Jump to content

Talk:Gus Fring/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Assassins flee and change identities?

Hearfourmewesique,

Where is there support that "those who were close to [Pinochet] to flee the country and change their identities to avoid prosecution"? I cannot find such information in Manuel Rodríguez Patriotic Front.Television fan (talk) 16:49, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Pinochet

Owner of Pollos Hermanos

Just a thougt: in s04e07 at 42:00 Hank says that a german company based in Hannover ist the owner of pollos hermanos and provided some of the lab equippment for free. Furthermore Pinochet´s Chile was a hideaway for some Third Reich henchmen. So I assume Gustavos connection to the german company may came into being via the Pinochet administration an some Third Reich henchmen hiding in Chile.

Untitled

Hi is referred to as "little Generalissimo" by Hector.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.129.66.130 (talk • contribs)

Actually, the exact quote is "Grand Generalissimo", which Hector says in a mocking manner. Throughout the series, it has been strongly suggested that Gus was close to Pinochet, and the year of his immigration to Mexico, coupled with the fact that his current identity was non-existent prior to that year, basically spell out the obvious. It is also addressed by Esposito himself in this interview. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 17:05, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

"Throughout the series, it has been strongly suggested that Gus was close to Pinochet."

First, where in the series? I just watched each episode of the entire series, and the only mention of Pinochet by Gus about was that that Pinochet dictatorship kept "notoriously unreliable" records. This is supported by the AMC website.

Second, "strongly suggested" does makes it speculation -- not factual.

"and the year of his immigration to Mexico, coupled with the fact that his current identity was non-existent prior to that year, basically spell out the obvious."

You're arriving at a conclusion based upon speculation. The only thing we know is that Gus left Chile in 1986 and that there are no records to confirm his identification. You've made quite a bit of a leap to conclude that Gus tried to assignate Pincochet based upon these two facts which are mentioned in the series. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Television fan (talk • contribs) 18:03, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not arriving at a conclusion, read WP:NOTOR – you're edit-warring over a sidenote that tells us about an event that happened around the time Gus left Chile and changed his identity, when we semi-know (which is Gilligan's style) that he was a general in Pinochet's army. The article cannot state it, but it can hint to it by presenting a compilation of facts in a non-interpretative manner. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 15:17, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
How do you know he changed his identity? How do you know he was a general in Pinoche's army? You have presented no facts -- just flimsy supposition. From my watching of the episodes, maybe Gus just got tired of living in Chile and let at the same time when there was civil strife that led to the assignation attempt, and due to unrealiable record keeping, Chile lost his birth certificate. Do you really believe that he was a general in his army? In 1986, Gus might have been 25 years old? 30 years old? I seriously doubt that there are 30-year old generals.Television fan (talk) 16:02, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
So – your judgment of his age, how old generals should be and all that is the ultimate tool for building an article... not! We know that he is referred to as "Grand Generalissimo", we know that Don Eladio spares him because of his past status in Chile, we know that Esposito himself tells Yahoo! TV (a source, which you keep removing for no reason) that the production team knows about a "possible connection to Pinochet's government" (which, for some reason, makes you think there is no connection to Pinochet himself, but his government alone. Seriously???) and he is greatly relieved when Mike tells him that he couldn't find any records on him prior to 1986. There is not a single thing here that supports your ridiculous "maybe it's a flying pink elephant" throwaway. Everything points at Pinochet and a change of identity after the assassination attempt, and we merely present the reader with the option to learn about this historic event and if they want to arrive at a conclusion – God bless them. We do not form the conclusion, we present a compilation of facts. Again, read WP:NOTOR. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 19:26, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
You quote the Yahoo! TV reference as stating ""possible connection to Pinochet's government"? Where? It isn't stated in the Yahoo! TV reference. What you say is not supported in the Yahoo! TV reference.Television fan (talk) 20:09, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Where did Gus say he was close to Pinochet?

Hearfourmewesique,

You say: "Throughout the series, it has been strongly suggested that Gus was close to Pinochet."

First, where in the series? I just watched each episode of the entire series, and the only mention of Pinochet by Gus about was that that Pinochet dictatorship kept "notoriously unreliable" records. This is supported by the AMC website.

Second, "strongly suggested" does makes it speculation -- not factual.

You say: "and the year of his immigration to Mexico, coupled with the fact that his current identity was non-existent prior to that year, basically spell out the obvious."

You're arriving at a conclusion based upon speculation. The only thing we know is that Gus left Chile in 1986 and that there are no records to confirm his identification. You've made quite a bit of a leap to conclude that Gus tried to assignate Pincochet based upon these two facts which are mentioned in the series. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Television fan (talk • contribs) 18:12, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Tell me where in that version of the article did you see even once a conclusion that Gus tried to assassinate Pinochet? Read my response to "Untitled". Hearfourmewesique (talk) 15:22, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
The note you added sated: "On September 7, 1986 the Manuel Rodríguez Patriotic Front (FPMR) attacked Pinochet's car in an assassination attempt, which caused those who were close to him to flee the country and change their identities to avoid prosecution." You have used this tidbit as support that this is why Gus changed his identity and that he was close to Pinochet.Television fan (talk) 16:08, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
Again, tell me where you see a concrete conclusion (after re-reading WP:NOTOR). Hearfourmewesique (talk) 19:07, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Facts Learned in the Episodes of Gus's ties to Chile

(1) Gus left Chile in 1986. (2) No records of a "Gustavo Fring" in Chile. (3) The Pinochet dictatorship kept "notoriously unreliable" records.Television fan (talk) 18:24, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Facts NOT Learned in the Episodes of Gus's ties to Chile

Hearfourmewesique,

You are insistent on including the following fact in the article of Gus Fring:

"On September 7, 1986 the Manuel Rodríguez Patriotic Front (FPMR) attacked Pinochet's car in an assassination attempt, which caused those who were close to him to flee the country and change their identities to avoid prosecution."

While this might be a fact as you have stated and it might be interesting=, it has NOT BEEN MENTIONED in any episode. Thus, there is NO BASIS to conclude that (1) Gus was close to Pinochet, (2) Gus fled Chile to avoid prosecution, or (3) Gus's lack of identity was due to him changing it to avoid prosecution. All we know FROM THE EPISODES is that Gus's lack of identity in Chile was that the Pinochet dictatorship kept "notoriously unreliable" records.

Hearfourmewesique, please use facts from the episodes, please. Not inferences, sugestions, or speculation that Gus was part of the Manuel Rodríguez Patriotic Front (FPMR).Television fan (talk) 18:35, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Again, there is no speculation in the article, just a side note. Read my response to "Untitled". Hearfourmewesique (talk) 15:24, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Gus may have been 'aligned' with the government (and not Pinochet himself)

The Yahoo! TV interview mentioning Pinochet states the following:

"Esposito: We talked about it, and he said, "It'll be fantastic no matter what." At that point in time, he explained to me we will have already gone into Gus' background with the cartel [and get] some great stuff that maybe aligns [Gus] with the Pinochet government in Chile. I said, "OK great, as long as it's in a very fantastic and explosive — pardon the pun — way."

The only fact is that "Gus may have been 'aligned' with the government" and not Pinochet himself.Television fan (talk) 19:16, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

So... are you saying that the Pinochet government was not connected to Pinochet? You're being ridiculous, and your continuous reverts are borderline WP:POINT. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 15:25, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
Nope. Gus was aligned with the government.Television fan (talk) 16:21, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
...which cancels out him being aligned with Pinochet? Hearfourmewesique (talk) 18:55, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
Yes. Gus may be aligned with the government without even having personally met Pinochet. The Yahoo! TV reference states "the Pinochet government" and not Pinochet personally. Please stay true to what is stated in the reference.Television fan (talk) 20:22, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
...and it still is not a good enough reason for excluding a side note, which just serves as a subtle hint. If you fail to understand this, you are failing to understand the work in question – how can you write anything about it? Hearfourmewesique (talk) 20:38, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
If you didn't notice, I accepted that side note and put it back. In fact, I fixed the link to it. If you think the Yahoo! TV reference supports the side note, then it belongs in the side note. The Yahoo! TV reference does NOT support the sentence.Television fan (talk) 20:44, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

When discussed by Esposito

Hearfourmewesique,

The Yahoo! TV reference that you have cited is a discussion (or interview) with Esposito. It is during this conversation that we first learn that Gus might have been aligned with the government.Television fan (talk) 16:25, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Is this why you removed it again? Hearfourmewesique (talk) 19:14, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
First, you removed the sentence that Gus might have been aligned with the government. Second, the Yahoo! TV reference does not support what is stated in the sentence for which is used. The AMC reference that I have cited provides the support for what is stated in the sentence.Television fan (talk) 20:17, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
You have just directly contradicted your first post in this thread. Wow. Here's the quote:
We talked about it, and [Vince Gilligan] said, "It'll be fantastic no matter what." At that point in time, he explained to me we will have already gone into Gus' background with the cartel [and get] some great stuff that maybe aligns [Gus] with the Pinochet government in Chile.' Hearfourmewesique (talk) 20:37, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
Where's the contradiction? The quote from the Yahoo! TV reference supports the sentence which I wrote that Gus may have been aligned with the Pinochet government and which YOU removed. I used the Yahoo! TV reference to support Esposito's comment that Gus may have been aligned with the Pnochet governemnt which YOU removed.Television fan (talk) 20:52, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
You removed the Yahoo! TV reference again, without a just cause (it's always good to have a secondary source). You also repeated your ridiculous "touch up" of the side note, changing "note" to "ref" without a just cause. Pinochet's dictatorship was a few years before his fall, so your constant change of the wording lacks just cause as well. Stop. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 13:30, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
Say what? Did you read the sentence? The Yahoo! TV reference was NOT removed! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Television fan (talk • contribs) 13:45, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
Hearfourmewesique, Would you please read the series of corrections and amendments before doing a blanket revert? The sections that I've wrote read better than yours and align themselves with the references. It may be hard for you to believe, but some of your writings needed touching up. You're taking things personally and not objectively. :-)Television fan (talk) 13:51, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

OK, please explain how your versions are better to the point that it justifies a tenacious edit war on your end (you're the one who insists on changing the existing):

