Talk:James Gunn/Archive 1

1526:

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. Knowledge 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.

184:

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.

2487:. 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 1778:

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. A fan petition to re-instate Gunn garnered more than 300,000 votes as of 28 July 2018. However, criticism of Disney was not universal. "

1491:

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). —

3514:? 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. 118:

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

3211:

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. —

2239:: 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-- 424:. 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." 31: 1547:. 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. — 2272:"(→‎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.)" 2730:"Biographies of living persons ("BLPs") must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Knowledge is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Knowledge'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." 3922: 1996: 1089: 3974: 2202:, 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.-- 97:

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 Knowledge.

2935:

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

124:. 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. 1269:

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.

3379:

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

2995:

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

2736:

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

2139:

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

1525:

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

117:

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

96:

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

3536:

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

2962:

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"

2934:

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

2919:

by an account that has made only a handful of edits, is censorious, euphemistic, and an insult to the intelligence of Knowledge'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

1777:

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

1542:

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

1505:

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

219:

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,

2894:

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

2769:

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

2521:

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

2405:

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 Knowledge 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

2157:

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

1668:

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

1648:

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,

1490:

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.

1305:

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

1268:

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

334:

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

106:

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

3677:

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

3338:

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

3102:

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

2765:

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

2216:

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

2044:

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:

1912:

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

183:

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

3364:

Knowledge'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

3056:

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

1621:

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

3682:

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):

1781:

Now, if it's true that basically everyone disagree with the decision, Knowledge'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

981:

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

3210:

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

1797:

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

3648:

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). —

3170:

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,

2300:

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

1471:

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

2545:

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

1428:

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

3443:

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

2971:

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

2770:

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?).

2816:

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,

2323:

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

431:

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.

3517:

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

297:

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

2433:

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). —

3642:

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

1692:. I assume it's not the job of a Knowledge 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 2791:

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

825:

I added the tag to the "Personal life" statement that Gunn is not an atheist. The cited tweet reads: "Only according to Knowledge and definitely not when it comes to superhero movies" and without the preceding tweet(s) this statement could be about anything.

1782:

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".

668:

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

3427:

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

154:

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.

2690:

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

2328:, 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). 1687:

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 Knowledge editing, and to fall afoul of

316:

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

2914:

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

2039:

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

2460:

There's no Knowledge 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?

2990:

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

3518:

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.

2071:

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.

2359:

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

1543:

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

1066:

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).

2390:

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

3159:

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 Knowledge, let alone "because I like them", so the

3521:

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. —

2878:

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.

1358:

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

2293:

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

1452:, 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. 2277:

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:

641:

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

1649:

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.

1198:

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.

1106:

You have to realize that recent "sources" likely take information about his age directly from Knowledge or Google (which draws from Knowledge). They are not independent verifications of his age. It's circular.

2334:

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.

271:

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

3116:, 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. 3107:

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

2304:

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

1896:

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. —

2522:

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.

1183:

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.

1402:

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.

586:

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).

3451:

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

3365:

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. —

3735: 3683:

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.

2240: 2203: 2184: 2092: 2054: 3028:. 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. 2698:

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

2116:

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.

1307: 1238: 372:. 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?-- 2282:

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

2398:

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

1409: 1249: 2091:

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.--

2217:

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.

1831: 1725:. 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. 2996:

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

1018: 3439:

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:

2695:” 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. 3794: 3265:

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.

2566:

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

1167:

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.

1696:. 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 1445: 3339:

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.

1950:

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

1029:, 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 2111:

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:

1429:

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.

2963:

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

2640:

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 "

3330:

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.

1752:

On July 20, Josh Wilding at comicbookmovie.com/ said that James Gunn tweets are "homophobic and sexist" and "pretty horrifying". He is not upset that Disney fired Gunn.

1669:

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.--

3739: 3308:, 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. 3206:

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"

3057:

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.

2634:. 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'. 427:

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 Knowledge is not a source of

3580:

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.

3541:. 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 ( 1936:

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. —

923: 919: 905: 767: 763: 749: 729: 490: 3602:

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

3538: 3606:

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

1954:, 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 3042:

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.--

2793: 3448:

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.

551:

for the filmmaker, and has had a lengthy career in major film; no other James Gunn has "substantially greater enduring notability and educational value".

1832:

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

3898:

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.

895: 865: 739: 3000:

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.

107:

initial DVD sales are brisk and will probably cause the film to turn a profit, unlike those others mentioned. Just deleted silly unimportant info.

3795:

https://deadline.com/2019/03/james-gunn-reinstated-guardians-of-the-galaxy-3-disney-suicide-squad-2-indefensible-social-media-messages-1202576444/

3774:

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.

202: 2479:

Cernovich, but Cernovich is not a reliable source for such claims (self-serving), as I have already explained. Indeed, the sources you provided

2395:), (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. 871: 161:

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.

3103:

for actual information, scratching their heads and asking themselves, "What the hell does 'questionable' mean?" The article needs to drop the

2144:

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

1108: 983: 2369: 3957: 3863: 3804: 2801: 1783: 1578: 1276: 1138: 3300:

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,

2297:

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.

1562:

I agree that the section did need a solid trimming. Too much details, basically. However, some parts seemed relevant: the support of the

475:

Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a

1622:

receiving disproportionate emphasis relative to the BLP and the section as a whole. In addition, I'd like to draw editors' attention to

2570:

then I can totally imagine that content not being allowed be included in this article because "it's not like he returned as director".

2286:

until better sources arrive. Currently, sources like the Anti-Defamation League explicitly characterize Cernovich as ex-alt-right (See

2244: 2207: 2188: 2096: 2058: 1566:

cast, Gunn's response, and the fan petitions all receive quite a bit of media coverage, all seem pretty relevant to the whole thing. --

3853:. Specifically, the article says that "Other stars publicly speaking out in Gunn's favor include... Rick and Morty's Justin Roiland." 3494: 3468: 3412: 3352: 3278: 1767: 1311: 1242: 1153: 401: 1413: 1253: 3754:

article and not follow every blue link should be given at least a brief mention of what Cernovich does: spread conspiracy theories.

901:

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

745:

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

598: 171: 134:

Costs generally refer to "production costs". End of story. Why am I being disingenious? And what did I ever say about DVD sales?

1958:

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

2381: 2035:

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

3750:

He's not a journalist, and since this article doesn't provide any information about Cernovich, readers who want to actually read

2155:

and had ample to fix the text in question himself but chose to post this edit request right after the page was protected instead)

1291:

Is that what the Driveby Media told you? stop listening to lies. We didnt do anything about his firing. Stop baiting at people.--

379: 324: 305: 279: 253: 227: 3035:"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 2267:

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

1743: 1364: 730:

https://web.archive.org/web/20080713103723/http://www.rottentomatoes.com/features/special/2007/top_horror/?r=27&mid=1156313

505: 246:

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.--

3399:

It isn't germane to this discussion where the awareness of the tweets originated, that is my point. It is counterproductive.

3692: 3623: 3389: 3317: 3243: 3180: 3149: 3121: 3066: 3009: 2981: 2948: 2925: 2904: 2850: 2676: 2619: 2579: 2531: 2226: 2167: 2081: 1971: 1922: 1658: 1461: 421: 2135:

My removing the reference in the same sentence to Gunn's name should have adequately addressed the concern, and it would be

151:

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

3546: 3260:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

3571:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

2491:

that falsely legitimizes Cernovich's campaign by falsely implying that it was motivated by something other than politics.

350: 2874:"he was removed from the Directorial role of the third Guardians of the Galaxy film in response to controversy regarding 2385: 2361: 2287: 3542: 966: 810: 733: 220:

continued and unsourced references to Gunn's "ex-wife" are incorrect, they are evidentally only separated. Thank you.--

3134:

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.

1023:

Gunn graduated from SLUH in 1984. (Several sources, including IMDb.com, say he was born in 1970, but you do the math.)

