The following Wikipedia contributors may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include
conflict of interest,
autobiography, and
neutral point of view.
JoshuaROlson (
talk·contribs) This user has contributed to the article. This user has declared a connection.
45.48.22.150 (
talk·contribs) This user has contributed to the article. This user has declared a connection.
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or
poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially
libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to
this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following
WikiProjects:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to
join the project and
contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the
documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the
project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the
United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Screenwriters, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of screenwriting, screenwriters, and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ScreenwritersWikipedia:WikiProject ScreenwritersTemplate:WikiProject Screenwritersscreenwriter articles
This
edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered.
My name is Josh Olson. Please remove the following section from my page. It is libelous. I've tried to remove it, and I've posted information that directly contradicts it, but the page's editor keeps putting it back up. I would appreciate it if someone would contact me directly to discuss how to rectify this situation.
"He did not win any of these. There is some debate over Olson's contribution to the film, however in a 2014 interview, "A History of Violence" star Viggo Mortensen said he read Olson's original version of the script and "was quite disappointed. It was 120-odd pages of just mayhem; kind of senseless, really." He only agreed to do the movie after meeting with the director David Cronenberg, who extensively reworked the script. "He should have actually taken a screenplay credit," Mortensen said, " because that 120-something pages ended up being about 72 pages, and that was him.[1]”" — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
JoshuaROlson (
talk •
contribs)
It seems that the article is just reporting what Mortensen said. Are you saying that he was misquoted in the interview? -
MrOllie (
talk)
16:46, 26 March 2020 (UTC)reply
First of all the statement is not libelous or defamatory in any way it is properly sourced and there are other sources for it as well. He has coi edited his own page since the beginning. Should we start a CONTROVERSY section like we would for others? The controversy can explain the lack of screen credits for a decade and a half? Further I see user has threatened LEGAL ACTION in the notes
Maravelous (
talk)
19:00, 26 March 2020 (UTC)reply
Hello, I consider that irrelevant. I haven't deleted the statement because it's libelous or deframatory. I also haven't deleted the material because he has been COI editing nor because he has threatened with a legal action. I deleted the material, because it is exceptional, and because it had just one source there. If there is anything else, feel free to link it here - while googling it, I haven't found anything. --
Martin Urbanec (
talk)
20:04, 26 March 2020 (UTC)reply
I consider your first comment (reply to my Removed one) irrelevant. The Telegraph is obviously a good source, but
WP:EXCEPTIONAL still applies. In another words, I consider the statement the awards were a cheat an exceptional claim, and for that reason, it requires multiple high-quality sources. If this is really note-worthy, there are certainly multiple sources about this. Could you link them, please? --
Martin Urbanec (
talk)
22:51, 26 March 2020 (UTC)reply
The previous version of the article said "He didn't win any of those". That, connected with the rest of the removed content, is an exceptional claim.
Martin Urbanec (
talk)
08:35, 27 March 2020 (UTC)reply
Over a year later, the material was restored and this discussion removed at the same time.
Looking over the reference, I'd say it's
original research to push a
viewpoint to disparage the subject of this article.
Do you have any independent or reliable source that can prove the fact? Saying "This is factual" does not guarantee the validity of your claim. Chlod(
say hi!)01:26, 16 April 2020 (UTC)reply
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0790724/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1 He did not get credit on the film. There isn't a debate to be had. NOW since we don't need to report on every single article in Variety if you wanted to delete the whole section then fine. But saying "Oh he was hired first" implies that it means something- he was afforded no credit by the WGA because he had nothing to do with the final film. So we either are accurate (he was hired but I am not sure why we are telling you because it went no where like a million other films) or we delete that part completely. Otherwise it is a desperate attempt to bring relevance to an article that should have been deleted to begin with. The guy is 50 years old at least and he had one movie made 15 years ago- everything else is desperation
Maravelous (
talk)
02:02, 17 April 2020 (UTC)reply
@
Maravelous (
t), I hope you know that in this context, especially in the context of the
biographies of living persons, we cannot cite IMDb due to the fact that users edit the pages, not certified experts. Because of this, whatever content may on IMDb cannot be used to verify information about casting, screenwriting, etc.
I also highly suggest that you please be more
friendly in your tone. Asking "Are you okay" is not the best response to a professional question. In the first place, you never addressed my question anyway.