  1. "at the time of the dictatorship" vs. "a few years before the fall";
  2. "ref" vs. "note";
  3. "was likely involved in" vs. "may have been connected to";
  4. "before he emigrating [sic] to Mexico in 1986" vs. "left Chile in 1986";
  5. removing "leaving no traceable records";
  6. adding "When Max was shot in the head" to a side note about Gus' past, which makes the addition trivial in that context;
  7. "reminded him[...]but [sic] spared his life because he knew who Gus really was" vs. "tells him[...] upon sparing his life (which he does namely due to Gus' past)";
  8. repeatedly changing present tense to past tense, in direct contradiction with MOS. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 13:59, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
  1. "at the time of the dictatorship" vs. "a few years before the fall" --> As I stated in my initial edit, it matches the reference which does not mention the fall of Pinochet. Also, the fall of Pinochet five years after the fact is not relevant, is it? If so, maybe you can put it in the Note. Seems like a logical use of the Note.
  2. "ref" vs. "note" --> It fixes the link to the Note. Your link was dead.
  3. "was likely involved in" vs. "may have been connected to" --> This matches the reference. The reference gives the reader more certainty that Gus was involved -- not just that he "may have been" connected. Moreover, the Yahoo! TV reference does not use connected; it uses "aligned". Again, "was likely involved" gives more certainty than "amy have been aligned."
  4. "before he emigrating [sic] to Mexico in 1986" vs. "left Chile in 1986" --> The use of "emigrating" gives the reader two bits of information: leaving one country for another. Left Chile makes the reader ask "for where?". I have no problem with your phrase if you insist on using it.
  5. "removing "leaving no traceable records" --> The reference uses no "immigration" records. Use that instead of "traceable."
  6. adding "When Max was shot in the head" to a side note about Gus' past, which makes the addition trivial in that context --> The sentence was too long, read horribly, and the parenthetical reference is out of place. The sentence has two different thoughts, and the fact that you've used two references indicates this. Actually, three different thoughts: referring to him as a general, not in Chile, and know he he really is. The latter two can be combined into one sentence because both occurred at the same time. If you wish to remove the "shot in the head, then maybe you can start the second sentence with "Also" or "In addition". Just split the sentences and remove the paraenthetical. It reads horribly.
  7. "reminded him[...]but [sic] spared his life because he knew who Gus really was" vs. "tells him[...] upon sparing his life (which he does namely due to Gus' past)" --> see previous sentence.
  8. repeatedly changing present tense to past tense, in direct contradiction with MOS --> If present tense is proper in a Note and not the main article, then fine.Television fan (talk) 14:28, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
  1. Did the fall not occur a few years after the assassination attempt?
  2. I have already corrected myself regarding the link and note issue;
  3. Had you known the first thing about paraphrasing (which is crucial on Wikipedia), you would not have posed the issue of "aligned" vs. "connected". I'll watch the episode again to confirm the certainty of the connection (unless you can directly quote that part of the dialogue);
  4. "Before he emigrating" is grammatically incorrect. Also, this is a side note about Gus and Chile. The reader should care more that he left Chile, and not necessarily the country he chose to flee to;
  5. Traceable records of his identity, where in the world did I write "records of the immigration"?
  6. The sentence describes how his past is conveyed by Don Eladio and Hector on two directly related occasions, and the parenthetic segment is in place, as it reinforces the reason Don Eladio does not kill Gus on that day;
  7. The word "but" is used to interject a contradiction. Where is the contradiction between "reminded him" and "spared his life", when he spares his life because of what the reminder was?
  8. MOS applies to the entire article space, side notes included (upon describing plot bits, of course). Hearfourmewesique (talk) 14:49, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
  1. Did the fall not occur a few years after the assassination attempt? --> Yes, but Pinochet's fall has not been part of the storyline. If you wish to add this information, then it should be placed in the Note.
  2. I have already corrected myself regarding the link and note issue; --> Finally (after I corrected it on numerous occasions).
  3. Had you known the first thing about paraphrasing (which is crucial on Wikipedia), you would not have posed the issue of "aligned" vs. "connected". I'll watch the episode again to confirm the certainty of the connection (unless you can directly quote that part of the dialogue); --> LOOK at what the HERMANOS REFERENCE states! Although the Yahoo! TV reference mentions align, the Hermanos reference makes his relationship with the Pinochet government more tangible than "may be aligned." Again, READ the HERMANOS REFERENCE.
  4. "Before he emigrating" is grammatically incorrect. Also, this is a side note about Gus and Chile. The reader should care more that he left Chile, and not necessarily the country he chose to flee to. The sentence describes how his past is conveyed by Don Eladio and Hector on two directly related occasions, and the parenthetic segment is in place, as it reinforces the reason Don Eladio does not kill Gus on that day; --> I fixed the grammer. I agree with the substance, but your form is objectionable.
  5. The word "but" is used to interject a contradiction. Where is the contradiction between "reminded him" and "spared his life", when he spares his life because of what the reminder was? --> Look at my rewrite of the beginning of the sentence; it flows with the beginning of the previous sentence. Good point about the reminder. Maybe "told him"?
  6. MOS applies to the entire article space, side notes included (upon describing plot bits, of course). --> Ok.Television fan (talk) 14:58, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

July 2012 Edit Conflict

If you have a problem with a particular sentence, then address it one at a time. Please think objectively and don't take it personally. Your last sentence in the Note read horribly.Television fan (talk) 13:59, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

One more thing...your link to the Note did not work. Whay in the heck would you not want it to work? I fixed it, but thanks to your blanket reverts, you keep breaking it!Television fan (talk) 14:00, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Dude, this is a serious WP:COMPETENCE issue on your end. Judging by your poor rewrite of the last sentence (and multiple reverts to that version), you might want to switch to Simple Wikipedia. For real. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 14:04, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
Hearfourmewesique, Before vandelizing the articles and doing a blanket reversion, read the sentence. My changes include a couple of your ideas. BTW...thanks for FINALLY fixing the dead link. After suffering through your needless blanket reversions, it seems that you finally read why the comments!Television fan (talk) 14:49, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
I'll give you the chance to self-revert, and if it's not done when I come back this goes to an admin board. You're incompetent and adamant. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 15:02, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Hearfourmewesique, Please read the reference. It would help you understand that "traceable" is not there.Television fan (talk) 15:06, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Hearfourmewesique, I take issue with your blanket reversions......which constitutes vandelism. In case you didn't notice, you have made many corrections based upon my comments. Your vandelism comprised of blanket reversions is not necessary and unproductive. In case you didn't notice, I have made changes as the result of your comments, too. I don't mind making corrections based on supported comments.Television fan (talk) 15:11, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Read WP:VANDAL. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 18:20, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Hearfourmewesique, Compare the two paragraphs:

Yours:

On September 7, 1986 the Manuel Rodríguez Patriotic Front attacked Pinochet's car in an assassination attempt.[11] Gus may have been connected to Pinochet's government[12] and left Chile in 1986, leaving no traceable records.[4] At one point, Gus is referred to as "Grand Generalissimo" by Hector Salamanca in a phone conversation,[13] and Don Eladio tells him that he is "not in Chile anymore" upon sparing his life (which he does namely due to Gus' past).[4]

Mine:

On September 7, 1986 the Manuel Rodríguez Patriotic Front attacked Pinochet's car in an assassination attempt.[11] Gus was likely involved in Pinochet's government before emigrating to Mexico in 1986 and leaving no immigration records.[4][12] On one occasion, Gus is referred to as "Grand Generalissimo" by Hector Salamanca in a phone conversation.[13] On another occasion, Don Eladio tells Gus that he was "not in Chile anymore" but spares his life because he knows who Gus really is.[4]

Mine reads better and is wholly supported by the references. Yours does not and is not.Television fan (talk) 15:18, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Your grammar is sub par, and your facts are imprecise.
  1. "involved in Pinochet's government" – wrong. "involved with Pinochet's government" – better. "connected to Pinochet's government" – ambiguous enough to work without extra speculations.
  2. "before emigrating to Mexico in 1986 and leaving no immigration records" – Mexico is irrelevant, we should emphasize his leave of Chile. "Traceable" is an important adjective, we are referring to Gus' personal records, not necessarily immigration papers. The sentence structure is incorrect as "leaving no records" is attached to his leave, not an additional fact that should be separated by "and".
  3. "On one occasion[...]on another occasion" – the two occasions are not so far apart and are directly connected (the phone call is a pre-discussion of the execution).
  4. The last sentence is inconsistent tense wise (tells Gus that he was) and is, again, of sub par grammar (he knows who Gus really is? Who is he, the Hulk? Batman?). Please refrain from future reverts until this discussion is finished. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 18:07, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
Your grammar is sub par, and the Hermanos (Breaking Bad) Reference supports my language. Have you even bothered looking at the Hermanos (Breaking Bad) Reference? PLEASE NOTE THAT THREE OF THE FOLLOWING TOPICS ARE SUPPORTED BY THE HERMANOS (BREAKING BAD) REFERENCE:
  1. "involved in Pinochet's government" ---> From the Hermanos (Breaking Bad) Reference: "Series creator Vince Gilligan has said Fring was likely involved in the government of former Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet[.]" Let's stick to the Hermanos (Breaking Bad) Reference, eh?
  2. "before emigrating to Mexico in 1986 and leaving no immigration records" – Mexico is irrelevant, we should emphasize his leave of Chile. "Traceable" is an important adjective, we are referring to Gus' personal records, not necessarily immigration papers. The sentence structure is incorrect as "leaving no records" is attached to his leave, not an additional fact that should be separated by "and". ---> From the Hermanos (Breaking Bad) Reference: "there are no immigration records of anyone with that name in Chile" Let's stick to the Hermanos (Breaking Bad) Reference, eh? While "traceable" might be important to you, you don't have support in the Hermanos (Breaking Bad) Reference. If you want to include "traceable," then how about providing a reference?
  3. "On one occasion[...]on another occasion" – the two occasions are not so far apart and are directly connected (the phone call is a pre-discussion of the execution). --> Let's spell out each occasion.
  4. The last sentence is inconsistent tense wise (tells Gus that he was) and is, again, of sub par grammar (he knows who Gus really is? Who is he, the Hulk? Batman?). --> From the Hermanos (Breaking Bad) Reference: "Eladio tells a distraught Gus that he is not dead because Eladio knows who Gus really is." Let's stick to the Hermanos (Breaking Bad) Reference, eh?
Please refrain from future reverts until this discussion is finished.Television fan (talk) 20:08, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
I'll address a couple of your points, since you're really tiring me here. The {{cite episode}} template is designed to cite the episode, not the Wikipedia text, since Wikipedia is not a reliable source for other Wikipedia articles. Moreover, copypasting other people's text is a clear WP:COPYVIO and should be avoided by paraphrasing, which is exactly what I did. Therefore: if Mike could not trace Gus' records, the records are not traceable – this is how Wikipedia is written. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 18:08, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Hearfourmewesique,

What is it that you are trying to covey to the reader of the Note?

Creator of the show Vince Gilligan has already stated that Gus "was likely involved" in Pinochet's government. In your Note, are you trying to highlight supporting facts that Gus "was likely involved"? If so, the latest writing supports such theory:

Prior to the fall of the Pinochet dictatorship in 1990, the Manuel Rodríguez Patriotic Front attacked Pinochet's car in an assassination attempt on September 7, 1986.[11] Gus was likely involved in Pinochet's government before leaving Chile in 1986.[4][12] Although there are no immigration records of anyone with Gus' name, Hector Salamanca refers to him as "Grand Generalissimo" during a telephone call.[13] In addition, Don Eladio tells Gus that he is "not in Chile anymore" during a poolside execution of Max but spares his life because he knows who Gus really is.[4]

As a reader, this is my takeaway:

(First sentence) Pinochet's dictatorship fell in 1990 but prior to that, he was almost assassinated.
(Second sentence) Gus was likely involved in Pinochet's government, but left in 1986 because it was getting a bit too dangerous in 1986 for folks like him that were involved in Pinochet's dictatorship.
(Third sentence) Gus left in a hurry because of the assassination attempt (because there is no immigrating information), and being called a general is another fact which provides proof that Gus was likely involved in Pinochet's government.
(Fourth sentence) Being told that he is "not in Chile anymore" and having his life spared during an execution because someone "knows who [he] really is" are other facts which provide proof that Gus was likely involved in Pinochet's government.

