Talk:Chris Pratt: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Create "VOX Quotes Are Reliably Sourced And Inclusion Is Justified"
Line 54: Line 54:
wiki user Morbidthoughts removed this content claiming "No evidence this WP:RSOPINION quote is WP:DUE". I believe Morbidthoughts' excision of this important quote of Vox is not the right way to think about this content, because I am not presenting an opinion of my own, or of VOX. VOX is correctly explaining the moral deficit Pratt exhibits that motivated Elliot Page to call Chris Pratt into account in the first place. It is not an "opinion" of VOX that Chris Pratt has not publicly confronted his church about their active bigotry toward LGBTQ+ people. It is not an "opinion" of VOX that this is the issue Elliot Page took with Chris Pratt, VOX has correctly summarized the moral issue Page addressed in her first tweet on the matter at hand, and there are no contrary "opinions" as to whether or not VOX's description of Page's concern is wrong. It is not "UNDUE" emphasis, for there is no publicly available information that would cast doubt upon Page's contention that Pratt passively accepts the homophobia of the Zoe branch of the Hillsong affiliated church's anti-homosexual policies, despite the fact that Pratt has ample wealth & power to simply select another church to attend & support or start a non-bigoted church of his own. Until someone provides evidence of a counter-claim that VOX's description of the conflict somehow does not fully describe the true state of the social media interactions between these famous actors on this moral issue, then there is no violation of WP:RSOPINION or WP:DUE. If Morbidthoughts can specify how this contnent violates those policies, we can make adjustments. But otherwise, this portion of content should remain in the article.
wiki user Morbidthoughts removed this content claiming "No evidence this WP:RSOPINION quote is WP:DUE". I believe Morbidthoughts' excision of this important quote of Vox is not the right way to think about this content, because I am not presenting an opinion of my own, or of VOX. VOX is correctly explaining the moral deficit Pratt exhibits that motivated Elliot Page to call Chris Pratt into account in the first place. It is not an "opinion" of VOX that Chris Pratt has not publicly confronted his church about their active bigotry toward LGBTQ+ people. It is not an "opinion" of VOX that this is the issue Elliot Page took with Chris Pratt, VOX has correctly summarized the moral issue Page addressed in her first tweet on the matter at hand, and there are no contrary "opinions" as to whether or not VOX's description of Page's concern is wrong. It is not "UNDUE" emphasis, for there is no publicly available information that would cast doubt upon Page's contention that Pratt passively accepts the homophobia of the Zoe branch of the Hillsong affiliated church's anti-homosexual policies, despite the fact that Pratt has ample wealth & power to simply select another church to attend & support or start a non-bigoted church of his own. Until someone provides evidence of a counter-claim that VOX's description of the conflict somehow does not fully describe the true state of the social media interactions between these famous actors on this moral issue, then there is no violation of WP:RSOPINION or WP:DUE. If Morbidthoughts can specify how this contnent violates those policies, we can make adjustments. But otherwise, this portion of content should remain in the article.
VOX said:<blockquote>Meanwhile, the reason this situation began in the first place is that Pratt does not appear to care about the way his church pastor talks about LGBTQ people, meaning that he is lending the enormous weight of his support to an organization that's been accused of harming a vulnerable community.</blockquote>
VOX said:<blockquote>Meanwhile, the reason this situation began in the first place is that Pratt does not appear to care about the way his church pastor talks about LGBTQ people, meaning that he is lending the enormous weight of his support to an organization that's been accused of harming a vulnerable community.</blockquote>

:The content added here [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chris_Pratt&type=revision&diff=1035389734&oldid=1035380340] is way too much. [[User:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|Gråbergs Gråa Sång]] ([[User talk:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|talk]]) 11:09, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Revision as of 11:09, 25 July 2021

Template:Vital article

Semi-protected edit request on 10 August 2020

change children to 2 45.49.122.205 (talk) 16:10, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Already done. RudolfRed (talk) 19:59, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chris pratt just had a baby daughter!!

her name is Lyla Maria Schwarzenegger Pratt born today i think he just posted on his facebook about it 30 ish mins ago — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:3D09:1180:5200:970:133D:237A:A21A (talk) 16:36, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cameo appearance

I believe he had a brief cameo as a singing telegram in P.S. I Love You, but he doesn't appear on the cast list so it seems uncredited. Can anyone confirm? danno_uk 17:19, 3 October 2020 (UTC) this is very false--Marvelfan111 (talk) 04:30, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Elliott Page"?

