Talk:Joss Whedon

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Joss Whedon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131110081756/http://www.filmschoolrejects.com/features/23-things-we-learned-from-joss-whedons-much-ado-about-nothing-commentary.php to http://filmschoolrejects.com/features/23-things-we-learned-from-joss-whedons-much-ado-about-nothing-commentary.php

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:22, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Joss Whedon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150119012919/http://www.starburstmagazine.com/component/content/article/34-its-a-different-medium-you-idiot-/1570-buffy-the-vampire-slayer to http://www.starburstmagazine.com/component/content/article/34-its-a-different-medium-you-idiot-/1570-buffy-the-vampire-slayer

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:25, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Frequent casting criteria

Yes, we can't have everyone, but the current criteria are just stupid. It excludes Eliza Dushku who played a major supporting character (Faith) in Buffy and Angel, and was the lead in Dollhouse, since she played the same role in two of the productions. It includes Carlos Jacott and Jonathan M. Woodward who both played bit parts or supporting roles in three episodes, each in a different series. Andy Umberger was at least recurring, albeit on a near-bit part level, in Buffy.

Suggestion: Change the criteria to something like "starring/main cast, recurring or supporting roles in three or more Whedon productions". The whole "different roles" thing doesn't exactly show off who Joss's favorites are, which is sort of the point of the table. 130.239.26.87 (talk) 16:19, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Frequent Casting - part 2

Frequent Casting currently says it is for actors who have played at least two different roles in the Joss Whedon projects. So I can’t believe you’re missing Adam Baldwin and Gina Torres. Both of them were in Angel, Firefly, and Serenity. Minicarmen (talk) 06:26, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

HBO connection to Justice League investigation

@Schazjmd Trying to reach consensus on this because I do think it belongs in the harassment timeline. Proposed edit:

On 25 November, 2020, HBO announced that the company had "parted ways" with Whedon; Whedon released his own statement claiming the departure was due to the COVID-19 Pandemic. Ray Fisher immediately responded, tweeting "I have no intention of allowing Joss Whedon to use the old Hollywood tactic of 'exiting' . . . This is undoubtedly a result of [the investigation]."

I disagree. HBO said specifically: “No, we had no, no complaints or no reports of inappropriate behavior,”.[1] Fisher (who wasn't on The Nevers) speculating that it was connected to the investigation doesn't make it connected, and I think we need reliable, independent sources making that connection before we do it in the article. Schazjmd (talk) 14:58, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Obviously Fisher speculating isn't enough, and I understand your point of view. But reports have repeatedly linked the events (including in that article) and HBO has not denied it or contradicted it. I'm also not sure if The Wrap means on that set or generally, plus they've stealth-edited (I've archived now). I'll try again:

On 25 November, 2020, HBO announced that the company had "parted ways" with Whedon; Whedon released his own statement claiming the departure was due to the COVID-19 Pandemic. Ray Fisher immediately responded, tweeting "I have no intention of allowing Joss Whedon to use the old Hollywood tactic of 'exiting' . . . This is undoubtedly a result of [the investigation]." HBO chief Casey Bloys declined to elaborate on the decision to part ways but said HBO had received no complaints about Whedon's behavior..

I read the articles as adding background (what's currently going on with Whedon), not as explicitly relating his departure from The Nevers to the complaints or investigation by another network. "He left the show while bad stuff was going on in other places" is not equivalent to "He left the show because bad stuff was going on in other places". We don't have any sources establishing whether HBO initiated the departure or Whedon did. Making his departure from The Nevers an explicit part of the narrative of actors' complaints is WP:SYNTH until sources take that step. I think the tip-toeing through the minefield in which journalists mention the investigation while refusing to actually say it's connected is because none of us/them have any solid evidence to make that claim. Hopefully, more editors will weigh in here. Schazjmd (talk) 17:04, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

References

@Schazjmd I meant it in a "people are speculating based on the circumstances, and especially Fisher's tweet" way, not "this is true." If the speculation has become a feature of the reporting by reputable sources (and it has), then it's independently worthy of inclusion, but that doesn't mean we can write "people are saying." I was trying to relay the information that's out there, in roughly the context that reputable sources have, and let people draw their own conclusions. HBO has stripped his name from advertisements for the show and said (to THR) that they had already planned to before the latest stuff, i.e. based on the circumstances of his exit. Let's try one more round, though I second the call for wider input:

On 25 November, 2020, HBO announced that the company had "parted ways" with Whedon; Whedon released his own statement claiming the departure was due to the COVID-19 Pandemic. Ray Fisher immediately responded, tweeting "I have no intention of allowing Joss Whedon to use the old Hollywood tactic of 'exiting' . . . This is undoubtedly a result of [the investigation]." HBO chief Casey Bloys declined to elaborate on the decision to part ways but said HBO had received no complaints about Whedon's behavior.. Nonetheless, HBO stripped Whedon's name from advertisements for the series.

