58.163.229 (talk) 03:27, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

I only see one source about one person who's not even notable enough for an article on this project. In contrast, in the article are 22 sources and 17 individuals notable enough for WP articles. So I'm gonna go with "No" on whether we should change this until I see sourcing reporting widespread support for Disney. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 05:55, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.comicbookmovie.com/guardians_of_the_galaxy/homophobic-and-sexist-comments-james-gunn-made-about-superheroes-in-2011-have-now-surfaced-a162335

lead

I had tweaked the lead to say this about the new material:

The Walt Disney Company controversially fired him from the third Guardians of the Galaxy film over off-color jokes he tweeted between 2008-2012.

Another user changed it to:

The Walt Disney Company controversially fired him from the third Guardians of the Galaxy film over jokes he tweeted about pedophilia and rape between 2008-2012.

This is not the first time someone has edited the lead specifically to add the words "pedophilia and rape". It is also now the third instance of "pedophilia and rape" in the article, for some reason. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 13:53, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

TBC, the use of the words "pedophilia and rape" is a core part of the smear campaign against him (it's pretty obvious why, so I'm not going to say), and SPAs/IPs edit-warring this specific phrase in is a clear indication of malicious intent. Just revert them. Violate 3RR if you like, since BLP has you covered. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 20:27, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
I've restored the first version above. I've also removed one other instance of "pedophilia and rape," but not because that phrase was used. We just had a straight up redundant block of text repeating material that we have a whole section talking about. Very brief summary instead. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 05:29, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
Oh, I don't mind us deciding, in good faith, to use or not to use those words buried in the article body for whatever reasons. I just don't think they should be in the lead per WP:WEIGHT, and I think that any suspicious SPAs or IPs who show up and try to make sure the article puts as much emphasis on it as possible are clearly the same people this guy is talking about, and should not be given any ground, as the attacks they are trying to make on this person run totally counter to our policy and are, frankly, far more disgusting and offensive than anything Gunn actually said in any of those tweets. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:57, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Unclear sentence--can easily parse to mean the opposite of what's intended

In this section of the article, we find the sentence:

  • Actor Bobcat Goldthwait responded to Gunn's firing by asking Disney to remove his voice from an upcoming Hercules park attraction.

This can easily be understood to convey nearly the opposite of what's intended by the loose use of the pronoun "his", and as to whom it refers. Specifically, in the context, a reader may parse this as that Bobcat Goldthwaite advocating that Jame's Gunn's voice be removed from "an upcoming Hercules park attraction", because of Bobcat's disapproval of Gunn, rather than that Bobcat wanted his own voice removed from "an upcoming Hercules park attraction", because of his disapproval over Disney's firing of Gunn. A clarification is as easy as adding one word:

Good catch, but your proposed solution is ungrammatical, since the voice in question is Goldthwait's, not Disney's. I changed "responded to Gunn's firing" to "responded to the incident", which should adequately address the ambiguity. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:29, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
No, the exact same ambiguity remains."His" could still refer to either Goldthwait's or Gunn's voice. Changing "the firing" to "the incident" has no clarifying affect on this issue whatever.--2604:2000:8055:1800:201F:DAB2:C407:476C (talk) 00:38, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
I think I understand the confusion. It wouldn't take much clicking for a reader to figure it out, but it doesn't hurt to add a few more words to be clear. I've changed it to:

Bobcat Goldthwait, who worked as a voice actor on the 1997 Disney film Hercules, responded to the incident by asking Disney to remove his voice from an upcoming park attraction based on the film.