If you are trying to show the reader with facts that Gus "was likely involved" in Pinochet's government, then you have succeeded.

Whatever it is, I could care less. I just want the information to be objective facts that stay true to the references and not subjective speculation or personal theory. Television fan (talk) 14:31, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Read my response in the thread right above this one. You really don't understand the policies and guidelines you cite. Your command of the English language is also far from satisfactory. As I suggested earlier, you can brush up your skills on Simple Wikipedia for a while. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 18:11, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Revision Notes

Hearfourmewesique,

Here are your sentences that I've corrected for the following reasons:

He was born in Chile and emigrated to Mexico in 1986, a few years before the fall of Augusto Pinochet....Having been connected to Pinochet's government,[12] Gus left Chile in 1986, leaving no traceable records.[4] At one point, Gus is referred to as "Grand Generalissimo" by Hector Salamanca in a phone conversation,[13] and during a later altercation, Don Eladio tells him that he is "not in Chile anymore" upon sparing his life (which he does namely due to his knowledge of Gus' past).[4]

  1. He was born in Chile and emigrated to Mexico in 1986, a few years before the fall of Augusto Pinochet.
    1. The "fall" is irrelevant information because it has not been mentioned as part of the storyline. While it is true that 1986 is a few years before 1990, it is irrelevant to the article about Gus Fring. It belongs in the side note.
  2. Having been connected to Pinochet's government,[12] Gus left Chile in 1986, leaving no traceable records.[4]
    1. Wrong in two places. First, there is no certain connection between Gus and the government. According to series creator Gilligan in Hermanos (Breaking Bad), Gus "was likely involved" in Pinochet's government -- not "was involved." Second, "traceable" is opinion-based information of your personal conclusion.
  3. At one point, Gus is referred to as "Grand Generalissimo" by Hector Salamanca in a phone conversation,[13]
    1. At one point? During a phone conversion? Isn't the "one point" the "phone conversation"? This is duplicative information.
  4. and during a later altercation, Don Eladio tells him that he is "not in Chile anymore" upon sparing his life (which he does namely due to his knowledge of Gus' past)
    1. First, the parenthetical is opinion-based information of your personal conclusion. Second, you have not used "namely" properly.Television fan (talk) 13:25, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
You really don't get paraphrasing, do you? "Traceable" is a retelling of what we know from the series, but I've explained that. "A few years before the fall" is a paraphrased version of "during the reign". "At one point" is short for "at one point in time", which describes the phone conversation. "Namely due to his knowledge of Gus' past" is a paraphrased version of "specifically because he knows who Gus really is". I think I'm done here. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 21:22, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment: if you make a change which lessens the relevance of a passage, that change will be most likely reverted. However, if your claim of irrelevance pertains to a chunk of an already existing text (it was there before this whole thing started), you need to surpass the existing text in a meaningful manner in order to justify that change. Therefore, your persistent change of "a few years before the fall of Pinochet" is meaningless, trivial, and gets in the way of a later GA assessment. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 21:30, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

‎Hearfourmewesique,

Let's keep out extraneous and superfluous information from the Note. The purpose of the Note (as I see it) is to provide facts that show a relationship between Gus and the Pinochet government. All other facts, while being true, are not necessary.

  1. The September date of the assassination attempt is extraneous and superfluous information; all we know is the year of Gus's departure from Chile, so the September date is too much, i.e., irrelevant and immaterial.
  2. The adjectives "immigration" or "traceable" are extraneous and superfluous; all that is needed is the fact that there are "no" Chilean records of Gus in existence (which is referenced by the newly-added AMC website).
  3. The fact that the Hector and Gus discussion took place over the phone is extraneous and superfluous information; all that is needed is the content of Hector's comment to show the Gus-Pinochet relationship.
  4. The fact that Eladio's comments to Gus were made at the poolside execution is extraneous and superfluous information; all that is needed is the content of Eladio's comments to show the Gus-Pinochet relationship.Television fan (talk) 14:08, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
I've just about had it with these so-called "discussions". Talk to me when you learn a little about proper encyclopedic writing. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 20:43, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Attempt at third party Administrative Intervention

Jesus. Tap dancing. Christ.

I can hardly believe what I'm seeing here.

Okay, let's get a few things straight:

1. First off, both of you are edit warring period. Period. And you need to stop. Once it is clear that an editor who disagrees with you does not intend to back down from their position on a particular point (I usually stop reverting if the other guy reverts more than twice), and there is no clear-cut policy violation or vandalism, that is when the reverts are to CEASE. That means you stop editing, talk it out on the talk page, and you don't edit the page (the disputed portions, at least), until that discussion is concluded. I've protected the page from further edits until the disputed matters are so resolved.

2. Both of you need to knock it off with the accusation of "vandalism". ([1][2][3][4]) Unless either of you believe that the other is intentionally trying to disrupt Wikipedia, and can illustrate that intent to the exclusion of any other intent, then simply put, you don't make that accusation. It would appear that both of you are editing in good faith, in that you both believe that your version of the article is the appropriate or better one. That is not vandalism, regardless of whether one of you is flat-out wrong, or operating out of ignorance, or whether you are angered by your opponent's position or behavior. Blanket reverts do constitute edit warring, but not "vandalism".

3. In answer to your question on my talk page, Hearfourmewesique, yes, you are supposed to adhere to the Civility Policy, even when frustrated by another editor's behavior. This does not mean you cannot criticize their behavior, or explain what policies they are violating (if any), or present the reasoning by which you believe that policy or guidelines are or are not being properly interpreted, or the article is best served by one version over a another. But this does not mean you can just fling WP:CIV out the window. Yes, I understand you can get angry; I do too, and have in the past. But if you cannot engage another editor with whom you disagree without civility, then simply put, you need to step back a bit, cool down, and possibly leave the matter alone for a day or three, and see if staying away from it may allow you to develop a better perspective on it. And when I say this; I'm not taking sides; this advice could really benefit both of you.

4. For the love of god, please stop using section headings as the beginning of talk page messages. Headings should separated distinct discussion, or stages of really long discussions. I know this may be a comparatively minor point, but for heaven's sake, headings not should be arbitrary or decorative.

5. Before I get to my recommendation for this conflict–and this may be unrelated to the current conflict–I want to know: Why is there an in-universe note about the character above the References section? Why is this not incorporated into the rest of the article body as it should? I know it touches upon a real-life biographical figure, but it appears to do so only in relation to the fictional character that is the subject of the article. Is there a legitimate reason why the information presented with the rest of the fictional character biography? Can't it be integrated with the rest?

6. Here is what I'm going to ask both of you to do: I know you've already touched upon the points of conflict, but I don't know if I can slog through the entire thing and get it all accurately. So I'd like you to list each of the specific areas in which you are still in disagreement. Describe the passage or matter in question (perhaps in boldface?), and then beneath or next to that matter, describe your position and why you hold them. Cite the relevant policy and/or guidelines that you feel support your position. Explain why you disagree with your opponents position, and without personal invective. When referring to your opponent's position, make sure you do accurately and neutrally. Use diffs where appropriate. Since you've already spoken at length about these matters above, you can summarize them here. I'll try to see if I can help. I don't watch this show, but then hopefully that will aide in my objectivity. If I am unable to resolve this in whole or in part, I might request Third Opinion, RfC, call in another admin, etc.

Point by Point

This is a dispute over the use of language contained in four sentences. Yes, four sentences. The first sentence of the protected article appears in the main article, references a Note, and reflects the latest contribution of Hearfourmewesique (hereinafter, “my colleague”); the other three sentences of the protected article comprise the Note and reflect my latest contribution.

For the following reasons, the contributions of my colleague should be deleted and replaced:

  1. At least one sentence is not supported by the cited reference.
  2. At least one sentence is not an accurate “paraphrase.”
  3. At least one sentence lacks encyclopedic tone.
  4. The information contained in at least one sentence is unnecessary, irrelevant, immaterial, extraneous, superfluous, or any combination of these.
  5. At least one sentence creates an inter-article inconsistency, i.e., an inconsistency between Wikipedia articles.
  6. At least one sentence creates an intra-article inconsistency, i.e., an inconsistency within the article.

THE FIRST SENTENCE

In the protected article (which reflects the latest contribution of my colleague), the first sentence states the following:

He was born in Chile and emigrated to Mexico in 1986, a few years before the fall of Augusto Pinochet (Emphasis added).

In my opinion, the first sentence should read as follows:

Little is known about Fring's past. He was born in Chile and emigrated to Mexico in 1986 at the time of the dictatorship of Augusto Pinochet.[4][^] (Emphasis added).

Both first sentences cite Ref 4 as support. In Ref 4, the following is stated:

Hank (Dean Norris) asks if Gus Fring is his real name, as there are no immigration records of anyone with that name in Chile, but Gus says he immigrated , at the time of Augusto Pinochet's dictatorship, which was notorious for poor record keeping. (Emphasis added).

The First Sentence is Neither Supported by the Cited Reference Nor an not an Accurate “Paraphrase”

Firstly, the language of my first sentence is supported by the reference; the language of my colleague is not supported.
Secondly, my colleague has justified the use of his language as a “paraphrase” of the reference. In support of his edit, he stated the following: “[d]id the fall not occurs a few years after the assassination attempt?” (Emphasis in original). Essentially, he states that a paraphrase is proper if the sequence of events is correct.
Is this a proper basis for a paraphrase? Isn’t a paraphrase supposed to maintain the same meaning and not to give a different meaning?
My colleague’s contribution is not accurate paraphrase of what the reference states. The reference makes no mention of "the fall" of Pinochet. A paraphrase is not proper merely because it happens to be factually truthful or provides a correct sequence in time. If it was, I would have no objection; however, this is not the issue.
The issue is whether the paraphrase is relevant or material to the character biography of Gus (where Character Biography is the title of the section). “The fall” of the Pinochet government has not been introduced into either the storyline or the back story of Gus. Information about “the fall” is extraneous and superfluous, and as such, irrelevant and immaterial to the biography. It gives a different meaning by injecting new information not supported in the reference. If a reader is interested in the dictatorship and determine if it still in existence, a link has been provided.
Moreover, this “paraphrase” creates an inter-article inconsistency, i.e., an inconsistency of language between Wikipedia articles. Here, my colleague has placed his understanding of the meaning of “paraphrase” over the readability and quality gained through the use of consistent language.
Although the additional information provided in the “paraphrase” is not appropriate for the Character Biography section, “the fall” information is probably suited for the Note given my colleague’s past comments about Side Notes. In fact, I included “the fall” information in at least one of my previous edits.
Unfortunately, my colleague has discarded my contribution without explanation or discussion; that is, he has not explained why “the fall” is not more suitable for the Note (if suitable at all).

For these reasons, the clause “at the time of the dictatorship of Augusto Pinochet” should replace “a few years before the fall of Augusto Pinochet” in the first sentence.

