This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
I have removed a section that didn't meet WP:BLP - Diffs - http://en.wikipedia.org/?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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 03:50, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
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)
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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://celebrifi.com/gossip/My-new-XBOX-LIVE-show-SPARKY-AND-MIKAELA-221595.htmlWhen 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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 05:42, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
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)
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 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)
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)
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 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
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
References
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)
This
edit request to
James Gunn has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In this section of the article, we find the sentence:
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:
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.
There have been some contentious edits of late, and accusations of edit-warring have arisen. User Hijiri88 says the following:
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:
—Approaching ( talk) 02:07, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
—Approaching ( talk) 17:46, 28 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)
"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)
"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)
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)
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)
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. petrarchan47 คุ ก 22:51, 10 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;"> petrarchan47 คุ ก 05:10, 11 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:
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. petrarchan47 คุ ก 16:54, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
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)
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
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)
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)
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)
It is quite possible that Gunn is on the autism spectrum. He revealed on a Tweet to a Peacemaker fan that he has certain emotion changes like Vigilante. Cwf97 ( talk) 17:25, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
I have removed a section that didn't meet WP:BLP - Diffs - http://en.wikipedia.org/?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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 03:50, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
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)
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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://celebrifi.com/gossip/My-new-XBOX-LIVE-show-SPARKY-AND-MIKAELA-221595.htmlWhen 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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 05:42, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
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)
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 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)
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)
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 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
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
References
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)
This
edit request to
James Gunn has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In this section of the article, we find the sentence:
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:
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.
There have been some contentious edits of late, and accusations of edit-warring have arisen. User Hijiri88 says the following:
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:
—Approaching ( talk) 02:07, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
—Approaching ( talk) 17:46, 28 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)
"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)
"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)
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)
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)
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. petrarchan47 คุ ก 22:51, 10 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;"> petrarchan47 คุ ก 05:10, 11 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:
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. petrarchan47 คุ ก 16:54, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
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)
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
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)
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)
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)
It is quite possible that Gunn is on the autism spectrum. He revealed on a Tweet to a Peacemaker fan that he has certain emotion changes like Vigilante. Cwf97 ( talk) 17:25, 23 May 2022 (UTC)