541: 198: 3637:

I agree this does not yet belong. It's sourced to Screenrant which in turn cites Deadspin. Here's what Deadspin says:

2377: 1577:

As written the article gives the impression that no-one other than Disney is supportive of the sacking. Is this true?

2365: 1322:

This section was created as hysterical political propaganda by an IP user and really should be removed by an admin.

896:

http://www.newsday.com/entertainment/movies/james-gunn-says-guardians-of-the-galaxy-vol-2-a-family-affair-1.13566331

866:

http://www.newsday.com/entertainment/movies/james-gunn-says-guardians-of-the-galaxy-vol-2-a-family-affair-1.13566331

740:

http://www.superherohype.com/news/articles/172755-james-gunn-confirmed-to-direct-and-rewrite-guardians-of-the-galaxy

2331:

Also, the daily dot has been found to be a reliable source at RSN, you can search the archives to see for yourself.

1360: 889: 38: 2610:

about that. Anyway, if you are going to write a long comment about me on an article's talk page, please ping me.

1112: 987: 617: 466: 1626:, which has helpful guidelines on how to lay out the content with an eye towards long-term, historical reports. 922:

to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the

766:

to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the

3808: 3779: 3117: 2977: 2921: 2409:

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.

1582: 1383: 1323: 1280: 1142: 428: 3961: 3867: 2805: 2301:

preserve an encyclopedic approach (this is what serves everybody, including the campaigners, best in the end).

1932:

I've restored the first version above. I've also removed one other instance of "pedophilia and rape," but not

1787: 1472:

evidence to support it. If you can point to an article that involves verifiable evidence, please let me know.

187:

However, I do agree that the unsourced paragraph about Hollywood not returning Gunn's calls should be removed.

2373: 1962:

and are, frankly, far more disgusting and offensive than anything Gunn actually said in any of those tweets.

1531: 872:

https://web.archive.org/web/20150920223850/http://arts.columbia.edu/writing/news/2014/guardians-of-the-galaxy

3928: 3589: 3047: 2822: 2778: 2715: 2653: 2002: 1877: 1850: 957: 857: 801: 721: 242:. The main problem here is it is poorly sourced negative material about a living person; it also gives much 2958:

If "the jokes about pedophilia and rape were already the subject of a public controversy" that is a reason

175: 3883: 3763: 3489: 3463: 3407: 3347: 3273: 2973: 2766:

the source and the clarified the source of the confusion, the context behind the controvery seems clearer.

2754: 2555: 2500: 2344: 1807: 1763: 1379: 1157: 1072: 853: 556: 528: 405: 194: 119: 3208:(odd that those are synonymous, now that I think about it... will have to look up the etymology sometime) 665: 135: 108: 3985: 3846:

This line "Disney's decision received criticism from several entertainers and journalists, including...

3585: 3104: 2466: 2419: 2313: 1705: 1631: 1527: 1511: 1477: 1434: 1342: 1296: 1220: 1188: 941:

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with

929: 785:

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with

773: 627: 595: 476: 3819:

So... almost nothing happened. The content should be shortened to a paragraph or to a single sentence.

3043: 2833: 2818: 2774: 2711: 2649: 2630:

It seems there are now people willing to take the edit war to the talk page even and remove a person's

1598:). Regardless of the tone of the section (focusing on the firing vs. the response to the firing), it's 856:. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit 720:. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit 3597: 3581: 1338: 1292: 1216: 80:

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=James_Gunn_%28film_maker%29&diff=69719178&oldid=69714214

3859: 3800: 3731: 2796:, right clicking to view source and then finding the link which turns out to be a youtube video of a 1755: 1405: 1272: 1134: 875: 397: 376: 338: 321: 302: 276: 250: 224: 190: 167: 3167:

reasons ... can be summarized as, "I don't want this mentioned in the lead because I like James Gunn

675: 3775: 3665: 3651: 3524: 3367: 3213: 2436: 2180: 2123: 1938: 1899: 1739: 1697: 1623: 1604: 1599: 1549: 1493: 687: 511: 342: 3689: 3620: 3386: 3314: 3304:

refers to them as jokes except for racist internet trolls who are looking for an excuse to imply

3240: 3177: 3146: 3063: 3006: 2945: 2901: 2847: 2673: 2616: 2576: 2528: 2223: 2164: 2078: 1968: 1919: 1670: 1655: 1567: 1458: 1201: 1169: 883: 831: 651: 448: 926:

before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template

770:

before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template

1337:

I agree. that person is probably one of them rabid leftists that want to control everything. --

1152:

Doesn't seem like enough there for an entire section of its own. Career sections good enough.--

942: 786: 3879: 3830: 3756: 3484: 3458: 3402: 3342: 3295: 3268: 2747: 2548: 2493: 2488: 2337: 1800: 1759: 1602:

to have more than 25% of the size of this article dedicated to events of the past few days. —

1082: 1068: 552: 440: 346: 3856:

This article is semi-locked, so I can't change it myself; but the information is incorrect.

1444:

No, I've seen this in a bunch of sources, and it was even alluded to (somewhat evasively) in

3981: 3380:

all the reliable sources: whether you consider it to be "true" or not is really irrelevant.

2597: 2462: 2415: 2309: 1951: 1701: 1674: 1643: 1627: 1595: 1571: 1507: 1473: 1430: 1184: 589: 125: 3871: 2737:

is no justification for adding this, and per our instructions at that policy page to write

949: 793: 443:

but, rather, take his concerns to this talk page. I'm hoping he will do so and be civil. --

3903: 3851: 3511: 3161: 2392: 2283: 2062: 1858: 1693: 1063: 1060: 373: 318: 299: 273: 247: 221: 47: 17: 1215:

Yea, All of the media is talking about him now, I demand that we make the section now! --

2839: 1955: 122: 3709: 3452: 3429: 3109: 2964: 1726: 1014: 908:, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by 752:, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by 574: 497: 369: 98: 83: 948:

If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with

792:

If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with

452: 3684: 3615: 3611: 3381: 3309: 3235: 3172: 3141: 3113: 3058: 3021: 3001: 2968: 2940: 2936: 2896: 2884: 2842: 2725: 2668: 2664: 2637: 2611: 2571: 2523: 2236: 2218: 2199: 2159: 2073: 1963: 1959: 1914: 1682: 1650: 1453: 1131:

I think we should add a section about his Twitter controversy due to how bad it is.

1097: 1050: 1030: 1002: 827: 661: 647: 643: 444: 436: 420:

I'm initiating what I hope will be a constructive discussion regarding edits made by

268: 239: 216: 164:

There's a lot more sloppy stuff here, but I don't have the time now to go through it.

158:

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

75: 734:

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/features/special/2007/top_horror/?r=27&mid=1156313

3953:

Add note to Guardians of the Galaxy in filmography: co-writer with Nicole Perlman.

3821: 2399: 2050: 1689: 1026: 670: 548: 243: 2049:

Actor Bobcat Goldthwait responded to Gunn's firing by asking Disney to remove his

3576:

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

3550: 915: 890:

http://celebrifi.com/gossip/My-new-XBOX-LIVE-show-SPARKY-AND-MIKAELA-221595.html

759: 46:

If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the

3989: 3965: 3907: 3887: 3850:..." is not correct. The information for this was gotten from from Screen Rant 3835: 3812: 3783: 3769: 3743: 3697: 3672: 3658: 3628: 3557: 3531: 3501: 3475: 3419: 3394: 3374: 3358: 3322: 3285: 3248: 3220: 3185: 3154: 3125: 3071: 3051: 3014: 2985: 2953: 2929: 2909: 2888: 2855: 2826: 2809: 2782: 2760: 2719: 2681: 2657: 2624: 2584: 2561: 2536: 2506: 2470: 2443: 2423: 2350: 2317: 2248: 2231: 2211: 2192: 2172: 2130: 2100: 2086: 1976: 1945: 1927: 1906: 1813: 1791: 1771: 1747: 1709: 1663: 1635: 1611: 1586: 1556: 1515: 1500: 1481: 1466: 1438: 1417: 1392: 1368: 1346: 1332: 1315: 1300: 1284: 1257: 1224: 1209: 1192: 1177: 1161: 1146: 1116: 1101: 1076: 1054: 991: 971: 835: 815: 698: 655: 607: 578: 560: 521: 409: 384: 354: 329: 310: 284: 258: 232: 138: 128: 111: 101: 86: 3932: 3899: 2797: 2028: 2006: 1885: 1246: 1235: 914:. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than 849: 758:. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than 713: 626:

Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a

537: 532: 3305: 2997: 2667:

then I cannot help you, and you need to stop editing this page immediately.