Another way we could do it is frame it entirely around Fisher's involvement in the previous paragraph, making the nature of transition clearer, though that messes with the chronological arrangement a bit and over-stresses Fisher's relevance:

Ray Fisher also claimed that Whedon's exit from HBO's The Nevers was a result of HBO parent company WarnerMedia's inquiry. "I have no intention of allowing Joss Whedon to use the old Hollywood tactic of 'exiting,'" he tweeted, "This is undoubtedly a result of [the investigation]." HBO had announced on November 25, 2020, that the company had "parted ways" with Whedon; Whedon released his own statement claiming the departure was due to the COVID-19 Pandemic. HBO chief Casey Bloys declined to elaborate on the decision to part ways but said HBO had received no complaints about Whedon's behavior.. Nonetheless, HBO stripped Whedon's name from advertisements for the series.

Gershonmk (talk) 22:59, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Gershonmk, I see you have reverted a large amount of copyediting I did to this section. I don't believe I did anything other than trim fat and simplify sentences - for example changing "Fisher later added that he invites Whedon..." to "Fisher invited Whedon...". Can you reconsider this please? Popcornfud (talk) 15:19, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Popcornfud, The structure of The Nevers exit bit was discussed quite a lot here and the language on the page was a successful consensus, that's why I reverted the change. I also think that the earlier paragraph breaks were significantly more logical -- there's no relationship between the Gadot and Carpenter events. Gershonmk (talk) 15:45, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Gershonmk, I don't think that's a great reason to keep the abundance of tautological elements in the prose. Any chance you could restore the copy fixes while preserving whatever structures you think are necessary? Popcornfud (talk) 15:47, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Popcornfud, I'm happy for you to do whatever c/e makes sense to the other paragraphs (though, as I said, I'd argue against combining Gadot into Carpenter; I don't really think Molina belongs with Buffy stuff either) but there's a consensus (which took some work!) on the HBO/The Nevers part. Gershonmk (talk) 15:56, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

References

Gershonmk, I would agree with that last framing, minus the last sentence. The sources only say they aren't using him in the marketing materials, not that he was in them and removed (scrubbed/stripped). "We were already planning, as you saw, to not say "From Joss Whedon" or "the director of [Avengers]." It hasn't really affected the campaign." (Headlines are not WP:RS, we ignore that part of sources.) I think we should keep the one sentence in the projects section also. Schazjmd (talk) 23:14, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Schazjmd The reporter says "which couldn't have been your original plan" and Bloys answers "Yes, you would expect to have that name." Thank you for the info re: headlines, I read too quickly to register that it wasn't repeated in the body. Gershonmk (talk) 23:39, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Lede – Accusations

Hi, I have edited the introduction to exclude names of people who have not explicitly accused Whedon of "workplace harassment"; I did this because of this policy: WP:BLPREMOVE. We have to be careful to remain neutral and ensure verifiable evidence is included elsewhere in the article (if not in the lede). I removed reference to the enquiry because it no longer seems important enough for this section. However, please discuss here and wait for consensus before editing this section to include additional names (unless new information arises).

Cheers, AussieWikiDan ^(talk) 15:02, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

@AussieWikiDan Benson has, in fact, accused him explicitly, writing that he created a "toxic environment." So has Momoa, who said Whedon had treated him in a "shitty way" and "serious stuff went down." This is discussed in the "workplace harassment" section. Re the second line: IMO the support of co-stars is not important enough for the lede, but WarnerMedia's punishment is. I created that line in the lede yesterday, you edited it, I reverted it, suggesting we discuss it on the talk page. You have now reverted it back to your version, engaging in edit warring. Gershonmk (talk) 15:20, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Gershonmk this isn't personal. If you read the link to the policy I supplied, it is not considered in breach of the edit warring policy if I am reverting contentious material regarding BLPs. Benson and Momoa did not explicitly accuse him personally of "workplace harassment" towards them. If you want to re-work the lede to make this clear and include the Warner information that would not be contentious, although it may be more appropriate to keep solely in the category (preventing future expansion of the lede). The main accusers are listed in the lede and therefore I believe it should stay as is. AussieWikiDan ^(talk) 15:47, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

AussieWikiDan I assume you are editing in good faith, and I ask you to assume the same about me. However, it is essential to understand that none of the actors have used the term "workplace harassment"; rather, that is the umbrella term which I used when I created the section to discuss their comments, under which term I believe the allegations of Benson and Momoa fall.