  • Comment by Hearfourmewesique: The meaning of "paraphrase" is "rewrite in your own words, while keeping the original meaning". Essentially, it is historically accurate that Pinochet's fall was after 1986, and Gus left Chile during his reign, which was before the fall. Therefore, it is more than reasonable to use that paraphrase. Moreover, Television Fan has been advised by me that directly quoting another, including Wikipedia, is WP:COPYVIO (and {{cite episode}} is not an attribution of the Wikipedia text), but he seems to stick to WP:IDIDNOTHEARTHAT. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 17:25, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

ENCYCLOPEDIC TONE

I have been accused by my colleague of not writing is an “encyclopedic” tone. Frankly, “a few years before the fall of Augusto Pinochet” falls short of being an encyclopedic tone; instead, it provides a squishy, imprecise tone (i.e., a tone of imprecision or uncertainty). Seriously, a “few” years? In my opinion, an encyclopedic tone of “the fall” that is suitable for the Note may be comprised of one of the following:

  1. four years before the fall of Augusto Pinochet
  2. four years prior to the fall of Augusto Pinochet
  3. before the fall of Augusto Pinochet in 1990
  4. prior to the fall of Augusto Pinochet in 1990
  • Comment by Hearfourmewesique: "a few years before the fall of Augusto Pinochet" is a general statement that correlates with the year 1986 (as I already stated above), and is perfectly encyclopedic in its tone. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 17:25, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

THE THREE SENTENCES OF THE NOTE

In the protected article (which reflects my editorial language), the Note states the following:

Gus left Chile in 1986, the same year in which the Manuel Rodríguez Patriotic Front attempted to assassinate Pinochet.[11] Although there are no existing Chilean records of Gus,[12] there are two instances which demonstrate his likely involvement in the Pinochet government: [4][13] Hector Salamanca refers to Gus as "Grand Generalissimo," [14] and Don Eladio tells Gus that he is "not in Chile anymore" but spares his life because he knows who Gus really is.[4]

The latest Note of my colleague states the following:

On September 7, 1986 the Manuel Rodríguez Patriotic Front attacked Pinochet's car in an assassination attempt.[11] Having been likely connected to Pinochet's government,[12] Gus left Chile in 1986, leaving no traceable records.[4] At one point, Gus is referred to as "Grand Generalissimo" by Hector Salamanca in a phone conversation,[13] and during a later altercation, Don Eladio tells him that he is "not in Chile anymore" upon sparing his life (which he does namely due to his knowledge of Gus' past).[4]

In my opinion, my colleague has added the Note to the article (1) to inform the reader that a group of people tried to assassinate Pinochet, (2) to demonstrate or convey to the reader of the possible relationship between Gus and the Pinochet government, and (3) to highlight instances in the storyline where this relationship is demonstrated. In doing so, the following points have been raised:

  1. Gus left Chile in 1986. (Ref. 4).
  2. On September 7, 1986 the Manuel Rodríguez Patriotic Front attacked Pinochet's car in an assassination attempt. (Ref. 12)
  3. ”Hank wonders why no record of Gus exists in Chile.” (Ref. 11)
  4. There are no immigration records of anyone with Gus’ name in Chile. (Ref. 4)
  1. There are no traceable records of anyone with Gus’ name in Chile. (No reference)
  1. Gus was likely involved in the government of former Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet. (Ref. 4)
  2. ”At that point in time, he explained to me we will have already gone into Gus' background with the cartel [and get] some great stuff that maybe aligns [Gus] with the Pinochet government in Chile.” (Ref. 13)
  3. Gus is referred to as "Grand Generalissimo" by Hector Salamanca in a phone conversation. (Ref. 14 cited, but no such support in Ref. 14; however, I don’t dispute this, but a new reference needs to be found)
  1. Don Eladio tells Gus that he is "not in Chile anymore" but spares his life “because Eladio knows who Gus really is.” (Ref 4)

MY COLLEAGUE’S FIRST SENTENCE OF THE NOTE

The following is a restatement from above of the first sentence of the latest Note of my colleague:
On September 7, 1986 the Manuel Rodríguez Patriotic Front attacked Pinochet's car in an assassination attempt.[11]

The “September Date” Should Be Removed from the Note

The September date of the assassination attempt is unnecessary, extraneous, and superfluous information. Throughout the storyline, only the year of Gus's departure from Chile is known. As such, the “September date” is too much, i.e., irrelevant and immaterial. Its absence will only enhance the Note’s readability. If a reader is interested in the exact date, a link and a reference has been provided.
Unfortunately, my colleague has discarded my contribution without explanation or discussion; that is, he has not justified the presence of the “September date” in the Note.

For these reasons, the “September date” should be removed.

  • Comment by Hearfourmewesique: really? Is "September 7" such a cluuter that you have to take an existing text and remove one word and one digit? The difference is not that meaningful, and since it was the original version (which was there before this whole story even started) it should be kept intact. There is no real justification to start a war over removing that little. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 17:25, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

MY COLLEAGUE’S SECOND SENTENCE OF THE NOTE

The following is a restatement from above of the second sentence of the latest Note of my colleague:
Having been likely connected to Pinochet's government,[12] Gus left Chile in 1986, leaving no traceable records.

The Reference Does Not Support “Traceable” Records

The language of “traceable” records is not supported in the cited reference. My colleague has been informed by me that I would not object to “traceable” if it had support.
  • Comment by Hearfourmewesique: as stated above, as no one (including Mike and the DEA) could trace his records, it means no traceable records were left. An accurate and encyclopedic paraphrasing is not original research. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 17:25, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
Although support for traceable is lacking, there is support for “immigration” records which my previous edits contained. Since then, I added Ref. 11 which, when paraphrased, states that there are no existing Chilean records of Gus. In my opinion, “no existing Chilean records” subsumes both the supported “immigration” records and the unsupported “traceable” records, rendering both “immigration” and “traceable” as being extraneous and superfluous.
Unfortunately, my colleague has discarded my contribution without explanation or discussion; that is, he has not explained why “no existing Chilean records” should not be used in place of “immigration” and “traceable.”

The Reference Does Not Support a Mere “Connection”

My colleague has not provided support for the clause “[h]aving been likely connected to Pinochet's government[.]” “Connected to” is not supported in either Ref. 13 or Ref. 4. Ref. 13 states that Gus might be “aligned” with the Pinochet government, and Ref. 4 states that Gus “was likely involved in” the government. In my opinion, the statement that “Gus was likely involved in” is much better than “Gus might be aligned” because “is likely” provides a higher probability of involvement that “might be aligned.” Besides, what does “being aligned” really mean? I can be aligned with a political party without being connected to it or involved in it.

”Connected to” is not an Accurate “Paraphrase”

My colleague justifies his use of “connected to” as a “paraphrase” of the references; however, it is not an accurate paraphrase because it gives a different meaning by expanding Gus' relationship with the government. In Ref. 4, series creator Vince Gilligan uses in which places Gus within, inside, or internal to the government with certainty. To use "connected to" opens up the possibility that Gus’ relationship with the government might be one that is located from the outside or externally to the government and removes the certainty that Gus is likely “in” the government. I can be “connected to” a political party through correspondence without being “involved in” the party. Because a different meaning has been given and the scope of the referenced material has been broadened, the edit of my colleague is not an accurate paraphrase.

For these reasons, the phrase “connected to” should be removed.

  • Comment by Hearfourmewesique: yes, you can be connected to a party without being involved in it, but you cannot be involved in it without being connected to it; therefore, "connected" works for all cases, and we need the ambiguity not to state anything beyond the given sources. This is, again, a matter of language, where Television Fan seems to lack the needed proficiency (I already advised them to brush up their skills on Simple Wikipedia). Hearfourmewesique (talk) 17:25, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

A SIDE NOTE

I should mention that my colleague has treated Pinochet and the Pinochet government as one in the same. They are not. When “Pinochet” is used by itself, Pinochet is a noun that refers to the man personally. When “the Pinochet government” is used, “Pinochet” is an adjective modifying the noun “government.” When a reference includes the language of “the Pinochet government,” it addresses the government and not Pinochet the man. The two should be treated separately for future edits.

  • Comment by Hearfourmewesique: obviously, we are not referring to "Pinochet the fisherman" or "Pinochet the theater lover"... I mean, come on. This one is pretty much self explanatory. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 17:25, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

MY COLLEAGUE’S THIRD SENTENCE OF THE NOTE

The following is a restatement from above of the third sentence of the latest Note of my colleague:
At one point, Gus is referred to as "Grand Generalissimo" by Hector Salamanca in a phone conversation,[13] and during a later altercation, Don Eladio tells him that he is "not in Chile anymore" upon sparing his life (which he does namely due to his knowledge of Gus' past).[4]

The ”Phone Conversation” Should Be Removed from the Note

Firstly, the fact that the Hector-Gus discussion took place over the phone is extraneous and superfluous information. In order to demonstrate the possible relationship between Gus and the Pinochet government, all that is needed is the statement in which “Hector Salamanca refers to Gus as ‘Grand Generalissimo’[.]" Excluding “the phone conversation” will only enhance the Note’s readability. If a reader is interested in more information about the "Grand Generalissimo" statement, a reference has been provided.
Secondly, in the Character Biography section, Hector’s “Grand Generalissimo” statement is made in a “flashback scene.” Removal of the “phone conversation” will remove an intra-article inconsistency and avoid reader confusion: Did it happen in a flashback scene? A phone conversation? Both? Intra-article consistency enhances the aticle's readability (i.e., quality).
Comment by Hearfourmewesique: and again... really? Does "in a flashback scene" exclude "in a phone conversation"? Are there no phone conversations in flashback scenes? This is beginning to border WP:TROLL behavior... either that or severe WP:COMPETENCE issues. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 17:25, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
Unfortunately, my colleague has discarded my contribution without explanation or discussion; that is, he has not explained why the “the phone conversation” should not be removed from the Note. Moreover, the avoidance of intra-article inconsistency needs to be considered.

For these reasons, the phrase “the phone conversation” should be removed.

“Later Altercation” Should Be Removed from the Note

The fact that Eladio's comments to Gus were made during a later altercation (or an execution as I had stated in my previous edits) is extraneous and superfluous information. In order to demonstrate the possible relationship between Gus and the Pinochet government, all that is needed is the statement in which “Don Eladio tells Gus that he is ‘not in Chile anymore’ but spares his life because he knows who Gus really is." Excluding “a later altercation” will only enhance the Note’s readability.
  • Comment by Hearfourmewesique: no it will not. This is essential information that separates the two instances (the phone conversation and the later altercation) and puts the information in its necessary context. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 17:25, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
Unfortunately, my colleague has discarded my contribution without explanation or discussion; that is, he has not explained why the “later altercation” should not be removed from the Note.

For these reasons, the phrase “later altercation” should be removed.