570: 82:- It's going to need sources cited before it can be acceptable re-inserted. 1987:

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

3436:

that takes the "jokes" defense to a new level without any supportive RS.

3025: 2880: 1093: 1046: 3481:

Should I take the silence here for approval? I don't want an edit war.

1862: 1382:

on Knowledge. They already control academia and the mainstream media.

646:

issue, we'd need an RS citation saying that he's a former Catholic. --

1717:

Whether or not it's biased, it's reference bombed to hell. We've got

2743:

the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered

2663:

If you can't see how your comment was inappropriate and contrary to

2483:, and then quote his denial. In fact, all of the sources you linked 2158:

goody-goodies protecting the article into fighting with each other.

2838:

That it was a rickroll gag was already well-established by July 25.

876:

http://arts.columbia.edu/writing/news/2014/guardians-of-the-galaxy

673:

to put it in there since he does not explicitly identify as that.

1721:

references in one spot just to say a fan petition to re-hire him

2800:

a Divinyls song. The whole thing is basically a dirty Rickroll.

1889: 3678:

sources I've had on as background noise over the last few days

1041:

that Gunn was born in 1966. Either find a reliable source that

3916: 1990: 982:

found in reliable sources (rather than simply assuming 1966).

25: 2402:, and is not something within Knowledge's purview to correct. 2841:

Please don't cite Breitbart.com on English Knowledge again.

1846:

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

1245:) 21:36, 20 July 2018 (UTC) David Talmage Big news today. 1013:, and at the moment the date of birth was only sourced to 860:

for additional information. I made the following changes:

724:

for additional information. I made the following changes:

2290:). I hope Hijiri88 is clear that this isn't edit-warring. 368:

Uh, no POV should be in the article. That's the point of

3510:

What is the essay you refer to? Do you mean the article

2976:. This incident obviously is noteworthy, relevant, etc. 2739:

conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy

1045:

verifies the date of birth, or don't include it at all.

3138: 2916: 2703: 2699: 2692: 2642: 2631: 2607: 2153: 2151: 2149: 2147: 1870: 1544: 998: 717: 79: 2146:(which is clearly the same person who made these edits 2920:

that attempts to hide what the controversy is about.

616:

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a

238:

Tromaintern et al has not addressed my concerns with

1017:, which lists "August 5, 1970", in conjunction with 2773:

Thats all I have to add to the talk page for now.--

918:using the archive tool instructions below. Editors 762:using the archive tool instructions below. Editors 479:. No further edits should be made to this section. 394:Isn't he hosting a new reality show or something? 2053:voice from an upcoming Hercules park attraction.-- 1059:I've reinstated it with a better source. Gunn has 630:. No further edits should be made to this section. 2602:Wait ... why do you say it was you who cited the 2817:web.archive.org does capture them. Very handy.-- 2546:-conceivably, given the pushback- still change. 335:not be present on this article if mine cannot. 3640: 3614:, since they are a fairly widely-cited source. 2702:and my talk post Hijiri88 deleted can be found 2114: 1875: 1848: 3913:Semi-protected edit request on 7 February 2024 3728:C) make no comment of his job or affiliation 3716:Should the article say that Mike Cernovich is 3432:. Furthermore, there is a hotlink to a shitty 904:This message was posted before February 2018. 748:This message was posted before February 2018. 8: 3575: 3332: 3024:For the record, I am a different person to 1247:https://www.pscp.tv/Cernovich/1yNGaXwBLpEKj 1236:https://www.pscp.tv/Cernovich/1yoKMVYWDejGQ 664:: I listened to that interview he had with 3956:Reference: Nicole Perlman Knowledge page. 3857: 3798: 3729: 2665:our policy on discussion of living persons 2179:Ah, perfect; that clarifies it. Thank you 1753: 1403: 1270: 1132: 465:The following is a closed discussion of a 188: 165: 74:I have removed a section that didn't meet 1880:controversially fired him from the third 1853:controversially fired him from the third 1025:. FilmReference.com doesn't seem to meet 1001:the date of birth for these reasons. Per 848:I have just modified 3 external links on 712:I have just modified 2 external links on 1594:I maintain the section is much too big ( 3736:2600:1700:C3D1:28A0:FC98:6F85:3202:3A41 3306:everyone they don't like is a pedophile 2241:2604:2000:8055:1800:201F:DAB2:C407:476C 2204:2604:2000:8055:1800:201F:DAB2:C407:476C 2185:2604:2000:8055:1800:201F:DAB2:C407:476C 2093:2604:2000:8055:1800:201F:DAB2:C407:476C 2055:2604:2000:8055:1800:201F:DAB2:C407:476C 1824: 1234:James Gunn Fired for offensive tweets. 3848:Rick and Morty creator Justin Roiland, 3165: 3132: 3033: 1308:2A02:8084:4EE0:6900:515C:4BBF:64B:A7A6 1239:2601:280:C680:4320:444A:7D63:F286:DD9B 1022: 44:Do not edit the contents of this page. 1410:2001:569:7798:3B00:4B4:7A7F:FB34:2E4F 1250:2601:280:C680:4320:2953:86C0:D69E:FA5 1037:statement "you do the math" and just 7: 3256:The following discussion is closed. 3234:Yeah, not gonna happen. Move along. 1086: 1027:Knowledge's standards of reliability 484:The result of the move request was: 267:I have protected the page after the 70:Removed section re:Slither plagerism 2745:we should absolutely not add this. 2481:all refer to Cernovich as alt-right 1264:Possible Alt-Right Attack On James? 685: 674: 3537:it was intended as a comment on... 2364:, The Southern Poverty Law Center 2140:read as referring to Gunn") would 1617:POV Issues Regarding Disney Firing 1424:Dubious Claim in Daily Dot Article 24: 3878:What is incorrect there exactly? 1884:film over jokes he tweeted about 1081:Solid, looks good to me. Thanks, 852:. Please take a moment to review 716:. Please take a moment to review 148:There's a LOT of POV stuff here. 3972: 3920: 3663:Follow up: Removed that line. — 3567:The discussion above is closed. 2693:DISGUSTING unsourced speculation 2643:DISGUSTING unsourced speculation 1994: 1087: 144:This Page is Horribly Maintained 29: 894:Corrected formatting/usage for 864:Corrected formatting/usage for 738:Corrected formatting/usage for 3784:17:23, 28 September 2018 (UTC) 3770:20:45, 22 September 2018 (UTC) 3744:05:53, 22 September 2018 (UTC) 3444:inconsistent with our values." 2475:The sources you linked to may 1574:), 20:27, 24 July 2018 (CEST) 1009:that we get details like this 997:Yes, I absolutely agree. I've 569:per nom. Clear primary topic. 496: 422:User:Knowledge Wonderful 698-D 385:05:31, 20 September 2007 (UTC) 355:05:01, 20 September 2007 (UTC) 330:04:45, 20 September 2007 (UTC) 311:04:42, 20 September 2007 (UTC) 285:07:14, 12 September 2007 (UTC) 259:19:19, 11 September 2007 (UTC) 1: 2937:definitely are not allowed do 1677:), 15:32, 25 July 2018 (CEST) 587: 435:Finally, I've asked that per 410:22:42, 22 November 2008 (UTC) 233:18:15, 9 September 2007 (UTC) 3990:06:08, 7 February 2024 (UTC) 3966:01:27, 7 February 2024 (UTC) 3112:and perverts the purpose of 1019:this St. Louis Today article 1015:this FilmReference.com entry 699:08:28, 22 October 2016 (UTC) 502: 139:12:31, 30 October 2006 (UTC) 129:09:03, 29 October 2006 (UTC) 112:01:08, 29 October 2006 (UTC) 3947:to reactivate your request. 3935:has been answered. Set the 3698:07:48, 17 August 2018 (UTC) 3673:19:49, 16 August 2018 (UTC) 3659:19:46, 16 August 2018 (UTC) 3629:19:40, 16 August 2018 (UTC) 3590:07:21, 16 August 2018 (UTC) 3558:15:18, 15 August 2018 (UTC) 3532:14:22, 15 August 2018 (UTC) 3502:09:11, 15 August 2018 (UTC) 3476:16:54, 12 August 2018 (UTC) 3420:16:54, 12 August 2018 (UTC) 3395:11:28, 11 August 2018 (UTC) 3375:05:55, 11 August 2018 (UTC) 3359:05:10, 11 August 2018 (UTC) 3323:04:03, 11 August 2018 (UTC) 3286:22:51, 10 August 2018 (UTC) 3249:19:41, 15 August 2018 (UTC) 2606:? I specifically contacted 2029:this section of the article 2021:to reactivate your request. 2009:has been answered. Set the 972:05:42, 3 January 2018 (UTC) 542:James Gunn (disambiguation) 453:03:14, 1 January 2016 (UTC) 205:) 23:32, July 2, 2007 (UTC) 178:) 13:14, July 2, 2007 (UTC) 102:19:16, 17 August 2006 (UTC) 87:02:39, 15 August 2006 (UTC) 4006: 3888:22:23, 15 March 2019 (UTC) 3872:19:57, 15 March 2019 (UTC) 3842:Justin Roiland's Criticism 3836:20:16, 15 March 2019 (UTC) 3813:18:19, 15 March 2019 (UTC) 3797:Someone PLEASE add this. 3719:A) a conspiracy theorist 3221:02:56, 8 August 2018 (UTC) 3186:18:32, 8 August 2018 (UTC) 3155:02:24, 8 August 2018 (UTC) 3126:02:19, 8 August 2018 (UTC) 3072:18:32, 8 August 2018 (UTC) 3052:09:59, 8 August 2018 (UTC) 3015:02:11, 8 August 2018 (UTC) 2986:01:59, 8 August 2018 (UTC) 2954:01:52, 8 August 2018 (UTC) 2930:01:08, 8 August 2018 (UTC) 2910:13:35, 6 August 2018 (UTC) 2889:19:15, 4 August 2018 (UTC) 2856:23:31, 4 August 2018 (UTC) 2827:16:40, 4 August 2018 (UTC) 2810:07:02, 4 August 2018 (UTC) 2783:16:40, 4 August 2018 (UTC) 2761:04:06, 4 August 2018 (UTC) 2720:03:59, 4 August 2018 (UTC) 2682:03:02, 4 August 2018 (UTC) 2658:02:59, 4 August 2018 (UTC) 2406:various conflicting views. 