Is Elliott Page a significant enough person that his or her tweets matter to anyone at all? --2607:FEA8:D5DF:1AF0:59A5:255D:EFE7:DF65 (talk) 04:47, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant persons involved in the current conflict over highlighting or willfully ignoring Chris Pratt's moral deficit have the common feature that they are associated in the past or present with the Marvel Cinematic Universe. Most of them have portrayed superheroes on-screen, and THAT INCLUDES PAGE. Superheroes aren't merely expected to wield powers that break the physical laws of the universe, they're expected to wield moral virtues better than average humans do. Elliott is actually living up to that role in REAL LIFE, while Chris Pratt does not. Your own homophobia or passive support for religious bigotry is revealed by even posing this as a question. If Page, who is heroic, does not meet the standard of notoriety, then Pratt, who is morally failing, certainly does not meet the standard, no matter what absolute number of followers each has, for Page's morality is extremely fine, rarer, more valuable that Pratt's commonplace retrograde morals. I will not let my opinions discolor the neutrality of what I insert into the wiki articles. Will you let yours? ♠Ace Frahm♠talk 10:16, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also, NO ONE needs to meet any notability requirement to provide a pointed, correct critique of another person's bad morals on Wikipedia. If that were true, only wealthy, famous or powerful people would be allowed public speech rights. Peons would permanently have their voices squelched. And Page's criticism drew not just the attention but the interactions of millions of people. That investment of human lifetime proves his worth, even if you dislike him.. ♠Ace Frahm♠talk 10:26, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

VOX Quotes Are Reliably Sourced And Inclusion Is Justified

wiki user Morbidthoughts removed this content claiming "No evidence this WP:RSOPINION quote is WP:DUE". I believe Morbidthoughts' excision of this important quote of Vox is not the right way to think about this content, because I am not presenting an opinion of my own, or of VOX. VOX is correctly explaining the moral deficit Pratt exhibits that motivated Elliot Page to call Chris Pratt into account in the first place. It is not an "opinion" of VOX that Chris Pratt has not publicly confronted his church about their active bigotry toward LGBTQ+ people. It is not an "opinion" of VOX that this is the issue Elliot Page took with Chris Pratt, VOX has correctly summarized the moral issue Page addressed in her first tweet on the matter at hand, and there are no contrary "opinions" as to whether or not VOX's description of Page's concern is wrong. It is not "UNDUE" emphasis, for there is no publicly available information that would cast doubt upon Page's contention that Pratt passively accepts the homophobia of the Zoe branch of the Hillsong affiliated church's anti-homosexual policies, despite the fact that Pratt has ample wealth & power to simply select another church to attend & support or start a non-bigoted church of his own. Until someone provides evidence of a counter-claim that VOX's description of the conflict somehow does not fully describe the true state of the social media interactions between these famous actors on this moral issue, then there is no violation of WP:RSOPINION or WP:DUE. If Morbidthoughts can specify how this contnent violates those policies, we can make adjustments. But otherwise, this portion of content should remain in the article.

VOX said:

Meanwhile, the reason this situation began in the first place is that Pratt does not appear to care about the way his church pastor talks about LGBTQ people, meaning that he is lending the enormous weight of his support to an organization that's been accused of harming a vulnerable community.

The content added here [1] is way too much. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:09, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chris_Pratt&oldid=1035390176"