— Rhododendrites talk \\ 01:02, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
My removing the reference in the same sentence to Gunn's name should have adequately addressed the concern, and it would be very difficult to read my amended wording in the context of the negative reaction to Disney's decision (what the whole paragraph is about) as saying Goldthwait wanted Gunn's voice removed from the attraction. The only way one could (under which any masculine pronoun in the article on Gunn "could easily be read as referring to Gunn") would still allow for that reading even under Rhodo's wording, so I don't see how this extra change fixed anything. Rather, it seems like a suspicious IP (which is clearly the same person who made these edits[3][4][5][6] and had ample to fix the text in question himself but chose to post this edit request right after the page was protected instead) attempting to use the article talk page to talk about the "idea" that Gunn's history with Disney is being wiped from the slate (even in a manner that makes it look like he's trying to do the opposite -- it's the same as the use of two inflammatory words discussed further up this page) and troll the goody-goodies protecting the article into fighting with each other. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:35, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
Ah, perfect; that clarifies it. Thank you Rhododendrites.--2604:2000:8055:1800:201F:DAB2:C407:476C (talk) 01:58, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
Hijiri88, IP paranoia is not a good trait. Since I have never been to this article before today, you may think I am "clearly" someone who made some other edit but I know you are "clearly" incorrect. Convincing you is not my concern. I was formerly a regular editor and this is in the vein of the type of rancor that made me retire.--2604:2000:8055:1800:201F:DAB2:C407:476C (talk) 01:58, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
So ... you're a former regular editor, who claims to have "retired", and now you come to an article on a presently "controversial" topic, hours after the page is protected, to make an edit request, and then argue endlessly over how the grammatically correct solutions proposed by others aren't good enough? Forgive me if I either (a) don't believe your story or (b) think your story on its face implies you are a sock of a banned user or LTA vandal who is using "retired" euphemistically. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:08, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
Hijiri 88: can't you see how very unproductive your tack is here? What possible good could come from your post above? If I'm a troll, you're feeding me. (Trolls live for provoking argument and endless response and being a time sink.) If I'm not, all you're doing is inviting argument – that hijacks the talk page. If you respond, as I'm sure you will, I will not respond in turn, to ensure the very morass you're post is likely to cause, will not. Have at it and cheers--2604:2000:8055:1800:201F:DAB2:C407:476C (talk) 02:17, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Precluding an edit-war

There have been some contentious edits of late, and accusations of edit-warring have arisen. User Hijiri88 says the following:

  • "(→‎Controversial tweets and firing from Disney: I agree that ref-bombing is bad, but edit-warring while ignoring discussion on the talk page (and repeatedly reinserting your own "neutral" version while simultaneously readding an undiscussed neutrality tag!?) is worse, let alone replacing the excessive cites that do verify the content with a single source (The Daily Mail!) that doesn't. Please be more careful, and use the talk page.)"

I'm not 100% sure who Hijiri88 is referring to (I assume it's me). So I'll open this topic to keep things collaborative and avoid miscommunication. Let me lay out my concerns with the article, so we can be clear:

  • Some claims relative to Mike Cernovich are not adequately sourced and inflammatory, namely that he's targeting Trump critics, and that he's alt-right. I'm removing them without discussion, per WP:BLPRS until better sources arrive. Currently, sources like the Anti-Defamation League explicitly characterize Cernovich as ex-alt-right (See Source). I hope Hijiri88 is clear that this isn't edit-warring.
  • A number of us are worried about the ref-bombing and are working to cut the sources down. Hijiri88 seems angry that I used the Daily Mail source. I'm fine with finding better sources, so long as we cut down on the ref-bombing.
  • I'm concerned that a lot of the section is becoming a cluttered collection of names supporting Gunn. I think this list needs to be culled.
  • I'm also concerned about how some things are framed in a way that doesn't suit a BLP. Peripherally, I'm worried that the popular support for Gunn among his fans and the media (including the campaign to get him his job back) is influencing the content of this section. We need to resist that and preserve an encyclopedic approach (this is what serves everybody, including the campaigners, best in the end).
  • I know Hijiri88 also accuses people (presumably me) of ignoring discussion on the talk page. Rest assured that's not happening here, nor in the other sections. Please let me know if I'm unduly ignoring anything.