2249:02:17, 4 August 2018 (UTC) 2232:02:08, 4 August 2018 (UTC) 2212:01:58, 4 August 2018 (UTC) 2193:01:58, 4 August 2018 (UTC) 2173:01:35, 4 August 2018 (UTC) 2131:01:02, 4 August 2018 (UTC) 2101:00:38, 4 August 2018 (UTC) 2087:00:29, 4 August 2018 (UTC) 2063:23:59, 3 August 2018 (UTC) 1977:11:57, 3 August 2018 (UTC) 1946:05:29, 3 August 2018 (UTC) 1928:20:27, 2 August 2018 (UTC) 1907:13:53, 2 August 2018 (UTC) 1814:05:55, 3 August 2018 (UTC) 935:(last update: 5 June 2024) 845:Hello fellow Wikipedians, 836:15:46, 20 April 2017 (UTC) 821:"Better source needed" tag 816:03:50, 18 April 2017 (UTC) 779:(last update: 5 June 2024) 709:Hello fellow Wikipedians, 458:Requested move 3 July 2016 3841: 3712:be labeled as if anything 2625:23:16, 29 July 2018 (UTC) 2585:23:11, 29 July 2018 (UTC) 2562:17:48, 29 July 2018 (UTC) 2537:13:13, 29 July 2018 (UTC) 2507:22:06, 28 July 2018 (UTC) 2471:21:49, 28 July 2018 (UTC) 2444:18:02, 28 July 2018 (UTC) 2424:17:46, 28 July 2018 (UTC) 2351:02:15, 28 July 2018 (UTC) 2318:02:07, 28 July 2018 (UTC) 1792:03:27, 28 July 2018 (UTC) 1772:07:23, 26 July 2018 (UTC) 1748:16:57, 25 July 2018 (UTC) 1710:18:26, 25 July 2018 (UTC) 1664:08:54, 25 July 2018 (UTC) 1636:00:22, 25 July 2018 (UTC) 1612:18:04, 28 July 2018 (UTC) 1587:23:26, 24 July 2018 (UTC) 1557:16:24, 24 July 2018 (UTC) 1545:substantially cut it down 1516:02:48, 26 July 2018 (UTC) 1501:19:33, 25 July 2018 (UTC) 1482:18:30, 25 July 2018 (UTC) 1467:08:58, 25 July 2018 (UTC) 1439:00:10, 25 July 2018 (UTC) 1418:06:45, 25 July 2018 (UTC) 1393:20:26, 24 July 2018 (UTC) 1369:14:57, 22 July 2018 (UTC) 1347:18:41, 22 July 2018 (UTC) 1333:00:00, 22 July 2018 (UTC) 1316:23:39, 21 July 2018 (UTC) 1301:15:48, 22 July 2018 (UTC) 1285:05:10, 21 July 2018 (UTC) 1258:18:20, 20 July 2018 (UTC) 1225:01:36, 21 July 2018 (UTC) 1210:01:10, 21 July 2018 (UTC) 1193:22:47, 20 July 2018 (UTC) 1178:22:29, 20 July 2018 (UTC) 1162:22:22, 20 July 2018 (UTC) 1147:22:10, 20 July 2018 (UTC) 1127:Section about the scandal 1117:03:06, 25 July 2018 (UTC) 1102:03:57, 23 July 2018 (UTC) 1077:23:08, 22 July 2018 (UTC) 1055:19:26, 21 July 2018 (UTC) 992:23:20, 20 July 2018 (UTC) 656:19:36, 30 June 2016 (UTC) 608:20:05, 11 July 2016 (UTC) 522:13:32, 12 July 2016 (UTC) 3908:17:25, 23 May 2022 (UTC) 3569:Please do not modify it. 3258:Please do not modify it. 2031:, we find the sentence: 1986: 623:Please do not modify it. 579:17:37, 3 July 2016 (UTC) 561:17:17, 3 July 2016 (UTC) 472:Please do not modify it. 3039:wanted the lead to say" 2967:. This is a case where 2485:are about the alt-right 1882:Guardians of the Galaxy 1878:The Walt Disney Company 1855:Guardians of the Galaxy 1851:The Walt Disney Company 1380:Anti-First Amendmenters 1378:There shouldn't be any 977:Unreferenced birth date 841:External links modified 705:External links modified 3645: 2263:Precluding an edit-war 2118: 1894: 1867: 529:James Gunn (filmmaker) 92:On Analysis of Slither 3765:Tell me all about it. 3171:reliable sources do. 2870:Why the weasel words? 2798:women's choir singing 2756:Tell me all about it. 2557:Tell me all about it. 2502:Tell me all about it. 2372:, The New York Times 2346:Tell me all about it. 1809:Tell me all about it. 1538:Tweets/Disney section 1361:Anarcho-authoritarian 42:of past discussions. 3118:FreeKnowledgeCreator 2978:FreeKnowledgeCreator 2922:FreeKnowledgeCreator 1798:support for Disney. 916:regular verification 760:regular verification 415: 3162:baseless accusation 2042:Jame's Gunn's voice 906:After February 2018 750:After February 2018 666:Indoor Kids Podcast 491:(non-admin closure) 3259: 1892:between 2008-2012. 1865:between 2008-2012. 1306:certain opinions. 960:InternetArchiveBot 911:InternetArchiveBot 804:InternetArchiveBot 755:InternetArchiveBot 3951: 3950: 3874: 3862:comment added by 3815: 3803:comment added by 3766: 3746: 3734:comment added by 3722:B) a journalist 3695: 3626: 3392: 3320: 3257: 3246: 3209: 3183: 3152: 3069: 3012: 2951: 2907: 2876:some questionable 2853: 2794:archived blogpost 2757: 2679: 2622: 2582: 2558: 2534: 2503: 2347: 2229: 2170: 2084: 2025: 2024: 1974: 1925: 1810: 1774: 1758:comment added by 1661: 1464: 1420: 1408:comment added by 1287: 1275:comment added by 1207: 1175: 1149: 1137:comment added by 936: 780: 696: 517: 493: 429:WP:INDISCRIMINATE 400:comment added by 382: 357: 341:comment added by 327: 308: 282: 256: 230: 206: 195:Fearedhallmonitor 193:comment added by 179: 170:comment added by 67: 66: 54: 53: 48:current talk page 3997: 3980: 3976: 3975: 3942: 3938: 3924: 3923: 3917: 3833: 3829: 3827: 3824: 3768: 3764: 3761: 3688: 3670: 3668: 3656: 3654: 3619: 3601: 3555: 3529: 3527: 3499: 3497: 3492: 3487: 3473: 3471: 3466: 3461: 3417: 3415: 3410: 3405: 3385: 3372: 3370: 3355: 3350: 3345: 3335: 3334: 3313: 3299: 3283: 3281: 3276: 3271: 3239: 3218: 3216: 3207: 3176: 3145: 3062: 3005: 2944: 2900: 2846: 2837: 2759: 2755: 2752: 2728:. Specifically: 2672: 2632:entire talk post 2615: 2601: 2575: 2560: 2556: 2553: 2527: 2505: 2501: 2498: 2441: 2439: 2349: 2345: 2342: 2222: 2163: 2128: 2126: 2077: 2052: 2016: 2012: 1998: 1997: 1991: 1967: 1943: 1941: 1918: 1904: 1902: 1834: 1829: 1812: 1808: 1805: 1734: 1731: 1686: 1654: 1647: 1609: 1607: 1554: 1552: 1498: 1496: 1457: 1390: 1330: 1208: 1206: 1204: 1176: 1174: 1172: 1092: 1091: 1090: 970: 961: 934: 933: 912: 887: 814: 805: 778: 777: 756: 697: 694: 686: 684: 682: 625: 606: 549:97% of pageviews 519: 518: 514: 508: 503: 500: 489: 474: 412: 380: 336: 325: 306: 280: 254: 228: 63: 56: 55: 33: 32: 26: 4005: 4004: 4000: 3999: 3998: 3996: 3995: 3994: 3973: 3971: 3940: 3936: 3921: 3915: 3896: 3894:Autism spectrum 3844: 3831: 3825: 3822: 3820: 3792: 3757: 3755: 3714: 3666: 3664: 3652: 3650: 3595: 3578: 3573: 3572: 3551: 3525: 3523: 3512:off-color humor 3495: 3490: 3485: 3483: 3469: 3464: 3459: 3457: 3413: 3408: 3403: 3401: 3368: 3366: 3353: 3348: 3343: 3331: 3293: 3279: 3274: 3269: 3267: 3262: 3253: 3252: 3251: 3229: 3214: 3212: 3139:I've undone it. 2974:WP:PUBLICFIGURE 2872: 2831: 2748: 2746: 2595: 2549: 2547: 2494: 2492: 2437: 2435: 2376:, The Atlantic 2338: 2336: 2265: 2124: 2122: 2014: 2010: 1995: 1989: 1939: 1937: 1900: 1898: 1859:off-color jokes 1844: 1839: 1838: 1837: 1830: 1826: 1801: 1799: 1732: 1729: 1680: 1641: 1619: 1605: 1603: 1550: 1548: 1540: 1506:valuable here. 1494: 1492: 1426: 1387:Quis separabit? 