Further, my position was and is that your proposed version of the lede is untrue about Benson and Momoa, in that they have not merely lent support. Do you really think BLP policy means it is never edit warring to remove information from a BLP article? If you make the same edit repeatedly, even though it was reverted and is under discussion on the talk page, you are engaging in edit warring. Gershonmk (talk) 16:24, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

I notice the phrase "towards them" above. There is a difference between accusing someone of a particular behavior and accusing someone of a particular behavior towards them. The lead section does not say who he is accused of being abusive to. — BarrelProof (talk) 22:28, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't really have much to say apart from the current introduction, in my opinion, is satisfactory. I reverted edits because – under the policy I have already highlighted – immediate removal is permitted and exempt from the 3RR rule. There could be legal implications for stating accusations ambiguously. Gershonmk I do not agree that any revert on BLPs can be covered under this exemption – this is actually the first time I have cited this policy. AussieWikiDan ^(talk) 04:23, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

AussieWikiDan I ask you to reconsider your resistance to discussing the issue here to achieve consensus -- this is how Wikipedia works best. I have laid out my own arguments already. I've made a good-faith attempt at a compromise edit -- I'd post a proposal here first if you were willing to discuss for consensus -- and I hope you'll consider seriously whether your objection still applies. I'm not interested in relitigating the process dispute so, as you have indicated you are unwilling to discuss the issue on this talk page, if you insist on making the same edits again without attempting to achieve consensus, I will appeal to Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard. Please, please, please, if you make an edit to that part of the lede, explain it here and be open to debate. Gershonmk (talk) 05:37, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi Gershonmk, I am not sure why your keep misunderstanding me. I am trying to be clear. When I said I don't have much to say – it doesn't mean I will revert everything you do. Edits regarding Warner would not be reverted by me again as we discussed. I only reverted one version of your edits, you did not amend your edits to which I reverted, I only made two edits. Again please read the policy here – no editor needs to seek your approval or consensus to remove or revert highly contentious material; there is no debate – feel free to refer me to any group/admin you wish. I am happy to discuss anything else but I stand by my original reversion. In the interest of keeping this talk page concise I won't continue discussion about my original reversions. AussieWikiDan ^(talk) 06:10, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Definitely not trying to control the page. But you have to be willing to address concern by other editors if you're going to insist on a specific, controversial version of the page. If you never suggest a compromise or respond to arguments, you will inevitably end up in an edit war. I think if you scroll up a bit you'll see that, simultaneous to this discussion, I had an extended, collegial, conversation with another editor over an edit we disagreed about, related to Whedon's exit from The Nevers. We started out very far apart but ended up with language we were both happy with and thanked each other for the experience; it improved Wikipedia for everybody. I don't always succeed but I try to reach consensus on talk pages both when another editor objects to something I added and when I object to another editor's addition, both when I was "there first" and when I wasn't. In my experience, the single thing most likely to break the system is editors settling their differences in edit wars instead of talk pages. When I reverted your edit and asked to move discussion to the talk page, I meant it: I wanted to settle the issue for both of us. That way, among other advantages, both of us could defend it from further edits by appealing to our consensus. When you made the same edit again, it made the whole thing harder -- though I didn't revert it again, even though I though it was unconstructive, because the overriding concern is to reach a stable, long-term consensus for readers. As I said on your talk page, I wish I'd just deleted both versions while we discussed.Gershonmk (talk) 04:13, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Seems to be that the substantial paragraph further down in the article is enough. Doesn't seem necessary to be in the lead. Govvy (talk) 11:03, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi Govvy, did you remove this while not signed in? I reverted the edit before looking at the talk page as there was no edit summary. AussieWikiDan ^(talk) 12:14, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

I have no idea what you're talking about. Govvy (talk) 12:49, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Cool. Just checking I didn't step on anyone's toes. AussieWikiDan ^(talk) 12:54, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

I just don't think it should be in lead, I guess you're talking about that Californian IP, btw I live in London! heh. Govvy (talk) 13:00, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Just chiming in to say I think it's WP:TOOSOON to judge whether or not it belongs in the lede. Allegations have been made and have received widespread coverage, so it definitely belongs in the article, but the lede should just be a succinct overview on why the person is notable. We need to see what long-term effects this has on his career before we can judge that.LM2000 (talk) 20:29, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Definitely open to this argument, though it seems to both already constitute a large percentage of his total mentions in reliable sources and have taken a toll on his opportunities to work with people who have spoken out against his actions toward them/others and be in The Nevers marketing. My issue with the whole lede dispute was more that the edit AussieWikiDan made distinguished between different actors in what I felt was a misleading way, and when he explained it I thought it was the result of the language I'd used on Wikipedia and not the sources -- never a good thing for a site that bans WP:OR. Gershonmk (talk) 04:13, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

https://screenrant.com/buffy-vampire-slayer-james-marsters-spike-support-whedon-accusers/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gershonmk (talk • contribs) 04:14, 14 February 2021 (UTC) James Marsters comes forward in support of the Buffy Cast in the Joss Whedon allegations.2601:640:C600:3C20:F8DA:835F:1501:9947 (talk) 04:00, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

https://people.com/tv/james-marsters-heartbroken-allegations-buffy-creator-joss-whedon/