—Approaching (talk) 02:07, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

You removed information from the section referring to Cernovich as alt-right, when the reliable sources in general (and the source used in particular) all agree that Cernovich is alt-right. So it's not a contentious claim. Remember: whether something is contentious or not depends on the sources, not upon our own interpretation of the claim (as a final note, Cernovich's denial is neither here nor there; the alt-right is demonized in the popular consciousness, so many members of the alt-right distance themselves from the term dishonestly).
Also, the daily dot has been found to be a reliable source at RSN, you can search the archives to see for yourself.
With those two facts in mind, I have restored the material. Finally, I moved the section out of the "personal life" section because the content relates to his career. So it is now in that ("Career") section. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 02:15, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
Hi MjolnirPants. We have evidence from sources that the claim is contentious. Other sources, far more reliable than The Daily Dot, including some quoting the subject himself, indicate he is not alt-right: The Anti-Defamation League (Source), The Southern Poverty Law Center (Source), Haaretz (Source), The New York Times (Source), The Atlantic (Source), Politico (Source), (Source)
My goal here is not to argue that he isn't alt-right (I don't care about him), but rather to point out that the claim (a) is legitimately disputable per the reliable sources I've offered above, (b) uses a contentious label (see WP:LABEL), (c) is about a living person, (d) is on an article that does not is not actually about the person or his alleged membership in the alt-right.
Your claim that the alt-right is demonized in the popular consciousness and therefore members of the alt-right distance themselves from the term dishonestly, whether true or false, veers into WP:OR, and is not something within Wikipedia's purview to correct.
To be perfectly transparent, I'm not convinced one way or another whether he's a member of the alt-right (I personally don't care). Rather, I believe Wikipedia shouldn't take a stance on the matter in this particular context. Not unless you're willing to spend three or four sentences laying out the various conflicting views.
Let me know if there is any reason, given what I've said, to insist he is alt-right on the BLP in this context.

—Approaching (talk) 17:46, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

The question of whether Cernovich should be called "alt-right" is a matter for the Cernovich article. Currently, the consensus is to use that label there, which makes it sensible to include here (especially given the context, with so many of the sources using that label). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 18:02, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
There's no Wikipedia guideline that I'm aware of which says we're obligated to accede on one article a consensus that has been established on another. Of course, I might be overlooking something. Can you let me know if you find something? —Approaching (talk) 21:49, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
The sources you linked to may quote Cernovich, but Cernovich is not a reliable source for such claims (self-serving), as I have already explained. Indeed, the sources you provided all refer to Cernovich as alt-right, and then quote his denial. In fact, all of the sources you linked are about the alt-right. Mentioning Cernovich in those article, if we are to presume that he is not alt-right, makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. The bit about this being a different article is immaterial: if there is sufficient sourcing to refer to Cernovich as alt-right in his BLP, then there is sufficient sourcing for us to refer to him as alt-right in this article. The fact that Cernovich is alt-right is a fact, as far as WP is concerned. To leave that out here (when it was Cernovich's primary motivation for the campaign against Gunn) is a POV push that falsely legitimizes Cernovich's campaign by falsely implying that it was motivated by something other than politics. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:06, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
  • I'm honestly a little concerned about the "controversial tweets" title. The tweets themselves were not the source of the controversy, as Gunn had a rather inflammatory/gross-out style of humour back in the 2000s, and had issued a general retraction and apology years before there was any significant public controversy. The recent issue is basically the result of right-wing trolls fabricating a controversy; the current section title implies his tweets themselves were the source of the controversy. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:13, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
I'm giving serious though to erasing the whole section. It's mentioned twice: once before the section and then the section itself. I think that's too much, all things considered. This is not the end of Gunn's career; he's just been fired from one project, and it's early enough that that could -conceivably, given the pushback- still change. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:48, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
I would be very surprised if it didn't change in some form, and if it takes the form of him being allowed act as a "consultant" on GOTG3 while it's directed by some younger protégé of his then I can totally imagine that content not being allowed be included in this article because "it's not like he returned as director". Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:11, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
  • @Approaching: Wait ... why do you say it was you who cited the Daily Mail? I specifically contacted another user about that. Anyway, if you are going to write a long comment about me on an article's talk page, please ping me. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:16, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

It seems there are now people willing to take the edit war to the talk page even and remove a person's entire talk post. Not only have my addition to the article been removed, my entire comment on the talk page has been deleted(censored) due to a dubious claim of 'unsourced speculation'.
So I ask Hijiri88 what part of my linked evidence in the form of journalist articles, screenshots Gunn's Twitter and archived web page of Gunn's own blog is considered to be in your words "DISGUSTING unsourced speculation"?
--Effectively0 (talk) 02:59, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