The Parenthetical Phrase “namely due to his knowledge of Gus' past” Should Be Removed from the Note

Firstly, I believe my colleague means "mainly" and not "namely" because the latter means "that is to say." (See http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/namely).
Secondly, my colleague has not provided support for the parenthetical clause “which he does namely due to his knowledge of Gus' past[.]” “Knowledge of Gus’ past” is not supported in Ref. 4; instead, Ref. 4 states that Gus’ life is spared “because Eladio knows who Gus really is.”
My colleague justifies his use of the parenthetical clause as a paraphrase of the reference; however, it is not an accurate paraphrase because it is an editor-based conclusion based on personal opinion, a conclusion that should be left to the discretion of the reader. Moreover, his “paraphrase” gives a different meaning by foreclosing the possibility that Eladio’s knowledge is a knowledge of Gus’ present or future. While it may be intuitive to conclude that Eladio’s knowledge of Gus is knowledge of a past relationship between Gus and the Pinochet government, we cannot exclude the possibilities that Eladio’s knowledge of Gus is knowledge of Gus’ (1) present desire to establish a relationship with Eladio, (2) future desire to establish a dealership throughout the southwestern US, or (3) both.
  • Comment by Hearfourmewesique: based on everything written so far, coupled with the fact that the Wikipedia text (which Television Fan still insists on quoting in violation of WP:COPYVIO despite being told not to) is based on Don Eladio telling Gus "You're not in Chile anymore", Television Fan's assumptions are not aligned with the provided reference, but is rather based upon the wording of another Wikipedia editor. Moreover, considering all that has been said here, Television Fan's behavior is beginning to resemble WP:POINT more and more. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 17:25, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
Thirdly, in the Character Biography section, Eladio “spares Gus' life only because he knows who Gus is, and warns him that he "isn't in Chile anymore[.]" (Emphasis added). Removal of my colleague’s “parenthetical clause” will remove an intra-article inconsistency and avoid reader confusion: Does “he knows who Gus is” and “knowledge of Gus' past” mean the same thing? Why are there two different descriptions of the same event in the same article? Intra-article consistency enhances the aticle's readability (i.e., quality).

For these reasons, the parenthetical phrase “namely due to his knowledge of Gus' past” should be removed.

A CERTAIN FUTURE EDIT

As mentioned above, some of the contents of the Note repeat the same information as contained in the Character Biography section. As such, I suggest the next edit of the Note to read as follows:

Gus left Chile in 1986, the same year in which the Manuel Rodríguez Patriotic Front attempted to assassinate Pinochet.[11] Although there are no existing Chilean records of Gus,[12] there are two instances which demonstrate his likely involvement in the Pinochet government. As stated above, Hector Salamanca refers to Gus as "Grand Generalissimo," and Don Eladio tells Gus that he is "not in Chile anymore" but spares his life because he knows who Gus really is. (Emphasis added).

In addition, since “as stated above” is used, Refs. 4 and 14 need to be placed appropriately in the following sentence of the Character Biography section:

Don Eladio, the cartel's leader, mentions that he spares Gus' life only because he knows who Gus is, and warns him that he "isn't in Chile anymore"; in a flashback scene, Hector Salamanca mockingly refers to him as "Grand Generalissimo". Moreover, these sentences (or the Notes sentences) could be rearranged, rewritten, or both to match each other.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, my colleague’s contributions should be deleted and replaced.

  • Comment by Hearfourmewesique: based on everything said here, my edits are more encyclopedic and precise, and they maintain a higher level of language and grammar. For that reason, they should stay. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 17:25, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Respectfully submitted,

Television fan (talk) 20:31, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

What is the Next Step?

Nightscream: After reading my colleague's comments, there is much to rebut. What is the next step? Suffice to say, my colleague has failed to convince me that I am wrong, and I disagree with much of what he has to say. Moreover, his comments are simply not persuasive (as they are conclusory).

He broad-brushes Wikipedia references without providing specific information stated therein. I have read the Wikipedia references but am unable to determine where he claims support in making his point; I would like for him to provide quotes from the Wikipedia references where he finds support for his opinion/conclusions (maybe then he can show me the "errors in my ways"). For now, his contributions should not be allowed to stay for the reasons I've stated above.

Do you step in and comment? Ask questions? Suggest a solution?

I will add that, as far as the first sentence goes, I will not object to my colleague's use of "reign" (his word that accurately paraphrases "dictatorship") and use it as follows: "He was born in Chile and emigrated to Mexico in 1986 during the reign of Augusto Pinochet." It is short, sweet, and very concise; that is, it shortens both of our contributions by three words while keeping the original meaning of Ref. 4. Television fan (talk) 19:15, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Hearfourmewesique, may I make a request? I know this may be asking for much, but it far easier for me to read and distinguish different posts by different editors if they are separated. Adding your answers to each point by TelevisionFan inside his post make it much harder for me to sift through. Yes, I know some editors prefer your method, but since you're asking me to mediate this, would you mind putting your responses in a separate post? You can refer to the individual point with a summarized title or just quote the passage by him that you're responding to, as I sometimes do. I apologize if this gives you more work to do, but there's a lot of material to go through. Also, I'm going to a family wake tomorrow, and a funeral the day after that, so there is a possibility that I won't be able to respond until Tuesday. Hopefully we'll all be able to be patient until then. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 20:55, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
Hearfourmewesique, if you put your responses in separate posts as requested by Nightscream, I have a request, too. Could you please quote from the Wikipedia references the sentence(s) contained in the references that I'm accused of violating (or would violate if my contributions are incorporated)? As I stated in this section earlier today, I have read the Wikipedia references which you cite (which include {{cite episode}}, WP:COPYVIO, WP:TROLL, WP:POINT, and WP:COMPETENCE), but I am unable to determine where you are able to show support for your comments. I am not asking for WP:IDIDNOTHEARTHAT (which seems not to apply in our dispute because you haven't shown (1) a rejection of my input by a consensus of the community, and (2) my refusal of acknowledging your input). Thanking you in advance. Television fan (talk) 22:04, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Nightscream's Response

THE FIRST SENTENCE
The distinction between each versions of the sentence is minor at best, and in my opinion, I see little reason why this had to be such a point of contention. It's the sort of thing each of you should've been willing to compromise on. But if you really need me to split hairs over this, I would suggest that noting how soon before Pinochet's fall the emigration occurred may help readers familiar with Pinochet to get a more precise idea of when Fring's emigration was. This may be even more relevant if Pinochet's fall is directly relevant to the plot line. (Is it?)

However, TelevisionFan says Ref #4 supports this. As of this writing, that source is the Dave Itzkoff New York Times article, but I'm guessing he meant the episode "Hermanos", since that was Ref #4 as of the writing of TelevisionFan's message here. (See, this underscores the need for clarity in discussions like this; naming the source would've been more clear.)

Hearfourmewesique, I'm not quite sure I understand your statement. How does episodecite pertain here?

FIRST SENTENCE PARAPHRASE
The fact that Pinochet's fall is not explicitly mentioned in the quote does not, in itself, mean that it cannot be mentioned, since it's a real-life event whose occurrence is documented. You may not have to mention the fall, but at the same time, you don't have to omit it, either. It's a separate fact not specific to the issue of the paraphrase. Again, this is really major league hair-splitting over such an irrelevant picayune detail, one that both of you should be willing to let go of.

And what is the nature of the inter-article inconsistency, TelevisionFan?

Other Wikipedia articles may not be used as sources per WP:CIRCULAR, but merely quoting one is not a copyright violation, since Wikipedia is free. That's the entire point upon which Wikipedia was founded.

My question above about the relationship of episodecite to this matter also applies, since I'm not sure I'm understanding how that plays into this. (It's helpful in instances like this to explain the context in which points of argument like that arose in the first place.)

TONE
If the exact number of years is known, then yes, giving it is perfectly reasonable. However, I think it's a gross overstatement of one's case to say that it violates WP:TONE to say "a few". Where the exact number of years is not known "a few" is perfectly acceptable, since it's a just a non-specific "small number or amount", and not, IMHO, an informality.

THE NOTE
I'm not sure if, for the purposes of this article, there is a difference between not being able to trace someone and the non-existence of records of someone, but when in doubt or conflict, I would just say what the source said. When points of paraphrase are disputed, one of my solutions is to simply replace the paraphrase with a direct quote. It solves the conflict rather nicely. Please consider doing this.

Television Fan, Hearfourmewesique says that Gus is referred to as "Grand Generalissimo" by Hector Salamanca in the opening scene of "One Minute". Do you dispute this?

Again, I think a mountain is being made out of a molehill with the focus on the September date of the assassination. It's a minor detail; It could've been left out, but leaving it in hardly harms the passage. I think this is a matter upon which you should both compromise by just dropping the issue.

If they could not trace him, then just say that they could not trace him. Again, just say what the episode said. That way, the conflict is bypassed.

There is no substantial distinction between the words "connected", "aligned" or "involved". This is another issue of hair-splitting. However, as far as the question of confidence is concerned, I think "might be" is different from "likely". Just use the word that was used in the sources. The New York Times story that is cited in the article makes it fairly clear that there was some affiliation with the government.

The distinction between "Pinochet" and "Pinochet government" is yet another obsession over trivia. In any event, which usage do you prefer, TelevisionFan? The note says "there are two instances which demonstrate his likely involvement in the Pinochet government..." Is this not right?

These are minor details, but yeah, the detail about the "phone" and the "altercation" can be omitted. They're not that relevant to the information in question. The fact that they're two different instances is indicated simply by the word "later".

The distinction between "who Gus really is" and "His knowledge of Gus' past" is hair splitting, though the latter does sound a bit more encyclopedic.

I'm afraid that my ignorance of the series makes me unable to evaluate the issue over the nature of Eladio's knowledge of Gus. I'll discuss solutions to that below.

As to TelevisionFan's question, "Why are there two different descriptions of the same event in the same article?", my response would be to avoid repetition. Much in the same way that we use synonyms in order to avoid using the same individual words over and over, don't we vary multiple-word passages for the same reason?

I hope I've been some help. If you two do not feel that my responses provide appropriate avenues for resolution, and still want to drag this out, I can open up an Request for Comment. I can also try inviting others more familiar with Breaking Bad to join this discussion.

One request: Please do not interlace your responses inside the other editor's messages. This isn't a question of aesthetics or an attempt by me to be dictatorial; I genuinely find it more difficult to sift through the thread to attribute the right message to the right editor. Try doing what I have done here: Give a title to the subtopic and then respond. Or quote the statement that you're responding to.

Let me know what you wish to do. Nightscream (talk) 07:07, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Replies to Nightscream's Response

Nightscream, Please review the Notes of each editor for the purpose of readability. Here's a restatement of them without the footnotes:

Version No. 1
Gus left Chile in 1986, the same year in which the Manuel Rodríguez Patriotic Front attempted to assassinate Pinochet. Although there are no existing Chilean records of Gus, there are two instances which demonstrate his likely involvement in the Pinochet government: Hector Salamanca refers to Gus as "Grand Generalissimo," and Don Eladio tells Gus that he is "not in Chile anymore" but spares his life because he knows who Gus really is.
Version No. 2
On September 7, 1986 the Manuel Rodríguez Patriotic Front attacked Pinochet's car in an assassination attempt. Having been likely connected to Pinochet's government, Gus left Chile in 1986, leaving no traceable records. At one point, Gus is referred to as "Grand Generalissimo" by Hector Salamanca in a phone conversation, and during a later altercation, Don Eladio tells him that he is "not in Chile anymore" upon sparing his life (which he does namely due to his knowledge of Gus' past).