Also, given that your request for deletion was contested, this person is obviously notable and this article does not warrant deletion. I sincerely hope that you recognize that there is not one person who keeps an article clean and that it is a collaborative effort between editors. Saying that someone isn't notable from your own point of view does not mean that they are notable from any other persons point of view, and it definitely does not mean that the objective view sees this person as not notable.
My request for deletion was contested by a single user. This does not make him notable. I asked if you were okay since it does not seem that you are okay. The credit on a movie is not debatable. But if you want me to find 33 instances on the web when the credits are actually listed I guess I can do that. Professional implies you are getting paid. I am not. Objectively this person is not notable. I will be civil enough to hope you do recover and become okay. With the pandemic I know it is hard to think straight sometimes. I get it.
Maravelous (
talk)
00:52, 18 April 2020 (UTC)reply
You don't have to dig up redundant cites. 1) We can just cite the film's credits directly or 2) IMDB writing credits that are tagged with 'WGA', as these are, are provided by the
Writers Guild of America and are reliable, not user-generated content. And again, as I mentioned above, script doctoring, rejected drafts and other uncredited writing is a standard part of how Hollywood works, and that someone worked on a project as a writer but didn't work enough to be credited should not be considered an exceptional claim. -
MrOllie (
talk)
01:06, 18 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Thank you, Chode seemed to really want detail so I gave it. I am stunned at having my balls broken over things that are just reality. He wants IMDB not to count because users can edit it (not the main credits they can't but sure)yet does Wikipedia count then? The reality is we should not be mentioning "Oh yeah he got hired for this and then got no credit because he sucks" or whatever but it seems misleading to mention that he was hired (as a plus) and not mention "Oh yeah he tanked it" So everything is cited now six ways till Sunday, thank you Ollie. I do hope the other editor feels better.
Maravelous (
talk)
01:19, 18 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Maravelous, why did you revert my edits? Saying that it was nominated for the awards implies that they weren't won. We don't specify in all-caps that they were lost. In regard to the other part you removed, that isn't a timeless statement, and is not supported by a source. He has been working on projects since 2005, and has likely done screenwriting since 2005. If the source does not state that he has not done anything since 2005, and if the source is not up to date, then we cannot state that. Both are borderline violations of our BLP policy and UNDUE, and while we discuss them they should not be on the page: please do not readd them to the article. You've been editing with an extreme bias on this page since 2012 and I suggest you stop.
Vermont (
talk)
12:45, 20 April 2020 (UTC)reply
If The fact that He was nominated for awards is notable then of course the actual winner of all those awards is notable. Everything was cited. WHY did YOU revert factual truthful verified information ? How dare you call it even close to a BLP violation to list the actual winner of awards that you think are notable? And worse, how dare you call me biased- you can not point to a single unsourced, FACT that I have ever posted on this or any article. I need an apology for your false accusation and we need to escalate this dispute because the results WILL be added back- your edits are not in stone thank you sir.
Maravelous (
talk)
23:52, 23 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Maravelous, please remain civil. Your edit re-added two contested pieces of content, the "his last produced film credit..." and "losing all of them to BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN." With regard to the first, it is not acceptable to assume that he has not been credited in any films since 2005. We do not have sources that state he hasn't done anything from 2005 until today, and if we did we would not use the language "his last produced...", we would say "he did not work as a screen writer from 2005 until at least [article publish date]" or something else so as to keep to the sources. With regard to the second bit, that's entirely unnecessary, both to capitalize it and emphasize that it was lost. It's a nomination, so obviously he didn't win the award, and that's all that is necessary. Would you accept a compromise to change it to "which was won by Brokeback Mountain."? Regards,
Vermont (
talk)
17:11, 28 April 2020 (UTC)reply
I feel you are being uncivil, asking why I deleted something that should not have been made to begin with then being surreal by asking me to prove a negative. If he has another produced credit bring it (he doesn't) I used caps in error instead of linking. Sorry. The compromise seems fine except they were ALL won by Brokeback
Maravelous (
talk)
00:32, 3 May 2020 (UTC)reply
I think you misunderstand; unless the source says that they have not had any credits in a specific time, we don't just assume that he hasn't done anything because we don't have any sources. A lack of sources isn't appropriate justification to add that into the article.