If you can't see how your comment was inappropriate and contrary to our policy on discussion of living persons then I cannot help you, and you need to stop editing this page immediately. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:02, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
I would like to engage in a discussion about the content, but so far a vague mention of the WP:BLP policy keeps getting name dropped in response to my very specific arguments. I think I deserve a proper explanation of why you think my talk post was “DISGUSTING unsourced speculation” as you have used that reasoning to delete my entire talk post. Linking to WP:BLP and abdicating discussion after I have challenged you on the specifics of the WP:BLP does not help.
The discussion does not appear to be taking a constructive direction. Are there any other users who would like to comment here? My original article post with the content in question can be found here and my talk post Hijiri88 deleted can be found here.
--Effectively0 (talk) 03:59, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
Please read WP:BLP. Specifically: "Biographies of living persons ("BLPs") must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment." We do not engage in sensationalism, which is exactly what adding the tweets in question is. The actual contents of the tweets is completely unencyclopedic information. It does not matter what specific offensive things he tweeted, only the fact that he made offensive tweets is relevant. With that in mind, there is no justification for adding this, and per our instructions at that policy page to write conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy and that the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered we should absolutely not add this. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 04:06, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for taking the time to chime in. At the time I didnt see the archived blog posts/tweets as being jokes; Gunn had seemingly self incriminated himself based on the comment and video title, although it turned out to be ‘just a prank’. Now that user 81.161.183.140 has explained the problem with the source and the clarified the source of the confusion, the context behind the controvery seems clearer.
I feel as though adding some link and mention to some of the tweets and explaining the context and confusion behind the joke would illuminate Gunn(and Disney)'s position. I'm sure there will be others in future who will argue whether or not the tweets were serious or jokes. At least that way future disagreements are less likely to arise regarding whether or not they were jokes. There doesnt need to be an image of a tweet, but it would be good if people were able to find the archived content if they want to read deeper into the specifics of the event (ie Reference or External Links?).
Thats all I have to add to the talk page for now.--Effectively0 (talk) 16:40, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
In your talkpost you made accusations which were disgusting in nature and baseless because what you're referring to never happened. The breitbart post you linked to claimed that it was impossible to find out what the video is. It is actually as simple as looking up the archived blogpost, right clicking to view source and then finding the link which turns out to be a youtube video of a women's choir singing a Divinyls song. The whole thing is basically a dirty Rickroll. 81.161.183.140 (talk) 07:02, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for being the one to clarify the issue with the sources. The archive.is blog comment seemed like a smoking gun at the time and nobody else could show that it wasnt as it appeared. Today I learned that while the archive.is pages do not contain the links to embedded Youtube videos, web.archive.org does capture them. Very handy.--Effectively0 (talk) 16:40, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
@Effectively0: That it was a rickroll gag was already well-established by July 25.[7] Please don't cite Breitbart.com on English Wikipedia again. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:31, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Why the weasel words?

