Talk:Josh Olson

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

My page[edit]

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]
 Removed per WP:EXCEPTIONAL --Martin Urbanec (talk) 18:13, 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]
Be clearer what do you consider irrelevant? If the Telegraph is no longer a bona fide source you need to tell everyone Maravelous (talk) 22:12, 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]
you okay brah?"the awards were a cheat" is not something that is said or implied anywhere. You reading something else? Maravelous (talk) 00:53, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's not unusual for screen plays, even award winning ones, to get script doctoring. I don't really see this as an exceptional claim. - MrOllie (talk) 01:14, 27 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.
Looking at the article history 01:29, 4 February 2015 01:30, 7 January 2020 22:11, 24 February 202018:14, 31 March 2021, this is long-term edit-warring. --Hipal (talk) 18:45, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Could not verify these, removed[edit]

Josh Olson is an American podcaster and former screenwriter.[edit]

Could not verify the "former"; removed. Please do not re-add without posting multiple independent sources which verify this fact. (WP:BLP) --Gryllida (talk) 00:28, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The only credits are 15 years ago. There is nothing listed on IMDB Pro. He is no longer a screenwriter. This is English= former.Maravelous (talk) 23:39, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ultimately he received no credit whatsoever on the film.[edit]

Could not verify this. Removed. Please do not re-add without posting multiple independent sources which verify this fact. (WP:BLP) --Gryllida (talk) 00:28, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about? The film came out. He has no credit. This is factual. Reality. Maravelous (talk) 23:40, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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]
I am not sure what you are asking. There is only one screenwriter credited on the film. It is not him. Are you okay?Maravelous (talk) 00:16, 17 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.
In summary, either find multiple better sources or drop the argument, since (a) exceptional claims require exceptional sources, (b) IMDb is not a reliable source, and most importantly, (c) contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion. Chlod (say hi!) 03:35, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As a final note, I wanted to reiterate the point user Mcfnord made on your talk page:
Take that in consideration, for everyone's sake. Thank you. Chlod (say hi!) 03:41, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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]
why are you even making me do this- the article ON WIKIPEDIA confirms he got no credit https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Reacher_(film)Maravelous (talk) 00:55, 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]

We do not cite IMDb as it is not a reliable source. That is not specific to this page. Vermont (talk) 21:21, 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]
Those sites are not all-encompassing and usually aren't reliable. Vermont (talk) 20:53, 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]
Please focus on content and policy.
IMDB is unreliable. See Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#IMDb and Wikipedia:External_links/Perennial_websites#IMDb. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 00:33, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Inquiry at biographies of living persons - noticeboard - entry added. Gryllida (talk) 01:34, 4 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]
The nominations for such prestigious awards are noteworthy. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 00:35, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
then so are the results Maravelous (talk) 00:54, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In the context of this article, that violates WP:NOT, OR, POV, and BLP. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 01:02, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
why are you making things up? FACTS cannot violate POV or BLP Maravelous (talk) 01:09, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid you're incorrect about "facts".
You've indicated you may be having ESL problems trying to work here. I agree. Please let it be. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 01:24, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I thought you were having the ESL issues and it seems to be the case. And yeah, Facts cannot violate BLP Maravelous (talk) 01:26, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Make an edit request and drop the harassment. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 01:38, 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]
Arguing over how to label strongly biased statements is a waste of time. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 00:01, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your patience and for fixing up the article and its references. This is appreciated. Gryllida (talk) 21:40, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

First draft argument[edit]

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]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Josh_Olson&oldid=1208219452"