1384: 1327:Quis separabit? 1324: 1266: 1232: 1202: 1200: 1170: 1168: 1129: 1109:142.167.242.182 1088: 1035:St. Louis Today 1021:, which states 984:142.167.242.182 979: 964: 959: 927: 920:have permission 910: 881: 858:this simple FaQ 843: 823: 808: 803: 771: 764:have permission 754: 722:this simple FaQ 707: 688: 676: 639: 637:Roman Catholic? 634: 621: 604: 512: 506: 498: 470: 460: 418: 395: 295: 213: 146: 94: 72: 59: 30: 22: 21: 20: 18:Talk:James Gunn 12: 11: 5: 4003: 4001: 3993: 3992: 3958:71.172.158.173 3949: 3948: 3925: 3914: 3911: 3895: 3892: 3891: 3890: 3864:156.57.131.160 3843: 3840: 3839: 3838: 3805:181.167.147.99 3791: 3788: 3787: 3786: 3776:EileenAlphabet 3772: 3713: 3710:Mike Cernovich 3706: 3705: 3704: 3703: 3702: 3701: 3700: 3667:Rhododendrites 3661: 3653:Rhododendrites 3646: 3638: 3632: 3631: 3577: 3574: 3566: 3565: 3564: 3563: 3562: 3561: 3560: 3526:Rhododendrites 3519: 3515: 3505: 3504: 3446: 3445: 3425: 3424: 3423: 3422: 3377: 3369:Rhododendrites 3341:<aspan: --> 3328: 3327: 3326: 3325: 3263: 3254: 3233: 3232: 3231: 3230: 3228: 3225: 3224: 3223: 3215:Rhododendrites 3203: 3202: 3201: 3200: 3199: 3198: 3197: 3196: 3195: 3194: 3193: 3192: 3191: 3190: 3189: 3188: 3157: 3089: 3088: 3087: 3086: 3085: 3084: 3083: 3082: 3081: 3080: 3079: 3078: 3077: 3076: 3075: 3074: 3030: 3029: 2871: 2868: 2867: 2866: 2865: 2864: 2863: 2862: 2861: 2860: 2859: 2858: 2802:81.161.183.140 2789: 2788: 2787: 2786: 2785: 2771: 2767: 2708: 2707: 2696: 2685: 2684: 2647: 2635: 2628: 2627: 2592: 2591: 2590: 2589: 2588: 2587: 2540: 2539: 2518: 2517: 2516: 2515: 2514: 2513: 2512: 2511: 2510: 2509: 2451: 2450: 2449: 2448: 2447: 2446: 2438:Rhododendrites 2413: 2412: 2411: 2410: 2407: 2403: 2396: 2388: 2354: 2353: 2332: 2329: 2307: 2306: 2302: 2298: 2295: 2291: 2275: 2274: 2264: 2261: 2260: 2259: 2258: 2257: 2256: 2255: 2254: 2253: 2252: 2251: 2181:Rhododendrites 2177: 2176: 2175: 2125:Rhododendrites 2119: 2112: 2108: 2107: 2106: 2105: 2104: 2103: 2066: 2065: 2037: 2036: 2023: 2022: 1999: 1988: 1985: 1984: 1983: 1982: 1981: 1980: 1979: 1940:Rhododendrites 1901:Rhododendrites 1843: 1840: 1836: 1835: 1823: 1822: 1818: 1817: 1816: 1784:122.58.163.229 1715: 1714: 1713: 1712: 1678: 1618: 1615: 1606:Rhododendrites 1592: 1591: 1590: 1589: 1579:202.36.244.197 1551:Rhododendrites 1539: 1536: 1523: 1522: 1521: 1520: 1519: 1518: 1495:Rhododendrites 1485: 1484: 1469: 1425: 1422: 1400: 1399: 1398: 1397: 1396: 1395: 1356: 1355: 1354: 1353: 1352: 1351: 1350: 1349: 1303: 1277:207.172.180.75 1265: 1262: 1260:David Talmage 1231: 1228: 1213: 1212: 1181: 1180: 1139:207.172.180.75 1128: 1125: 1124: 1123: 1122: 1121: 1120: 1119: 1104: 978: 975: 954: 953: 946: 899: 898: 892: 878: 870:Added archive 868: 842: 839: 822: 819: 798: 797: 790: 743: 742: 736: 728:Added archive 706: 703: 702: 701: 638: 635: 633: 632: 618:requested move 612: 611: 610: 602: 581: 545: 544: 535: 525: 482: 481: 467:requested move 461: 459: 456: 417: 414: 392: 391: 390: 389: 388: 387: 361: 360: 359: 358: 294: 291: 290: 289: 288: 287: 262: 261: 212: 209: 208: 207: 185: 145: 142: 136:66.159.192.213 132: 131: 109:66.159.192.213 93: 90: 71: 68: 65: 64: 52: 51: 34: 23: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 4002: 3991: 3987: 3983: 3979: 3970: 3969: 3968: 3967: 3963: 3959: 3954: 3946: 3943:parameter to 3934: 3930: 3926: 3919: 3918: 3912: 3910: 3909: 3905: 3901: 3893: 3889: 3885: 3881: 3877: 3876: 3875: 3873: 3869: 3865: 3861: 3854: 3852: 3849: 3837: 3834: 3828: 3818: 3817: 3816: 3814: 3810: 3806: 3802: 3796: 3789: 3785: 3781: 3777: 3773: 3771: 3767: 3762: 3760: 3753: 3749: 3748: 3747: 3745: 3741: 3737: 3733: 3726: 3723: 3720: 3717: 3711: 3707: 3699: 3694: 3691: 3686: 3681: 3676: 3675: 3674: 3669: 3662: 3660: 3655: 3647: 3644: 3639: 3636: 3635: 3634: 3633: 3630: 3625: 3622: 3617: 3613: 3609: 3605: 3599: 3594: 3593: 3592: 3591: 3587: 3583: 3570: 3559: 3556: 3554: 3548: 3544: 3540: 3535: 3534: 3533: 3528: 3520: 3516: 3513: 3509: 3508: 3507: 3506: 3503: 3500: 3498: 3493: 3488: 3480: 3479: 3478: 3477: 3474: 3472: 3467: 3462: 3454: 3449: 3442: 3441: 3440: 3437: 3435: 3431: 3421: 3418: 3416: 3411: 3406: 3398: 3397: 3396: 3391: 3388: 3383: 3378: 3376: 3371: 3363: 3362: 3361: 3360: 3357: 3356: 3351: 3346: 3336: 3324: 3319: 3316: 3311: 3307: 3303: 3297: 3292: 3291: 3290: 3289: 3288: 3287: 3284: 3282: 3277: 3272: 3261: 3250: 3245: 3242: 3237: 3226: 3222: 3217: 3205: 3204: 3187: 3182: 3179: 3174: 3169: 3168: 3163: 3158: 3156: 3151: 3148: 3143: 3140: 3136: 3135: 3131: 3130: 3129: 3128: 3127: 3123: 3119: 3115: 3111: 3106: 3101: 3100: 3099: 3098: 3097: 3096: 3095: 3094: 3093: 3092: 3091: 3090: 3073: 3068: 3065: 3060: 3055: 3054: 3053: 3049: 3045: 3041: 3040: 3036: 3032:Your comment 3031: 3027: 3023: 3020: 3019: 3018: 3017: 3016: 3011: 3008: 3003: 2999: 2994: 2989: 2988: 2987: 2983: 2979: 2975: 2970: 2966: 2961: 2957: 2956: 2955: 2950: 2947: 2942: 2938: 2933: 2932: 2931: 2927: 2923: 2918: 2913: 2912: 2911: 2906: 2903: 2898: 2893: 2892: 2891: 2890: 2886: 2882: 2877: 2869: 2857: 2852: 2849: 2844: 2840: 2835: 2830: 2829: 2828: 2824: 2820: 2815: 2814: 2813: 2812: 2811: 2807: 2803: 2799: 2795: 2790: 2784: 2780: 2776: 2772: 2768: 2764: 2763: 2762: 2758: 2753: 2751: 2744: 2740: 2735: 2731: 2727: 2723: 2722: 2721: 2717: 2713: 2709: 2705: 2701: 2697: 2694: 2689: 2688: 2687: 2686: 2683: 2678: 2675: 2670: 2666: 2662: 2661: 2660: 2659: 2655: 2651: 2645: 2644: 2639: 2633: 2626: 2621: 2618: 2613: 2609: 2605: 2599: 2594: 2593: 