This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Forrest Gump article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
![]() | Forrest Gump has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||
|
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
In the film, Jenny falls ill with an unknown disease. Granted, it has been believed to be AIDS, but this isn't confirmed. I also watched a YouTube video suggesting otherwise. I've removed the link for now. GOLDIEM J ( talk) 19:26, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 4 March 2019 and 10 May 2019. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Smazurk.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 21:41, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Though most famous than the book, I believe that this article should be moved if possible to Forrest Gump (film) to avoid confusion, Do you think I should do it or not? Quincy43425 ( talk) 15:04, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
Can an 'accredited source' not be found for an objective evaluation of the [essentially non-existent] plot, and the true motivations for producing such an odious film? Namely, the glorification of ignorance and stupidity? Nothing more than a rather obnoxious expression of anti-intellectualism? That Hanks could think this overtly political movie 'non-political' leads me to wonder whether he was, in fact, acting. Arguably, perhaps he was not. 122.151.210.84 ( talk) 15:51, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 January 2023 and 12 May 2023. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Gracietippacanoe,
20renaangelina02 (
article contribs). Peer reviewers:
Hobartsquash,
Appletastic.
— Assignment last updated by Harveyfolger14 ( talk) 15:24, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
In recent years, the film has been reassessed. A lot of people have criticized the movie because they have deemed it to have conservative politics, and because enough people have done this I believe that there should be a new section dedicated to the film's recent reappraisal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.0.35.8 ( talk) 01:55, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
Dimadick Well we can't use personal views. The whole section violates Wp:NPOV. While there are certainly negative reviews in 21st century, there are also positive reviews in 21st century, as such I request rather than just selectively using negative reviews, also add the positive reviews of the 21st century from noted Wp:RS. Well just a suggestion, you are a senior editor and know much better than me. Dilbaggg ( talk) 11:10, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
Ridiculous. The film has been "re-assessd" by overly sensitive individuals who completely miss the point of the film and want to criticise anything that they see as having a "conservative" bias. The article currently mentions criticism from no-name commentators who criticise the main character for being a "no-nothing white man" and for "Being from Red-State Alabama". "Amy Nicholsons" criticism is particularly tone deaf: Forrest Gump is not apolitical, in fact, the whole point of "Forrest Gump" is that the film is heavily political, while Gump himself is not. The "Re-evaluation" section should be removed, it has no merit. Are all films to be "reevaluated" now, when modern society deems them to be not politically correct enough? Do better Wikipedia, this is an encyclopedia, not twitter. JackStonePGD ( talk) 08:26, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
Adding my voice to the chorus that this section is problematic. "He's even from red-state Alabama!" That comment alone shows bias, is insulting, demeaning, and hints at an agenda. Comments like this have no place in Wikipedia. Dave ( talk) 15:36, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Forrest Gump article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
![]() | Forrest Gump has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||
|
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
In the film, Jenny falls ill with an unknown disease. Granted, it has been believed to be AIDS, but this isn't confirmed. I also watched a YouTube video suggesting otherwise. I've removed the link for now. GOLDIEM J ( talk) 19:26, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 4 March 2019 and 10 May 2019. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Smazurk.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 21:41, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Though most famous than the book, I believe that this article should be moved if possible to Forrest Gump (film) to avoid confusion, Do you think I should do it or not? Quincy43425 ( talk) 15:04, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
Can an 'accredited source' not be found for an objective evaluation of the [essentially non-existent] plot, and the true motivations for producing such an odious film? Namely, the glorification of ignorance and stupidity? Nothing more than a rather obnoxious expression of anti-intellectualism? That Hanks could think this overtly political movie 'non-political' leads me to wonder whether he was, in fact, acting. Arguably, perhaps he was not. 122.151.210.84 ( talk) 15:51, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 January 2023 and 12 May 2023. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Gracietippacanoe,
20renaangelina02 (
article contribs). Peer reviewers:
Hobartsquash,
Appletastic.
— Assignment last updated by Harveyfolger14 ( talk) 15:24, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
In recent years, the film has been reassessed. A lot of people have criticized the movie because they have deemed it to have conservative politics, and because enough people have done this I believe that there should be a new section dedicated to the film's recent reappraisal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.0.35.8 ( talk) 01:55, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
Dimadick Well we can't use personal views. The whole section violates Wp:NPOV. While there are certainly negative reviews in 21st century, there are also positive reviews in 21st century, as such I request rather than just selectively using negative reviews, also add the positive reviews of the 21st century from noted Wp:RS. Well just a suggestion, you are a senior editor and know much better than me. Dilbaggg ( talk) 11:10, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
Ridiculous. The film has been "re-assessd" by overly sensitive individuals who completely miss the point of the film and want to criticise anything that they see as having a "conservative" bias. The article currently mentions criticism from no-name commentators who criticise the main character for being a "no-nothing white man" and for "Being from Red-State Alabama". "Amy Nicholsons" criticism is particularly tone deaf: Forrest Gump is not apolitical, in fact, the whole point of "Forrest Gump" is that the film is heavily political, while Gump himself is not. The "Re-evaluation" section should be removed, it has no merit. Are all films to be "reevaluated" now, when modern society deems them to be not politically correct enough? Do better Wikipedia, this is an encyclopedia, not twitter. JackStonePGD ( talk) 08:26, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
Adding my voice to the chorus that this section is problematic. "He's even from red-state Alabama!" That comment alone shows bias, is insulting, demeaning, and hints at an agenda. Comments like this have no place in Wikipedia. Dave ( talk) 15:36, 12 August 2023 (UTC)