Which is more easily read? Which do you prefer? Perhaps a re-write or hybrid?Television fan (talk) 12:44, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

A small point, Nightscream, to answer one of your queries and point at the larger problem with TF's approach. You asked: "How does episodecite pertain here?" When you cite an episode, you rely on the episode itself as the primary source. TF, however, insists on clinging onto the text of the episode's article (for example, the verbatim quote "because he knows who Gus really is" from Hermanos (Breaking Bad)), which both violates WP:COPYVIO (since you're quoting another Wikipedia editor without the proper attribution, which is always needed, even if it's free) and demonstrates a lack of creativity for a good paraphrase/rewrite, which constitutes the very essence of encyclopedic writing. I would really like to get it over with. I have presented a professional, neat, and smoothly readable version. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 16:13, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Nightscream, I have no problem with removing the reference with the quote "because he knows who Gus really is[.]" With the exception of "really," my colleague is clinging to the phrase that is said above in the "Character biography" section. Notwithstanding any "fair use" defense to alleged copyright violations, it seems to me that my colleague is trying to have it both ways -- use the quote in one place but not the other. I don't mind restating the same words intra-article; I place intra-article consistency over a need to paraphrase. In fact, we could always say "as stated above" in the Note (referring to the "Character biography" section).
Also, which of the following is preferable to you:
He was born in Chile and emigrated to Mexico in 1986 during the reign of Augusto Pinochet.
He was born in Chile and emigrated to Mexico in 1986, a few years before the fall of Augusto Pinochet.
He was born in Chile and emigrated to Mexico in 1986 at the time of the dictatorship of Augusto Pinochet.
He was born in Chile and emigrated to Mexico in 1986, four years before the fall of Augusto Pinochet.
He was born in Chile and emigrated to Mexico in 1986, four years prior to the fall of Augusto Pinochet.
He was born in Chile and emigrated to Mexico in 1986 before the fall of Augusto Pinochet in 1990.
He was born in Chile and emigrated to Mexico in 1986 prior to the fall of Augusto Pinochet in 1990.
Any other hybrid? I want a fresh set of eyes to make a selection.Television fan (talk) 16:38, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Just leave the sentence alone. The original one works fine. Nightscream already told you it's all hair splitting. The "intra-article" (should be "inter-article") consistency is your own made up term. It has no merit here. Why are we continuing this meaningless blabber??? Hearfourmewesique (talk) 16:52, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
And for the last time, the reference is not the text. {{cite episode}} and the article text have nothing to do with each other. Therefore, the reference and the text are two separate entities. Would you like it in a couple of other languages as well? Hearfourmewesique (talk) 16:56, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
"And for the last time, the reference is not the text." "[T]he article text have nothing to do with each other." What do you mean? The text in the reference? The text stated above in the "Character biography" section (intra-article, i.e., the Wikipedia "Gus Fring" article).Television fan (talk) 17:01, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
"Just leave the sentence alone." No, and I don't see your willingness to comprise. I have suggested many possiblities, and besides "leave it alone," you have not shown me where mine is wrong.Television fan (talk) 17:04, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm done appeasing your jokes. Further communication between us will be performed through mediation. That is, unless you decide to get serious. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 19:56, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I am tired of your lack of willingness to cooperate, seek out a compromise, and your "take it my way or hit the highway" attitude.Television fan (talk) 20:01, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
You keep interjecting headlines that make my comments seem out of context, complicating the thread to the point of WP:TLDR, edit warring just to insert a meaningless change to what already works fine, and pretend that nothing was explained to you after it was, ad nauseam. There is nothing left for me to add to this discussion. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 20:39, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Version No. 1 seems better worded.

Hearformewesique, can you show me the diff or quote in which TelevisionFan is quoting the episode's Wikipedia article as a source? Diffs are really helpful in explaining the context of the conflict.

Regarding this comment, "...which both violates WP:COPYVIO (since you're quoting another Wikipedia editor without the proper attribution, which is always needed, even if it's free..." no, it does not work that way. With the exception of things like the name "Wikipedia", its logo, its domain name, etc., Wikipedia does not own its content. That's why it's called a free encyclopedia. Its content is not copyrighted. Jimmy Wales and Larry Sanger specifically made it this way so that anyone could use Wikpedia's material without having to worry about copyright concerns. This is a fundamental part of Wikipedia's history and mission. Once an editor contributes material to Wikipedia, they are giving up all rights to it. Just read the first paragraph of WP:COPYVIO. I myself have often copied material in one article, and used it as the basis for material in a related article. Where use of a Wikipedia is inappropriate is where an editor attempts to cite it as a source. This is not permitted, because it is circular sourcing (i.e.: Wikipedia citing itself), which WP:CIRCULAR admonishes us not to do. Keep in mind that for the content of works such as books, movies, TV shows that is merely descriptive (the plot, the credits, etc.), those works do indeed function as their own primary sources, as indicated by WP:TVPLOT/WP:FILMPLOT.

I'm not sure I'm clear on why the episode reference needs to be removed, TelevisionFan. In biographies of fictional TV characters, or any plot or character information of a TV show, citing the episode is always necessary, when the episode is the source of the info.

Regarding the passage about Pinochet's fall, if the fall of Pinochet is not relevant to Gus' biography or his movements, then the first one is fine. If Pinochet's fall is somehow relevant, then either of the fourth or fifth versions are good. However, my favorite version is this one:

TelevisionFan and Hearfourmewesique realized that arguing over the precise wording of inconsequential passages of an article was colossal waste of time, and that having what is essentially a beauty pageant for seven contestant versions of a sentence was taking hair-splitting to new lows. The two good faith editors resolved to compromise on that and other matters, without the need for a third editor to play judge (even though some of those sentences looked pretty hot during the swimsuit competition). Nightscream (talk) 00:48, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Actions after Nightscream's Response to Our Replies

About the Note:

Nightscream's input: "[V]ersion 1 seems better worded." Here is version 1:

Gus left Chile in 1986, the same year in which the Manuel Rodríguez Patriotic Front attempted to assassinate Pinochet. Although there are no existing Chilean records of Gus, there are two instances which demonstrate his likely involvement in the Pinochet government: Hector Salamanca refers to Gus as "Grand Generalissimo," and Don Eladio tells Gus that he is "not in Chile anymore" but spares his life because he knows who Gus really is.

Can you accept this?

About the Pinochet sentence:

Nightscream's input: "Regarding the passage about Pinochet's fall, if the fall of Pinochet is not relevant to Gus' biography or his movements, then the first one is fine. If Pinochet's fall is somehow relevant, then either of the fourth or fifth versions are good."

In my opinion, the fall is not relevant to his biography or his movements. Pinochet's fall has never been mentioned in any episode. This means that the following should be used:

He was born in Chile and emigrated to Mexico in 1986 during the reign of Augusto Pinochet.

However, in the spirit of compromise and although not relevant, either one of the following should be used:

He was born in Chile and emigrated to Mexico in 1986, four years before the fall of Augusto Pinochet.
He was born in Chile and emigrated to Mexico in 1986, four years prior to the fall of Augusto Pinochet.

Can you accept Nightscream's input? Can you accept verison 1 of the Note and one of the three sentences re Pinochet's fall?

God, let's be done with this.Television fan (talk) 01:06, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Gus' Sexuality

Hector brings into question Gustavo's and Max's relationship (makes homosexual insults to them before the killing of Max). There is a section on Gus Fring about his family. I think this hint is important, because it was clear his partnership with Max was very close, and perhaps was sexual.Howie86 (talk) 21:01, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

It's covered in the article. Gilligan stated that he purposely left that question unanswered. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 05:50, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Antagonist

A protagonist is the main character. The protagonist does not have to be a good guy, simply the focal character. The antagonist is the force, person, group, etc. that stands in the way of the protagonist. Once again, this does not have to be a bad person. If the main character is a "evil" and a good guy is standing in his way, then the good guy is the antagonist. Walt is the main character. Thus he is the protagonist. Gus stands in his way, thus he is the antagonist. Further, in the LA times and NBC.com article he is referred to as the antagonist. Further still, Cranston himself refers to Gus as the antagonist. There are plenty of sources that refer to his as a villain and as an antagonist, and yet it keeps being removed and called vandalism to add it. Well here are the two previously mentioned sources mentioned; they are reliable. Stop being stubborn http://articles.latimes.com/2012/jun/15/news/la-en-breaking-bad-20120615 http://www.nbcnews.com/technology/new-destiny-trailer-stars-gus-breaking-bad-gigantic-space-marines-6C10050690. Further, reviews, cast opinions, quotes, etc. refer to him as the main antagonist/villain are EVERYWHERE on the internet. Just because the morality of characters can be debatable does not mean their role in the show is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.155.84.172 (talk)

Hiding behind a dynamic IP voids any good intentions you might have here. Click here for more information. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 05:53, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

So, let me get this straight, there are sources for it, and rather then letting the matter go. Accepting you are wrong, you criticize me. You are wrong. Everywhere on the internet there are cast members who call him the antagonist or the villain, reviews have called him the antagonist and villain. I find not one but two of said sources, and yet you still keep removing it. Fine, report me. But considering there are sources, and yet your the one who is removing SOURCED material and calling the additions vandalism, and I have said nothing hostile to you, your being rude and uncivil. And not acting like an editor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.76.231.204 (talk)

So here's the deal: you started by reverting without sources, each time from a different IP. I asked you why you did that, and you ignored the question. You supplied sources (out of which one doesn't say it at all, and the other calls him Walter White's – not the story's! – main antagonist), within edit summaries only after a few reverts, while continuously re-adding the information. Almost every edit you perform is from a new IP. I asked you to address that again, which you ignored again. You are paving your way head first, ignoring all reasonable questions or requests, only promoting your edit in ways of exhausting me (initially, reverting my edit without apparent justification) by forcing the edit to get accepted on your terms. If that's not terrorism, I don't know what is. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 13:22, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
...and here's another doozy for ya: as I explained in my initial edit, Breaking Bad defies the "classic Greek drama" concept of protagonist vs. antagonist, as explained by the show's creator here. If Walt becomes the antagonist, how do you call the person that stands in his way? Hearfourmewesique (talk) 17:56, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Both sources do refer to him as the antagonist. Also, I'm being unreasonable. I have sources backing up what I say, and yet you keep removing content. Terrorism as an attempt to destroy social order through acts to instill terror. Fighting on Wikipedia is not terrorism. You keep removing sourced content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.76.231.204 (talk)

Please sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~) from now on. Also, your sources do not support the statement, and I already explained why the concept of protagonist vs. antagonist is irrelevant here, using reliable sources from the show creators. Read your sources again, then mine, and it will surely make sense to you at some point. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 01:23, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Um, no. Both my sources state he is the antagonist. Your source only states how dark and morally questionable the show is. Once again, morality and character role are not the same. The protagonist does NOT have to be good. And antagonist does not have to be bad. Further, sources listed said he was the antagonist. Once again, google search easily finds multiple sources that call him antagonist by review and by cast members. You have no sources to back up you claim. All the source you listed says is their are moral questions and the show is dark. Once again, that does not effect the role of a character in and of itself.108.87.38.162 (talk) 01:31, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

I really have to break it down, don't I? Here's the only place in your first source that mentions the word "antagonist":

Cranston: When I read it, I was pleased with the brazenness of Gus' death. I hate stories where you see the protagonist and antagonist battling it out, back and forth, back and forth, and then suddenly the antagonist does something stupid, out of character, and the protagonist wins. It's like "Noooo! You've just ruined the whole thing for me!"

