Talk:Wes Anderson: Difference between revisions

From BoyWiki
Line 7: Line 7:
That is a true, but not a damning, statement. Perhaps that could be included somewhere? [[User:User4|User4]] ([[User talk:User4|talk]]) 17:21, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
That is a true, but not a damning, statement. Perhaps that could be included somewhere? [[User:User4|User4]] ([[User talk:User4|talk]]) 17:21, 2 May 2016 (UTC)


:[[Talk:User4]], I think in order to say something like that, [[Etenne]] would want the speculation to be from some kind of mainstream newspaper or something. It's ok I think. I just revised the article completely leaving out any speculation or my own thoughts. It's just the facts posted there now. And you don't have to be a genius to see what the facts indicate here. This guy is '''without a doubt''', a 100% and complete _________. Personally, I hope we never can verify it through news media because the only reason that'd be in the news is if he got in trouble for something. He's one of my very favorite directors. I want him to stay save and making excellent movies with cute boys for the rest of my days. [[User:Thomasmann|Thomasmann]] ([[User talk:Thomasmann|talk]]) 17:47, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
:[[Talk:User4|User4]], I think in order to say something like that, [[Etenne]] would want the speculation to be from some kind of mainstream newspaper or something. It's ok I think. I just revised the article completely leaving out any speculation or my own thoughts. It's just the facts posted there now. And you don't have to be a genius to see what the facts indicate here. This guy is '''without a doubt''', a 100% and complete _________. Personally, I hope we never can verify it through news media because the only reason that'd be in the news is if he got in trouble for something. He's one of my very favorite directors. I want him to stay save and making excellent movies with cute boys for the rest of my days. [[User:Thomasmann|Thomasmann]] ([[User talk:Thomasmann|talk]]) 17:47, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Revision as of 17:49, 2 May 2016

Speculating if someone who has not come out as a BL can be a dangerous and potentially libelous. Plus, I feel strongly that we should not engage in that. Is there a way you can reword the intro to that section to make it a little less inflammatory and make it focus more on that the man enjoys working with boys etc.. and has many boys in his films and let people draw their own conclusion for that? BTW, thanks for all you work. As I am sure User4 will tell you, I am not a big "thank you' kind of guy" or a flatterer.. just know that your efforts are appreciated. --Etenne 12:31, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Ok, I will find a way to rework it without the speculation. Thomasmann (talk) 16:26, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

"This has led to speculation regarding his sexual orientation."

That is a true, but not a damning, statement. Perhaps that could be included somewhere? User4 (talk) 17:21, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

User4, I think in order to say something like that, Etenne would want the speculation to be from some kind of mainstream newspaper or something. It's ok I think. I just revised the article completely leaving out any speculation or my own thoughts. It's just the facts posted there now. And you don't have to be a genius to see what the facts indicate here. This guy is without a doubt, a 100% and complete _________. Personally, I hope we never can verify it through news media because the only reason that'd be in the news is if he got in trouble for something. He's one of my very favorite directors. I want him to stay save and making excellent movies with cute boys for the rest of my days. Thomasmann (talk) 17:47, 2 May 2016 (UTC)