"he was removed from the Directorial role of the third Guardians of the Galaxy film in response to controversy regarding some questionable social media posts he had made." I would ask why the edit function for the page has gone but I'm guessing it's for the same reason this qualifier has been shoehorned in. Please, someone with edit priveleges remove it. Yb2 (talk) 19:15, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Would it be better if we said "in response to controversy drummed up by right-wing activists following his criticism of the Trump administration"? My understanding is the current wording is a compromise -- very few of the reliable sources actually say the controversy was about social media posts he had made. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:35, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
The lead currently states, "In July 2018, he was removed from the directorial role of the third Guardians of the Galaxy film in response to controversy regarding some questionable social media posts he had made." That wording, which was added here by an account that has made only a handful of edits, is censorious, euphemistic, and an insult to the intelligence of Wikipedia's readers. Gunn's jokes were about pedophilia and rape and we should state that they were about pedophilia and rape. "Questionable" is just a vague, meaningless piece of BS that attempts to hide what the controversy is about. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:08, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
No, we shouldn't, because the jokes about pedophilia and rape were already the subject of a public controversy, for which he apologized, back in 2012, and in the six years thence no one considered adding that factoid to the article at all, let alone the lead. The recent controversy was drummed up by rightist trolls because he criticized Trump. And also kinda because the trolls wanted to insinuate defamatory and completely baseless things about him: which is also no doubt the reason most of the IPs/SPAs are arguing for the words "pedophilia and rape" to be included in the article, which if the case is something they definitely are not allowed do. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:52, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
If "the jokes about pedophilia and rape were already the subject of a public controversy" that is a reason for including the content, as it shows its significance. That Gunn apologized is irrelevant, that no one considered mentioning the subject in the article in the six years following that apology is irrelevant, and that the "recent controversy was drummed up by rightist trolls because he criticized Trump" is also irrelevant. All reasons that can be summarized as, "I don't want this mentioned in the lead because I like James Gunn and dislike his critics" are irrelevant, per WP:NPOV. This is a case where WP:BLP is simply being used as a shield to protect someone from the consequences of his actions. The policy actually states, "If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it." See WP:PUBLICFIGURE. This incident obviously is noteworthy, relevant, etc. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:59, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
Well, the diff you provided above was an anti-Gunn SPA replacing "off-color jokes" with "questionable tweets". For all I know, Yb2 is the same person and this was a hatchet job to set up a strawman argument in favour of including what he actually wanted the lead to say. That I like Gunn and dislike the racist trolls who are going after him (who, it should perhaps be noted, were also responsible for the "pizzagate" lie that involved a shooting). The simple fact is that he made off-colour jokes back in 2008-2012, was called out for them back in 2012, apologized and never apparently made such jokes again, and then recently some trolls decided to drum up a fake controversy to which Disney overreacted. The same thing happened to Sam Seder last year, but the lead of that article provides no assistance in how to handle this kind of thing because it doesn't mention the incident at all. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:11, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
@Hijiri88 For the record, I am a different person to Yb2. I made this account because I happened to hear about this emerging topic and found somewhere where I thought I could add something to wikipedia. I probably shouldn't have to explain that though.
Your comment "For all I know, Yb2 is the same person and this was a hatchet job to set up a strawman argument in favour of including what he actually wanted the lead to say" comes across as a bit paranoid. Please keep an open mind; not everyone who criticises or opposes you is an 'online troll' or 'bot' with nefarious purposes.--Effectively0 (talk) 09:59, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
Umm... I never said or implied that people who criticize or oppose me are online trolls (I said online trolls are online trolls, and the sources support this assertion), and I didn't mention "bots" once. It doesn't even matter who "opposes me" or why, but your thinking this is about fighting with other editors is somewhat telling: the article needs to abide by our content policies, and if you attempt to insert policy-violating content again you will be reverted. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 18:32, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
I don't know and don't care what the editor who made that change thinks of Gunn. I do care that it is a terrible edit. As I said, "questionable" is a vague and meaningless piece of BS. It deliberately conceals what the controversy is about, and leaves readers of the article, who come to it looking for actual information, scratching their heads and asking themselves, "What the hell does 'questionable' mean?" The article needs to drop the weasel language and replace it with meaningful information. If the jokes were about rape and pedophilia then let's say so in as many words. Trying to shield Gunn from negative material in his article violates WP:NPOV and perverts the purpose of WP:BLP, which does in fact allow negative information about a person to be mentioned, for example when something negative and controversial has already received much attention, as it clearly has in this case. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:19, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
I don't know and don't care what the editor who made that change thinks of Gunn. I do care that it is a terrible edit. Fine. I've undone it. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:24, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
BTW, of the half-dozen or so old white men whose work I enjoy, who have been the subject of (sex-related) scandals in the past year or two, I have not defended a single one on Wikipedia, let alone "because I like them", so the baseless accusation that my reasons ... can be summarized as, "I don't want this mentioned in the lead because I like James Gunn["] is particularly laughable. Gunn was targeted by racist trolls because he criticized a politician they liked; the recent controversy has absolutely nothing to do with the content of his tweets, and the reason I am unwilling to allow the article to imply otherwise is that none of the up-to-date, reliable sources do. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 18:32, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
I had initially added "off-color jokes" because I felt it was a neutral summary of what they were, without glossing over the fact that they were, well, off-color/"blue" (odd that those are synonymous, now that I think about it... will have to look up the etymology sometime) and without sensationalizing by adding specific content of the jokes into the lead, which after all summarizes. It does matter that the controversy around "rape and pedophilia" was drummed up by those creating the scandal because at this point the sourcing on the affair has turned to less often repeat the "omg rape and pedophilia" to give a closer look at the situation and, in many cases, dispute the seriousness (and at minimum the sincerity) of the "rape and pedophilia" outrage. In other words, I like what I wrote best (in case that's not an obvious implication :) ), and would oppose reintroducing "rape and pedophilia" into the lead (it is already in the article where we go into detail), and would weakly oppose "questionable material" as simply being less descriptive IMO. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 02:56, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