Here is more on James Marsters who is coming in support of the Buffy Cast after the allegations came out. 2601:640:C600:3C20:8C19:83D1:113B:95B2 (talk) 23:40, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-arts/story/2021-02-15/david-boreanaz-buffy-stars-support-charisma-carpenter-joss-whedon-claims

More names come out on the Misconduct allegations on Whedon2601:640:C600:3C20:9481:5C49:ACA4:751D (talk) 18:00, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't think people expressing their support (one way or another) are significant. Schazjmd (talk) 18:06, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Academy

@Michael Drew: I don't think that belongs in the political views section! Gershonmk (talk) 00:11, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Mention of Youtuber

Why is Grace Randolph being used as a citation. Most of what she says is lies for clicks. She's about has credible as you're average blogger which is too say she's hardly credible. Mention of Randolph should be removed, if this workplace bullying controversy is too be taken seriously by viewers of wikipedia, only credible journalists should be added. No CBM person, Youtuber or blogger or sites like screenrant. Hpdh4 (talk) 14:52, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

It's not a controversial claim, so far as I know? And you can see in the movie that it's a double. But I agree the sourcing is thin, that's why I attributed it to her in the text. Gershonmk (talk) 20:45, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, but when Gal Gadot mentions her issues with Joss Whedon she does not mention any specifics but she made it clear that she did not film any of the reshoots with the rest of the cast, so the claim that Joss Whedon tried to force Gal Gadot to film the scene with Ezra Miller, and used a body double when she refused is most likely false. "Although she declined to elaborate further, Gadot acknowledged she had her own “experience” with the director, which was resolved to her satisfaction. “I’m happy for Ray to go out and speak his truth,” says Gadot. “I wasn’t there with the guys when they shot with Joss Whedon — I had my own experience with [him], which wasn’t the best one, but I took care of it there and when it happened. I took it to the higher-ups and they took care of it. But I’m happy for Ray to go up and say his truth.”" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.141.177.42 (talk) 22:11, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Gender dysphoria

With regard to this edit, I do want to clarify that "gender dysphoria" is just kind of a fancy label given to someone wanting to be another gender. The cited interview quotes him saying, "I literally grew up wishing that I were a woman." This is simply put as him having had gender dysphoria in childhood. The following sentence clarifies that this is not just a throwaway line but something he has expressed repeatedly to "many women". It doesn't necessarily imply anything about him now but strikes me as relevant to his interests in writing strong female characters throughout his career as a filmmaker. If this is problematic for biographies of living persons due to the potential politicization of that detail, I understand its being withheld but do think it's notable in a way that the dismissive edit removing it is erroneous for not recognizing. --OGoncho (talk) 18:37, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

I reverted the latest wording as what you've included isn't in the source. The relevant part of the source is literally: "Q: Is it surprising to you that so many women love your stuff? A: No. Everybody knows there is a little girl inside of Joss. I literally grew up wishing that I were a woman. That doesn’t necessarily give me any great insight into women..."; that does not back up "His sense of empathy toward women was strong enough that throughout much of his childhood...", which would seem to be OR. I don't have an objection to re-inclusion of the issue or the source, but the wording will need to be better matched/less editorialised, if that makes sense? Regards, Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 08:40, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

"I literally grew up wishing that I were a woman" does sound like potential sex dysphoria. I vote that this should be mentioned, but also that it does not mean that he believes himself to be a woman. (The difference between wanting to fly and believing you can fly, etc.) 31.209.219.230 (talk) 23:34, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Faux Feminism

I'm not terribly well-informed on the subject, but in a number of talks and descriptions I've read, he's one of those "all-talk-pro-bite" "feminists", where he speaks in favour of women and then.. well, doesn't behave very well. This, I've been informed, is a somewhat common occurrence, ie. that bad men use feminism to justify and/or hide their abusive nature.

Now, I don't actually follow hollywood stuff, or feminism stuff, or.. well, anything related stuff. But given how often I've heard about his misbehaviour, and how out-spoken he is, I reckon that some of you who follow all that hollywood stuff might want to make a bigger emphasis on it, PROVIDED that it's actual factual and can be backed up by reliable sources. Though whatever is considered a reliable source for hollywood wrongdoing other than court cases, I've no idea.

Signed, I'm not sober enough to post, but I'm too unsober to be reasonable. 31.209.219.230 (talk) 23:32, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Toxic workplace environment mention at the top of article

I looked at the page for Dan Schneider who is making a ton of headlines for the toxic workplace environment he created at Nickelodeon. [2] Multiple people have said Whedon’s workplace environment was also pretty toxic. Should we mention it at the top of the article? And1987 (talk) 00:22, 7 April 2024 (UTC)