Vermont (
talk)
01:01, 3 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Put in simpler words: A source says "one week ago Gryllida saw a bird". Wikipedia can not write "Gryllida saw no birds in the last seven days", because this is not verifiable in principle (not until I say so in an interview).
Gryllida (
talk)
03:59, 3 May 2020 (UTC)reply
What an awful comparison. Unless there are sites that KEEP TRACK of your bird watching like there are sites that KEEP TRACK of film credits
Maravelous (
talk)
20:23, 3 May 2020 (UTC)reply
I expect you to remove the 3000 plus citations we have for IMDB by sundown because it is unreliable (as per you). Do you know how you get your credentials at Cannes? They check your IMDB. Do you know how people find your credits ? IMDB. So either removed all the references or withdraw your absurd statement
Maravelous (
talk)
00:19, 5 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Maravelous, please stop editing this article without getting consensus for changes on the talk pages. This is far past the point of
WP:BOLD. You have evidently been editing with a point of view, trying to make this article negative. There is no point whatsoever in highlighting that the awards weren't won; it already says nominated.
Vermont (
talk)
02:01, 4 May 2020 (UTC)reply
You proposed terminology and I used it and now you object? Also again what are you talking about "evidently"? I resent you comment and find it hurtful rude and wrong. I have never added anything but the truth to the article. The FACT is this is not a notable person. You are having to create content for the BLP because it is lightweight. Writing one movie (adapted at that) 15 years ago (and winning NO awards) does not make one notable. The only place where he would be notable is IMDB which you say doesn't count (lol). Stop attacking me and show me my falsehoods or leave
Maravelous (
talk)
00:22, 5 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Our standard style for 'nominated for the award' is to not mention what did win, unless there's a specific reason (e.g., when X is nominated for the Generic Award, and Y wins, and the award winner says "X should have won instead").
DS (
talk)
20:39, 28 April 2020 (UTC)reply
The relevant point is by listing the three awards "nominated for" it makes it seem significant. It isn't. It won nothing. So I maintain either delete the awards or cite what actually won. This is not negativity this is reality- this is not a notable BLP
Maravelous (
talk)
00:24, 5 May 2020 (UTC)reply
You've very plainly stated that your intention here is to make the article as negative as possible. You've also entered the realm of personal attacks, and I suggest you stop immediately.
Vermont (
talk)
01:49, 5 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Please show me where I "plainly stated this" immediately or apologize. You are way over the line here. As far as personal attacks, his early responses were very hard to follow so I was giving him the benefit of the doubt
Maravelous (
talk)
01:51, 5 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Gladly. Please observe:
"The FACT is this is not a notable person. You are having to create content for the BLP because it is lightweight. Writing one movie (adapted at that) 15 years ago (and winning NO awards) does not make one notable."
"The relevant point is by listing the three awards "nominated for" it makes it seem significant. It isn't. It won nothing."
If you do not believe that they're notable, nominate it for deletion. Otherwise you're simply attempting to apply your subjective and pre-formed judgements on the subject to this article, which again, you state openly. With regard to your "giving him the benefit of the doubt", that is not something you have a choice in. Either communicate with civility, or administrative action will be necessary; that is how our project works.
Vermont (
talk)
02:28, 5 May 2020 (UTC)reply
For the avoidance of doubt, I asked you to show where I "plainly stated my intention was to make it as negative as possible. You have not done so REMOTELY
Maravelous (
talk)
22:57, 5 May 2020 (UTC)reply
There seems to be a debate about what the link actually says. The link, which is in the English language, says that Olson was hired to write the first draft. But did he? A lot of times Variety announces stuff that never happens, deals don't close etc. I have sources he says he never wrote a word of Reacher. But I can't prove it. But Mr. Jolly cannot prove that he did either- we must use sources. This sources says that he was hired to write the script. So I changed three words and was accused of starting a war. PLEASE READ THE LINK SOURCE and tell me I am wrong thanks
ChewieTomato (
talk)
03:36, 13 January 2024 (UTC)reply
I read the source, you're wrong. There are dozens of other sources available for this, too. I added another one of them. I also filed a SPI, see you there!
MrOllie (
talk)
03:47, 13 January 2024 (UTC)reply