"Jokes"

Yeah, not gonna happen. Move along. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 19:41, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Gunn refers to his controversial tweets as jokes. This should be made clear to the reader, instead it is in WP's words. I've amended the Lede but this problem remains in the body. petrarchan47คุก 22:51, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

@Petrarchan47: Can you provide a reliable source that says Gunn refers to them as jokes but that this description is not accurate? As far as I am aware, everyone refers to them as jokes except for racist internet trolls who are looking for an excuse to imply everyone they don't like is a pedophile, and when they found out that someone they didn't like had, years earlier, made jokes about pedophilia that they could quote out of context, they jumped at the chance. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:03, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

My claim is not that they weren't intended purely as jokes (no one can know that but Gunn), but this shouldn't be stated in WP's voice; attribution to him must be given. (Redacted)

It seems more encyclopedic to remain neutral on the matter and just call them "controversial" in the Lede. After all, insinuating they are irrelevant doesn't square with Disney's statement "The offensive attitudes and statements discovered on James’ Twitter feed are indefensible". It would be more balanced to use both Gunn's description/defense as well as Disney's. And please leave politics and conspiracy theories about "racist internet trolls" out of this conversation. <aspan style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px #B8B8B8;">petrarchan47คุก 05:10, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia's voice is a summary of what reliable sources say. You have not provided any that contradict the description as jokes/humor/whatever. It is unlikely that such reliable sources exist, even, as it would be a great feat of disingenuity to interpret the tweets as, what, serious narration of real life events? In other words, it is not actually controversial to say they are jokes, except in the sense that anything can be made controversial when seeking to make something controversial. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 05:55, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
It's kinda difficult to leave out the "conspiracy theories" about politics and racist internet trolls, since, per all the reliable sources, this issue is 100% about Gunn being targeted by racist internet trolls for his politics. If it's a "conspiracy theory" then it's a conspiracy theory supported by all the reliable sources: whether you consider it to be "true" or not is really irrelevant. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:28, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
It isn't germane to this discussion where the awareness of the tweets originated, that is my point. It is counterproductive. petrarchan47คุก 16:54, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

My point is that for WP to appear to take an objective view, our presentation in the Lede is not helpful. It could be done in a more unbiased way. Simply using language from the section title about the tweets ("controversial") is more in keeping with WP:LEDE. Furthermore, there is a hotlink to a shitty essay that takes the "jokes" defense to a new level without any supportive RS.

Now, compare the language used in Roseanne's Lede regarding her somewhat similar incident. I would argue this too is biased, but not in favor of the subject, as is the case with Gunn:

ABC reversed its renewal decision and canceled Roseanne on May 29, 2018 after Barr likened former Obama administration official Valerie Jarrett to Planet of the Apes, in a comment considered racist on Twitter which was described by the network's president as being "abhorrent, repugnant, and inconsistent with our values."

She is a comedian, her tweet was referred to by her as a joke, yet we call it "a comment considered racist". We also give her accusor's side of the story.

For the Lede, I suggest removing the essay hotlink, and adding Disney's words ("The offensive attitudes and statements discovered on James’ Twitter feed are indefensible") in a similar fashion, see WP:NPOV. petrarchan47คุก 16:54, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Should I take the silence here for approval? I don't want an edit war. petrarchan47คุก 09:11, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
What is the essay you refer to? Do you mean the article off-color humor? If so, why are you repeatedly referring to it as an "essay"? If that article is lacking, it can be fixed. I didn't even look at it beyond to confirm it exists before adding the link (i.e. wikilinking available terms as is pretty common), and don't really have a problem with it being delinked, even. It's just the most straightforward way to characterize the content IMO. Including the Disney quote in the lead would be undue and also just strange for a lead given the actual content of the article.
If another Tweet of his is unearthed that pulls a joke from the short list of Most Obviously Racist Things You Can't Really Get Away With Saying Publicly No Matter Who You Are, and/or if he included jokes that made any sort of racist insult referring to specific people, rather than sexual/scatalogical/offensive/gross/whatever jokes about himself or nobody in particular, then the comparison with Roseanne is relevant. That it is a glaring false equivalence has been covered by countless sources at this point, though.
Getting back to the main question. I, for one, would not support including any of the quotes in the lead. Seriously undue weight at this point, and also just weird for a lead. Hopefully others will weigh in, too, though. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:22, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm also a firm "no" on including the Disney quotes - partly because Disney's position has been far more controversial than ABC's to Roseanne. As for "jokes": Roseanne's tweet was probably more in the satire/hyperbole category - she wasn't speaking literally, but Roseanne herself has said that it was intended as a comment on...something. By contrast, no RS has posited that Gunn's tweets are exaggerations of underlying beliefs. This is consistent with how both stories are covered in reliable sources (Roseanne vs Gunn) Nblund talk 15:18, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Final sentence of "firing" section regarding Marvel's pushing for Gunn's rehiring