2586: 2581: 2578: 2573: 2569: 2565: 2564: 2563: 2559: 2554: 2552: 2544: 2543: 2542: 2541: 2538: 2533: 2530: 2525: 2520: 2519: 2508: 2504: 2499: 2497: 2490: 2486: 2482: 2478: 2474: 2473: 2472: 2468: 2464: 2459: 2458: 2457: 2456: 2455: 2454: 2453: 2452: 2445: 2440: 2432: 2431: 2430: 2429: 2428: 2427: 2426: 2425: 2421: 2417: 2408: 2404: 2401: 2397: 2394: 2389: 2387: 2383: 2379: 2375: 2371: 2367: 2363: 2358: 2357: 2356: 2355: 2352: 2348: 2343: 2341: 2333: 2330: 2327: 2322: 2321: 2320: 2319: 2315: 2311: 2303: 2299: 2296: 2292: 2289: 2285: 2281: 2280: 2279: 2273: 2270: 2269: 2268: 2262: 2250: 2246: 2242: 2238: 2235: 2234: 2233: 2228: 2225: 2220: 2215: 2214: 2213: 2209: 2205: 2201: 2198: 2197: 2196: 2195: 2194: 2190: 2186: 2182: 2178: 2174: 2169: 2166: 2161: 2156: 2154: 2152: 2150: 2148: 2143: 2138: 2134: 2133: 2132: 2127: 2120: 2117: 2113: 2110: 2109: 2102: 2098: 2094: 2090: 2089: 2088: 2083: 2080: 2075: 2070: 2069: 2068: 2067: 2064: 2060: 2056: 2048: 2047: 2046: 2043: 2034: 2033: 2032: 2030: 2020: 2017:parameter to 2008: 2004: 2000: 1993: 1992: 1978: 1973: 1970: 1965: 1961: 1957: 1953: 1949: 1948: 1947: 1942: 1935: 1931: 1930: 1929: 1924: 1921: 1916: 1913:you covered. 1911: 1910: 1909: 1908: 1903: 1893: 1891: 1887: 1883: 1879: 1874: 1872: 1869:Another user 1866: 1864: 1860: 1856: 1852: 1847: 1841: 1833: 1828: 1825: 1821: 1815: 1811: 1806: 1804: 1796: 1795: 1794: 1793: 1789: 1785: 1779: 1775: 1773: 1769: 1765: 1761: 1757: 1750: 1749: 1745: 1744:Contributions 1741: 1737: 1736: 1735: 1724: 1720: 1711: 1707: 1703: 1699: 1695: 1691: 1684: 1679: 1676: 1672: 1667: 1666: 1665: 1660: 1657: 1652: 1645: 1640: 1639: 1638: 1637: 1633: 1629: 1625: 1616: 1614: 1613: 1608: 1601: 1597: 1588: 1584: 1580: 1576: 1575: 1573: 1569: 1565: 1561: 1560: 1559: 1558: 1553: 1546: 1537: 1535: 1533: 1529: 1528:Twizzlerstiks 1517: 1513: 1509: 1504: 1503: 1502: 1497: 1489: 1488: 1487: 1486: 1483: 1479: 1475: 1470: 1468: 1463: 1460: 1455: 1451: 1449: 1443: 1442: 1441: 1440: 1436: 1432: 1423: 1421: 1419: 1415: 1411: 1407: 1394: 1391: 1389: 1388: 1381: 1377: 1376: 1375: 1374: 1373: 1372: 1371: 1370: 1366: 1362: 1348: 1344: 1340: 1336: 1335: 1334: 1331: 1329: 1328: 1321: 1320: 1319: 1318: 1317: 1313: 1309: 1304: 1302: 1298: 1294: 1290: 1289: 1288: 1286: 1282: 1278: 1274: 1263: 1261: 1259: 1255: 1251: 1248: 1244: 1240: 1237: 1229: 1227: 1226: 1222: 1218: 1211: 1205: 1203:QueerFilmNerd 1197: 1196: 1195: 1194: 1190: 1186: 1179: 1173: 1171:QueerFilmNerd 1166: 1165: 1164: 1163: 1159: 1155: 1150: 1148: 1144: 1140: 1136: 1126: 1118: 1114: 1110: 1105: 1103: 1099: 1095: 1084: 1080: 1079: 1078: 1074: 1070: 1065: 1062: 1058: 1057: 1056: 1052: 1048: 1044: 1040: 1036: 1032: 1028: 1024: 1020: 1016: 1012: 1008: 1004: 1000: 996: 995: 994: 993: 989: 985: 976: 974: 973: 968: 963: 962: 951: 947: 944: 940: 939: 938: 931: 925: 921: 917: 913: 907: 902: 897: 893: 891: 885: 879: 877: 873: 869: 867: 863: 862: 861: 859: 855: 851: 846: 840: 838: 837: 833: 829: 820: 818: 817: 812: 807: 806: 795: 791: 788: 784: 783: 782: 775: 769: 765: 761: 757: 751: 746: 741: 737: 735: 731: 727: 726: 725: 723: 719: 715: 710: 704: 700: 695: 693: 692: 683: 681: 680: 672: 667: 663: 660: 659: 658: 657: 653: 649: 645: 636: 631: 629: 624: 619: 614: 613: 609: 600: 597: 594: 592: 585: 582: 580: 576: 572: 568: 565: 564: 563: 562: 558: 554: 550: 543: 539: 536: 534: 530: 527: 526: 524: 523: 520: 515: 509: 501: 492: 487: 480: 478: 473: 468: 463: 462: 457: 455: 454: 450: 446: 442: 438: 433: 430: 425: 423: 413: 411: 407: 403: 399: 386: 383: 377: 375: 371: 367: 366: 365: 364: 363: 362: 356: 352: 348: 344: 340: 333: 332: 331: 328: 322: 320: 315: 314: 313: 312: 309: 303: 301: 292: 286: 283: 277: 275: 270: 266: 265: 264: 263: 260: 257: 251: 249: 245: 241: 237: 236: 235: 234: 231: 225: 223: 218: 210: 204: 200: 196: 192: 186: 182: 181: 180: 177: 173: 169: 162: 159: 156: 152: 149: 143: 141: 140: 137: 130: 127: 123: 120: 116: 115: 114: 113: 110: 104: 103: 100: 91: 89: 88: 85: 81: 77: 69: 62: 58: 57: 49: 45: 41: 40: 35: 28: 27: 19: 3977: 3955: 3952: 3944: 3929:edit request 3897: 3880:Nohomersryan 3858:— Preceding 3855: 3847: 3845: 3799:— Preceding 3793: 3759:ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants 3758: 3751: 3730:— Preceding 3727: 3724: 3721: 3718: 3715: 3679: 3641: 3607: 3603: 3579: 3568: 3552: 3486:petrarchan47 3482: 3460:petrarchan47 3456: 3450: 3447: 3438: 3433: 3426: 3404:petrarchan47 3400: 3344:petrarchan47 3340: 3337: 3329: 3301: 3296:Petrarchan47 3270:petrarchan47 3266: 3264: 3255: 3166: 3133: 3044:Effectively0 3038: 3034: 2992: 2959: 2875: 2873: 2834:Effectively0 2819:Effectively0 2775:Effectively0 2750:ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants 2749: 2742: 2738: 2733: 2729: 2724:Please read 2712:Effectively0 2650:Effectively0 2641: 2629: 2608:another user 2603: 2567: 2551:ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants 2550: 2496:ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants 2495: 2484: 2480: 2476: 2463:—Approaching 2416:—Approaching 2414: 2340:ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants 2339: 2325: 2310:—Approaching 2308: 2294:ref-bombing. 2276: 2271: 2266: 2145: 2141: 2136: 2115: 2041: 2038: 2026: 2018: 2003:edit request 1933: 1895: 1881: 1876: 1868: 1854: 1849: 1845: 1827: 1819: 1803:ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants 1802: 1780: 1776: 1760:CryMeAnOcean 1754:— Preceding 1751: 1728: 1727: 1722: 1718: 1716: 1702:—Approaching 1698:WP:RECENTISM 1628:—Approaching 1624:WP:RECENTISM 1620: 1600:WP:RECENTISM 1593: 1563: 1541: 1524: 1508:—Approaching 1474:—Approaching 1447: 1431:—Approaching 1427: 1404:— Preceding 1401: 1386: 1385: 1357: 1326: 1325: 1271:— Preceding 1267: 1233: 1214: 1185:—Approaching 1182: 1154:108.83.146.0 1151: 1133:— Preceding 1130: 1083:Nohomersryan 1069:Nohomersryan 1042: 1038: 1034: 1010: 1006: 980: 958: 955: 930:source check 909: 903: 900: 847: 844: 824: 802: 799: 774:source check 753: 747: 744: 711: 708: 690: 689: 678: 677: 640: 622: 615: 590: 583: 566: 553:Nohomersryan 546: 495: 485: 483: 471: 464: 434: 426: 419: 416:Today's edit 402:67.176.78.73 393: 296: 244:undue weight 214: 189:— Preceding 166:— Preceding 163: 160: 157: 153: 150: 147: 133: 105: 95: 73: 60: 43: 37: 3982:NotAGenious 3708:How should 3598:WalkingLost 3582:WalkingLost 2598:Approaching 2380:, Politico 2326:the sources 1644:Approaching 1339:Zgrillo2004 1293:Zgrillo2004 1217:Zgrillo2004 1033:to use the 628:move review 591:SMcCandlish 477:move review 396:—Preceding 337:—Preceding 172:66.215.44.6 126:Tromaintern 36:This is an 3937:|answered= 3933:James Gunn 3790:He’s back. 3333:(Redacted) 2895:had made. 2604:Daily Mail 2368:, Haaretz 2011:|answered= 2007:James Gunn 1960:our policy 1886:pedophilia 1857:film over 1820:References 1043:explicitly 967:Report bug 850:James Gunn 811:Report bug 714:James Gunn 538:James Gunn 533:James Gunn 374:Cúchullain 319:Cúchullain 317:opinion?