Here's the only place in your second source that mentions the word "antagonist":

The video shows Giancarlo Esposito, who plays the mildly psychotic drug kingpin and Walter White's main antagonist Gustavo Fring in AMC's acclaimed television series[.]

Here's a quote from the show's creator, taken from the source I provided:

So I thought, Wouldn’t it be interesting to have a show that takes the protagonist and transforms him into the antagonist?

So, according to the show's creator himself, Walt is a protagonist that turns into an antagonist. Only one of your sources addresses Gus' role, but only in respect to Walt, not the show as a whole. The show has no clear concept of protagonist vs. antagonist. It's not a Greek tragedy. Therefore, we should avoid these terms altogether when writing about this show. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 04:47, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
More sources? Voila! Here's one from Time magazine:

Yes, White has risen high on the underworld ladder, but to do so he’s moved from protagonist to antagonist[.]

Here's one from Gawker:

[T]he Tuscaloosa County Sheriff's Office has turned to the public for help in tracking down a meth cooker named Walter White. The 55-year-old, whose name happens to be identical to that of Breaking Bad's protagonist/antagonist(...)

I'm sure Mr. Google can look up some more. This is common knowledge to anyone who is familiar with the show. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 04:56, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

The article you used as your source said he has finaly become the antagonist in season five. Then, by that logic, before that season he was the PROTAGONIST before then. Further, the sources say he is Walt's antagonist. Walt is the main character and the main focus of the show. Thus, once again he is the main antagonist again. Here are even more links that refer to him as the antagonist of the show http://www.complex.com/pop-culture/2011/10/breaking-bad-face-off-recap, http://popculturehasaids.wordpress.com/2012/07/31/breaking-bad-landry-on-the-loose/, http://moviesfilmsmotionpictures.com/2012/09/20/top-ten-breaking-bad-characters/, http://www.grantland.com/blog/hollywood-prospectus/post/_/id/43762/gus-fring-coming-to-community?src=mobile. Not only that but you say that it is not like Greek tragedies or follows the concept of antagonist and protagonist. Every story has a protagonist or antagonist. It is what drives the story. Be it between a person and an idea, group, person, etc., there is always a conflict between a protagonist and antagonist. Once again the protagonist does not have to be a good guy, nor the antagonist a bad guy. If there is no antagonist or protagonist and no conflict then there is no story. That is a basic literary concept. Further, you were warned already to stop removing sourced content. And yet you keep doing it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.155.80.40 (talk)

  1. Only one of the articles I used as examples mentions season 5. It's not like he is the protagonist for four seasons and all of a sudden becomes the antagonist in season 5; it's a gradual process, as described by the show's creator.
  2. You say: "Further, the sources say he is Walt's antagonist. Walt is the main character and the main focus of the show. Thus, once again he is the main antagonist again." This is pure WP:SYN and is forbidden on Wikipedia as such, as you need reliable sources to make that kind of leap in logic.
  3. You say that it's a basic literary concept, but the show's creators are telling you that their goal was to defy that very concept. Are you going to teach them about their writing?
  4. Your sources don't support your edit (as I literally just explained), and the links you provided in your latest response are all blogs that fail WP:IRS. My sources are either reputable critics or the show's cast and crew, including the show's creator. Guess who wins the reliability contest in this one. Therefore, the "sourced material" isn't sourced at all, but misattributed at best. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 06:46, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Youre gawker is irrelevant. It says protagonist/antagonist. Fine, but its not even about the show. All it is talking about is a guy with a similar name to said protagonist/antagonist. It says nothing about Gus's role in the show. Nor does it say when he goes from being protagonist to antagonist. The only source you have which says that is the second source which says it is in season 5 he is the antagonist. Cranston referes to him as the antagonist in my source. Further, blogs are acceptable if done by journalist through mainstream source. For example, one on of the newly given source is sponsored by espn and its author is a journalist and editor. Further, now your blaming me for you not being able to log in and make a insult by referring to me as Mr. Google. You have referred to me as a terrorist, you have said I have committed vandalism, and even when you have been warned about such behavior, you keep doing it and you keep removing sourced material even when another editor said the sources were acceptable for the claim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.155.80.40 (talk)

Really? The Gawker article calls Walter protagonist/antagonist. In the Cranston interview, he emphasizes that the show is not your typical protagonist vs. antagonist story. Vince Gilligan stated that he purposely created his characters with that ambiguity in mind, with the purpose of fluctuating Walter between protagonist and antagonist. The Time magazine article says Walter has moved from protagonist to antagonist, but they don't say that it happened overnight during the premiere of season five. Therefore, if Walter cannot be doubtlessly defined as the show's protagonist, the show cannot have a clearly defined antagonist either. I also told you that the majority of the sources you provided are self published blogs, and the couple of them which pass for reliable, do not support the claim. I was not referring to you as Mr. Google, I was referring to Google as Mr. Google. I gave you all the reasons for the utter invalidity of your claim, and urged you to start signing your comments. You keep IP hopping and ignoring all reason. So, in the words of Bogdan... what am I to do? Hearfourmewesique (talk) 18:15, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

You just contradicted yourself, the sources that are reliable do not support this claim. Cranston is saying that the way the antagonist is not typical in that you have the antagonist make one mistake and its over. However, I did give multiple sources, many of which that are reliable and refer to him as the antagonist, and yet you don't listen to reason, you have been ucivil, and ignored all sources that contradict your opinion. Blogs are acceptable as long as they: cannot be edited by outside users, they are relevant to the matter at hand, and are offiliated with notable and mainstream media. Many of the source I gave are directly or indirectly sponsored and written by journalists, not simply someone publishing their opinion. You ignore reason, and only accept your own opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.155.80.40 (talk)

Yes, the reliable sources do not support the claim that Gus is simply the antagonist. My sources are not "simply someone publishing their opinion", it's the show's creator. I'm done repeating myself. Moreover, you keep ignoring the simplest request (which is also stated on top of the talk page every time you edit it): sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). Seriously... Hearfourmewesique (talk) 20:17, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Yet another source referring to Gus as the antagonist. http://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2012/07/why-breaking-bad-could-beat-the-curse-of-the-failed-final-season/259654/. Further, even Giancarlo has refered to him as the villain and Walter White as the main character and protagonist. You have provided two sources saying the intent is to turn Walter into the antagonist. Good, great. However, when? When does he stop being protagonist and being antagonist? You can't just say it is evident from the show. Because then someone can easily say, well from the show, sense he is still the main focus, he is the protagonist. Oh really you're right because Vince Gillian said he is the antagonist? Well when did he say Walt stops being the protagonist and becoming the antagonist? The only source you have that says when says season five. While I have sources who say prior to that Gus was. I still have found multiple that refer to Gus as the antagonist. Even when Cranston referes to him as the antagonist you ignored it, even, when I provide multiple sources where he is called it, you still do not listen. I have sources saying he is the antagonist, yet you have provided none saying he isn't the antagonist.99.155.80.40 (talk) 20:35, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Lying time after time about what my sources say won't make it any truer. Where does Cranston refer to Gus as the antagonist? I found the quote in your own source, and he doesn't – he says that he's glad that it's not your typical protagonist vs. antagonist story, and nothing beyond that. Yes, Esposito says that Gus is the villain – duh! Of course he is the villain, but we're talking about the definition of antagonist here. Gilligan says that he intended for Walter to play both roles throughout the course of the show. Again, I'm not stating anything that hasn't been already stated multiple times. This is not a forum for you to troll freely. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 20:41, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Further, in that link Gillian says the show is about Walt. That is what a protagonist is. Further, Esposition says Walt is the main character and he (Gus) is the villain. Hello, if one character is the main character and the hero, and the other is the villain....Further, multiple sources say he is the antagonist. 99.155.80.40 (talk) 17:00, July 9, 2013

99.155.80.40, please remember to sign your posts. I also would urge that you sign in for a username account.

Hearfourmewesique, regarding your message on my talk page, do not interpret the reversion and protection of the article as an endorsement of your version by the admin who did so. Protecting a page is done ensure that reverts stop, and to spur a resolution through discussion.

As for this dispute, I have requested WP:3O. Nightscream (talk) 21:37, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

To the IP:
  • "Further, in that link Gillian [sic] says the show is about Walt. That is what a protagonist is." He, the show's creator, says that it's not. I showed it multiple times.
  • "Further, Esposition [sic] says Walt is the main character and he (Gus) is the villain. Hello, if one character is the main character and the hero, and the other is the villain..." Hello, WP:SYN much? If the main character is the main hero and the other is the villain, that's all there is to it.
  • "Further, multiple sources say he is the antagonist." Unreliable ones may say so, and the reliable ones simply don't. You're lying. I proved it time and time again.
To Nightscream – please read what I posted in this discussion, because none of the sources the IP supplied (none of the reliable ones, anyway) support their claim about a clear-cut definition of Gus as an antagonist. The discussion is feeding the troll well enough, the 3O request is taking it to a new level. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 00:54, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

3O decline

The WP:3O posting has been removed as a "decline". 1. More than 2 editors are debating. We have two registered editors and multiple IPs. 2. Comments about lying & trolling & WP:SHOUTING, etc. are uncivil and don't AGF. 3O volunteers need not get in the middle of mud slinging. 3. Describing him as a "primary" character – as per the 3O request – seems odd. That term is not used in the discussion above. IOW, what is the issue? Whether he is a main character for the series, as per the official webpage listing, or a reoccurring character who has a greater or lesser role in various episodes? – S. Rich (talk) 21:18, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

We're way past AGF here, believe me. The accusations are solely based on the IP's behavior: after I proved, multiple times, that their sources don't support the addition they've been reinserting over and over again, the IP keeps claiming that the addition is sourced. Please, tell me, how to deal with this kind of behavior, without (sadly) concluding that only a troll would act this way. The dispute itself is about whether the classic concept of "protagonist vs. antagonist" even exists, per se, in Breaking Bad. The show's creator says it doesn't. Reliable sources fluctuate between the two when describing the main character. If the main character is both the protagonist and the antagonist, without a clearly defined line in between the two, that concept is best avoided when writing about this particular show. The IP ignored this multiple times (as evident from this close-to-TL;DR discussion), citing wordpress blogs that mention the word "antagonist" to "prove" their WP:POINT. AGF is not eternal, and in this case, I had a good hunch about it to begin with – sorry for not following protocol, but as you see, it turned out to be just as futile as I predicted. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 03:23, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps so. I'm not going to go beyond what I provided. (I have seen some of the other remarks related to this spat, which reinforce my determination to decline.) RFPP, SPA, SPI, may be the only avenues. If they are, then the dispute is well beyond the sort of thing that 3O can help with. (And this page is coming off my watchlist.) – S. Rich (talk) 03:33, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Ethnicity / look