The section about his firing needs to be edited. Specifically the last part. Marvel pushing for Disney to rehire him was nothing but a rumor with no factual evidence. WalkingLost (talk) 07:21, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

@WalkingLost: I've moved your comment down from an unrelated section from over a decade ago into its own section. Can you provide a source that says it was just a rumour? The SR source currently cited does not present it as such. It calls it a "report", but if you think by that they meant "baseless rumour" then you really need to take SR to WP:RSN, since they are a fairly widely-cited source. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 19:40, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
I agree this does not yet belong. It's sourced to Screenrant which in turn cites Deadspin. Here's what Deadspin says:

Nobody is talking about it, but sources said that back channel conversations are taking place between Marvel Studios and Disney. Sources said the Marvel contingent is trying to persuade Disney to explore a compromise that might bring Gunn back into the fold for Guardians 3

When a blog uses "sources said" in order to claim an "exclusive," we're not talking about high-quality fact-checked content. Especially with a BLP, but really anywhere, we shouldn't be including material based on this (i.e. just because someone printed it doesn't mean we need to include it). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 19:46, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
Follow up: Removed that line. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 19:49, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
Well, yeah, I'm generally against inclusion unless either (a) a majority of secondary sources are talking about it (preferable) or (b) there is "official" confirmation. I suspect (b) is not the case because why the hell would it, and (a) may well be the case, but, again, busy IRL and while all the sources I've had on as background noise over the last few days do seem to be talking about it, I don't have time to do a more thorough check. The problem is that the above SPA said "nothing but a rumor with no factual evidence", which is obviously bogus (removing sourced information from an article based on an unsourced factual claim that there's no evidence): there are definitely alt-right trolls going around trying to kill the #RehireJamesGunn movement by spreading groundless and obviously fake "counter-rumours" that Feige supported the decision, etc. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:48, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

How should Mike Cernovich be labeled as if anything

Should the article say that Mike Cernovich is

A) a conspiracy theorist

B) a journalist

or

C) make no comment of his job or affiliation — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:C3D1:28A0:FC98:6F85:3202:3A41 (talk) 05:53, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

He's not a journalist, and since this article doesn't provide any information about Cernovich, readers who want to actually read this article and not follow every blue link should be given at least a brief mention of what Cernovich does: spread conspiracy theories. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:45, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
Cernovich is not a journalist. He is a conspiracy theorist and I think that is relevant enough to mention. Either that or not label him anything. EileenAlphabet (talk) 17:23, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

He’s back.

https://deadline.com/2019/03/james-gunn-reinstated-guardians-of-the-galaxy-3-disney-suicide-squad-2-indefensible-social-media-messages-1202576444/ Someone PLEASE add this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.167.147.99 (talk) 18:19, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

So... almost nothing happened. The content should be shortened to a paragraph or to a single sentence. wumbolo ^^^ 20:16, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Justin Roiland's Criticism

This line "Disney's decision received criticism from several entertainers and journalists, including... Rick and Morty creator Justin Roiland, ...[42][43][44]" is not correct. The information for this was gotten from [44] from Screen Rant[8]. Specifically, the article says that "Other stars publicly speaking out in Gunn's favor include... Rick and Morty's Justin Roiland."

This article is semi-locked, so I can't change it myself; but the information is incorrect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.57.131.160 (talk) 19:57, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:James_Gunn/Archive_1&oldid=1208451834"