-- 300:Cúchullain 274:Cúchullain 272:article.-- 248:Cúchullain 222:Cúchullain 215:This is a 78:- Diffs - 3685:Hijiri 88 3616:Hijiri 88 3539:something 3382:Hijiri 88 3310:Hijiri 88 3236:Hijiri 88 3173:Hijiri 88 3142:Hijiri 88 3059:Hijiri 88 3022:@Hijiri88 3002:Hijiri 88 2998:Sam Seder 2941:Hijiri 88 2897:Hijiri 88 2843:Hijiri 88 2741:and that 2669:Hijiri 88 2636:So I ask 2612:Hijiri 88 2572:Hijiri 88 2524:Hijiri 88 2305:anything. 2237:Hijiri 88 2219:Hijiri 88 2160:Hijiri 88 2074:Hijiri 88 1964:Hijiri 88 1952:WP:WEIGHT 1915:Hijiri 88 1651:Hijiri 88 1596:WP:WEIGHT 1454:Hijiri 88 1448:Breitbart 1230:James Gun 950:this tool 943:this tool 884:dead link 794:this tool 787:this tool 679:Matieszyn 499:Anarchyte 293:Reception 99:Sensorium 84:Megapixie 61:Archive 1 3860:unsigned 3801:unsigned 3732:unsigned 3543:Roseanne 3302:everyone 3164:that my 3037:actually 2993:actually 2638:Hijiri88 2489:POV push 2393:WP:LABEL 2386:(Source) 2382:(Source) 2378:(Source) 2374:(Source) 2370:(Source) 2366:(Source) 2362:(Source) 2284:WP:BLPRS 2200:Hijiri88 1956:this guy 1768:contribs 1756:unsigned 1694:WP:LABEL 1683:Hijiri88 1406:unsigned 1273:unsigned 1135:unsigned 1007:critical 1005:, it is 956:Cheers.— 828:Tenebrae 800:Cheers.— 662:Tenebrae 648:Tenebrae 445:Tenebrae 441:edit-war 398:unsigned 351:contribs 339:unsigned 203:contribs 191:unsigned 168:unsigned 3453:WP:NPOV 3430:WP:LEDE 3227:"Jokes" 3110:WP:NPOV 2965:WP:NPOV 1934:because 1873:it to: 1871:changed 1863:tweeted 1450:article 1061:tweeted 999:removed 888:tag to 854:my edit 718:my edit 584:Support 567:Support 439:he not 370:WP:NPOV 343:Maxador 298:page.-- 39:archive 3826:umbolo 3612:WP:RSN 3553:Nblund 3137:Fine. 3114:WP:BLP 3105:weasel 2969:WP:BLP 2732:We do 2726:WP:BLP 2568:of his 2288:Source 1723:exists 1719:eleven 1671:Hyliad 1568:Hyliad 1064:before 1031:WP:NOR 1003:WP:BLP 880:Added 644:WP:BLP 437:WP:BRD 269:WP:BLP 240:WP:BLP 217:WP:BLP 76:WP:BLP 3941:|ans= 3927:This 3900:Cwf97 3434:essay 2477:quote 2400:WP:OR 2142:still 2015:|ans= 2001:This 1733:titan 1690:WP:OR 1039:guess 1011:right 671:WP:OR 486:Moved 16:< 3986:talk 3978:Done 3962:talk 3904:talk 3884:talk 3868:talk 3809:talk 3780:talk 3752:this 3740:talk 3586:talk 3547:Gunn 3122:talk 3048:talk 2982:talk 2926:talk 2917:here 2885:talk 2823:talk 2806:talk 2779:talk 2716:talk 2704:here 2700:here 2654:talk 2467:talk 2420:talk 2314:talk 2245:talk 2208:talk 2189:talk 2137:very 2097:talk 2059:talk 1890:rape 1888:and 1842:lead 1788:talk 1764:talk 1740:Talk 1730:Luso 1706:talk 1632:talk 1583:talk 1564:GotG 1532:talk 1512:talk 1478:talk 1435:talk 1414:talk 1365:talk 1343:talk 1312:talk 1297:talk 1281:talk 1254:talk 1243:talk 1221:talk 1189:talk 1158:talk 1143:talk 1113:talk 1098:talk 1073:talk 1051:talk 988:talk 832:talk 691:talk 652:talk 575:talk 571:PC78 557:talk 513:talk 507:work 449:talk 406:talk 347:talk 199:talk 176:talk 121:and 3939:or 3931:to 3832:^^^ 3725:or 3671:\\ 3657:\\ 3610:to 3545:vs 3530:\\ 3455:. 3373:\\ 3219:\\ 3026:Yb2 2960:for 2881:Yb2 2734:not 2442:\\ 2183:.-- 2129:\\ 2051:own 2027:In 2013:or 2005:to 1944:\\ 1905:\\ 1861:he 1610:\\ 1555:\\ 1499:\\ 1094:Mz7 1047:Mz7 924:RfC 874:to 768:RfC 732:to 620:. 605:ⱷ≼ 601:≽ⱷ҅ 211:BLP 3988:) 3964:) 3945:no 3906:) 3886:) 3870:) 3811:) 3782:) 3742:) 3696:) 3693:やや 3680:do 3627:) 3624:やや 3608:SR 3604:SR 3588:) 3549:) 3491:คุ 3465:คุ 3409:คุ 3393:) 3390:やや 3349:คุ 3321:) 3318:やや 3275:คุ 3247:) 3244:やや 3184:) 3181:やや 3153:) 3150:やや 3124:) 3070:) 3067:やや 3050:) 3013:) 3010:やや 2984:) 2952:) 2949:やや 2939:. 2928:) 2908:) 2905:やや 2887:) 2854:) 2851:やや 2825:) 2808:) 2781:) 2718:) 2710:-- 2680:) 2677:やや 2656:) 2648:-- 2646:"? 2623:) 2620:やや 2583:) 2580:やや 2535:) 2532:やや 2469:) 2422:) 2384:, 2316:) 2247:) 2230:) 2227:やや 2210:) 2191:) 2171:) 2168:やや 2121:— 2099:) 2085:) 2082:やや 2061:) 2019:no 1975:) 1972:やや 1926:) 1923:やや 1790:) 1770:) 1766:• 1746:) 1742:| 1708:) 1700:. 1662:) 1659:やや 1634:) 1585:) 1534:) 1514:) 1480:) 1465:) 1462:やや 1446:a 1437:) 1416:) 1367:) 1345:) 1314:) 1299:) 1283:) 1256:) 1223:) 1191:) 1160:) 1145:) 1115:) 1100:) 1085:! 1075:) 1053:) 990:) 937:. 932:}} 928:{{ 886:}} 882:{{ 834:) 826:-- 781:. 776:}} 772:{{ 654:) 588:— 577:) 559:) 547:– 540:→ 531:→ 510:| 494:. 488:. 469:. 451:) 408:) 353:) 349:• 201:• 3984:( 3960:( 3902:( 3882:( 3866:( 3823:w 3807:( 3778:( 3738:( 3690:聖 3687:( 3643:3 3621:聖 3618:( 3600:: 3596:@ 3584:( 3496:ก 3470:ก 3414:ก 3387:聖 3384:( 3354:ก 3315:聖 3312:( 3298:: 3294:@ 3280:ก 3241:聖 3238:( 3178:聖 3175:( 3147:聖 3144:( 3120:( 3064:聖 3061:( 3046:( 3007:聖 3004:( 2980:( 2946:聖 2943:( 2924:( 2902:聖 2899:( 2883:( 2848:聖 2845:( 2836:: 2832:@ 2821:( 2804:( 2777:( 2714:( 2706:. 2691:“ 2674:聖 2671:( 2652:( 2617:聖 2614:( 2600:: 2596:@ 2577:聖 2574:( 2529:聖 2526:( 2465:( 2418:( 2312:( 2243:( 2224:聖 2221:( 2206:( 2187:( 2165:聖 2162:( 2095:( 2079:聖 2076:( 2057:( 1969:聖 1966:( 1920:聖 1917:( 1786:( 1762:( 1738:( 1704:( 1685:: 1681:@ 1675:d 1673:( 1656:聖 1653:( 1646:: 1642:@ 1630:( 1581:( 1572:d 1570:( 1530:( 1510:( 1476:( 1459:聖 1456:( 1433:( 1412:( 1363:( 1341:( 1310:( 1295:( 1279:( 1252:( 1241:( 1219:( 1187:( 1156:( 1141:( 1111:( 1096:( 1071:( 1049:( 986:( 969:) 965:( 952:. 945:. 830:( 813:) 809:( 796:. 789:. 650:( 603:ᴥ 599:¢ 596:☏ 593:☺ 573:( 555:( 516:) 504:( 447:( 404:( 381:c 378:/ 345:( 326:c 323:/ 307:c 304:/ 281:c 278:/ 255:c 252:/ 229:c 226:/ 197:( 174:( 50:.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Index