It should be clarified that although it is a fictional character, it doesn't have a Chilean phenotype at all. Giancarlo Espósito is from african american and italian ancestry, but that would be extremely rare in Chile. Actually people of african descent are only present since the 2010's in the country due to massive caribbean immigration. It may not matter to american people, but for chileans seems very extrange to see a chilean with that look. If the character is chilean-american, it would make more sense having an african american ancestry as well as chilean (overwhelmingly white mestizos, see Chileans). Anyway, it could be something to clarify because his look doesn't seem chilean at all. Tommy Boy (talk) 21:40, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

@Tommy Boy: Check out the Wikipedia article on Afro-Chileans. And this news story.
Billmckern (talk) 00:04, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
I've read that. I'm not saying there isn't afro chileans, I'm saying it is particularly odd, specially if the character is middle aged. Tommy Boy (talk) 00:52, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
@Tommy Boy: Why would a middle-aged black Chilean be odd? The Wiki article says they've been a presence in Chile since the 1500s.
Billmckern (talk) 01:06, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
Because there are 8,000 descendents (very mixed) of african people in the extreme north, in an almost 20 million people country. I've lived all my life in Chile and I hadn't seen a black chilean person until immigration explodes in the late 2000's. Nothing against them, don't get me wrong. I'm just saying that for all chileans Breaking Bad fans, Gus Fring being chilean was a Hollywood joke. Jean Beausejour is the first ever famous afrochilean to be recognized as that, and he was born in 1984. Tommy Boy (talk), 3 March 2021 (UTC)
@Tommy Boy: Not officially recognized doesn't mean "not present." The Abenaki Indians of Vermont were not "officially recognized" by the state until 2006. They still have not achieved federal recognition. Yet they've been there the whole time.
Billmckern (talk) 02:39, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Gus' backstory

The recent edits by anon 78.149.121.207 have added that Gus is a "Former official in the Pinochet regime". The source is Vince Gilligan saying: "we talked about Pinochet and his government, what did he do back there, precisely?". Apparently, this is "literally saying he worked for the Pinochet government. It's the same thing". Can I get a second opinion that I'm not going insane and this edit isn't supported by the source/ Megaman en m (talk) 22:37, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

@Megaman en m: For what it's worth, I agree with you. I don't believe anyone ever explicitly states what Gus did in Chile. Eladio and Hector imply that he had some nebulous connection to Pinochet, but they never say what it is. Gus also delivers a monologue to a comatose Hector in which Gus recounts an event from his childhood in Chile, but provides no details beyond that. Gus reminds Peter of an experience they shared in Santiago, but never provides any details.
I think the producers and writers have purposefully left us to wonder. Is Gus really from Chile, or did he just say he was? Did he really have a connection to Pinochet, or did he just say he did? If he's from Chile, what did he do there before he made his way to Mexico? No one ever says. I think that's by design. Billmckern (talk) 23:11, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
Exactly, Vince himself said that "To me, the audience’s imagination as to who Gus was in his past life is potentially more interesting than any concrete answer we could give them." So with Wikipedia's high standards for verifiability there just isn't enough justification for adding such a bold claim. I'll be reverted those edits tomorrow if nobody raises any objections.--Megaman en m (talk) 11:47, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
I disagree with your interpretation. I think it's clear as crystal that Vince was saying that was his intention. He says that Gus had a connection to Pinochet in the interview - and even though he said he and the writers didn't intend to establish the specifics in the text - they still intended to establish the broad strokes.
Gilligan said in that interview that they wrote Gus as having done something bad as part of the Pinochet regime, and discussed this amongst themselves as part of his backstory - not something that they discarded. Billmckern said that Eladio and Hector implied that he had a nebulous connection to Pinochet - and regardless of whether it's nebulous or not - Bill still said that connection existed in the text, and therefore my edits shouldn't be reverted. Gus working for Pinochet is a common interpretation- to the point that it was already in the article before I expanded upon that. And I didn't write anything that wasn't already in the article - I just outlined the specifics of when those connections are mentioned - and put it in the infobox. If it was already in the article as part of his biography I think listing that in his infobox is just reflective of the article contents.
"Had a nebulous connection to Pinochet" and "was an official in the regime" mean the same thing to me. An official in the regime encompasses any person in a position of authority who worked for Pinochet - no matter how big or small their role. I wasn't trying to imply he was one of Pinochet's right-hand-men or anything. 78.149.121.207 (talk) 14:53, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
I said that Eladio and Hector IMPLIED that Gus had a nebulous connection to Chile and Pinochet -- NOT that they said for certain that he did. Billmckern (talk) 15:10, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
Firstly, please stop using caps lock because it sounds like you're being rude to me, even though I know you're writing in good faith.
Secondly, please can u explain what u meant cos I don't understand how those aren't the same thing? 78.149.121.207 (talk) 15:39, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

My view: You know perfectly well what I mean. You're arguing just for the sake of arguing. So I see no point in continuing to discuss this. Billmckern (talk) 16:20, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

No I don't know what you mean, which is why I asked you. Please stop assuming bad faith 78.149.121.207 (talk) 16:27, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Gus being gay

Gus being gay was confirmed on the show last night in an overt - not implicit way - in the scene where he flirts with David at the restaurant but ultimately decides against asking him out. Several sources from critics talking about this can be found in the Fun and Games (Better Call Saul) page. I suggest we incorporate them into this article to update information on him and also change the text to say he is gay - rather than implied to be gay. I also suggest we add categories about him being gay.

Here's that Fun and Games section text so you get what I mean:

"The scene between Gus and David was analyzed by several critics, who concluded Gus was unwilling to start a relationship because he did not want to risk putting a loved one in danger. Harley said that scene was the first to challenge his perception of Gus's character and wrote, "This look at Gus' compartmentalization is something we could have used more of throughout this show." Greene lauded the scene's direction and wrote, "It's a kind of genuine, uncalculated kind of interaction that Gus is rarely afforded (or that he rarely affords himself)." Alan Sepinwall of Rolling Stone described it as "remarkable", "lovely", and "terribly sad" and praised Esposito's performance as Gus."

I've removed the sources from here due to formatting problems which I don't have time to change due to low battery, but they are on the page like I said Stephanie921 (talk) 02:03, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Sending a ping to @Billmckern, as they're disputing the changes of Fring's sexuality on the article. Are you aware of the newest developments Billmckern? The old citations are out of date now with the developments that have occurred on Better Call Saul. I also reverted the edits initially but after a discussion on my talk page here I actually ended up being on User:Stephanie921's side of this. Let's discuss this instead of heading towards an edit war. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:13, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
@Hey man im josh: @Stephanie921: Gus wasn't "confirmed" to be gay because of his wine bar visit, although the subtext is supposed to make it fairly clear, or at least less ambiguous. And even if he was "confirmed" to be gay, which he wasn't, the people who made the cited remarks in the character bio don't what happened at the wine bar. Billmckern (talk) 18:18, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
That's true regarding the cited remarks. Are you just against the removal of the cited comments? Or are you also against Stephanie adding LGBT categories? Curious if there's some middle ground here. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:24, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
I don't get your or Bill's reasoning wrt cited remarks. The person who made the cited remarks was showrunner Vince Gilligan, and the writers decided to make him overtly gay under his control. So he does know. And even if he didn't, the old source would be still be outdated because of the newer development. We use recent sources on Wikipedia and try to have the most up-to-date info possible - as is the purpose of an encyclopedia ofc - so it's counterproductive to use a null and void source Stephanie921 (talk) 18:32, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
My mistake actually, I thought that was in regards to different remarks, not Gilligan's statement. As you said, that old statement may no longer be valid because his thoughts and the character trajectory appears to have changed a bit. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:35, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
"Fairly clear" is the same thing as saying it was confirmed, and - as I pointed out - there are multiple critical sources from the 'Fun and Games' page discussing how he's gay. There's the one in this page too, considering him flirting with David isn't subtext.
Here are all the sources from the Fun and Games page: [1][2][3] It's been a main point of discussion Stephanie921 (talk) 18:28, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
@Hey man im josh: @Stephanie921: I don't have any problems with the categories -- the inference viewers are supposed to draw about the wine bar visit isn't explicit, but it's pretty close. I don't think the comments and sources in the character bio should be changed or removed because those are still valid, since the inferences the other characters are drawing aren't definite knowledge. Billmckern (talk) 18:32, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
} Wdym by "the inferences the other characters are drawing aren't definite knowledge"?
@Hey man im josh: @Stephanie921: COME ON! "Fairly clear" is not the same as "clear." If it was, I'd have said "clear." Billmckern (talk) 18:33, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
Please don't shout at me Bill Stephanie921 (talk) 18:37, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

@Hey man im josh: @Billmckern: He's an article from Digital Spy covering showrunner Peter Gould describing Max and Gus as boyfriends - as well as Gus' recent encounter as romantic: https://www.digitalspy.com/tv/ustv/a40664285/better-call-saul-gus-sexuality-confirmed/ What do you guys think? Stephanie921 (talk) 19:48, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

@Hey man im josh: @Stephanie921: From the Digital Spy article: "Gus is holding onto his rage, his desire for revenge, and maybe he's holding onto this romance that he had, with his boyfriend Max [the slain business partner from Breaking Bad]," he said.
"We know that Gus had some kind of... we've never been very specific, he had some kind of violent past before that, but [Max's death] seems to be the turning point for Gus Fring."
"Maybe he's holding on." "We've never been very specific." We're left to infer, because nothing is explicitly stated. Even though I agree the inference is obvious, it's just that. Because the writers and producers intended for Gus's background to be ambiguous. Billmckern (talk) 00:12, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Greene, Steve (July 18, 2022). "Better Call Saul Review: A Mournful 'Fun and Games' Watches Everyone Fail to Fix What's Broken". IndieWire. Archived from the original on July 19, 2022. Retrieved July 19, 2022.
  2. ^ Harley, Nick (July 18, 2022). "Better Call Saul Season 6 Episode 9 Review: Fun and Games". Den of Geek. Archived from the original on July 19, 2022. Retrieved July 19, 2022.
  3. ^ Hogan, Michael (July 18, 2022). "Better Call Saul Season 6, Episode 9 Recap: Jimmy Is Dead—Long Live Saul!". Vanity Fair. Archived from the original on July 19, 2022. Retrieved July 19, 2022.

Gus being queer

I think Gus is queer in the show and loved Max. I think the article should mention this and list him in queer categories. But I want consensus first 92.10.13.209 (talk) 02:52, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

The subject is addressed in the last paragraph of the Background section. Because Gus' sexual orientation was not explicitly acknowledged in the show, listing him in the aforementioned categories would be unwarranted, IMO. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 03:18, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
Agreed. --ZimZalaBim talk 03:21, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
I think what's described is explicit, since Gilligan said himself that they are more than friends - in addition to Lalo calling them boyfriends. And either way - if he's queer, he's queer - even if it's implicit. Subtext is still text. 92.10.13.209 (talk) 03:23, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
Agree - adding the category is a good idea. Uncertainty/ambiguity around sexuality is queer. And it's not just about what the author want or what's explicit but also about the reception and from what I see it's already mentioned/referenced in the article. Also in case that was a doubt for anyone queer is often used as "fluid identities and orientations" - so adding this to the queer category wouldn't be adding a strong definitive label but more put it there somewhere there a wider universe. AlanTheScientist (talk) 22:01, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
@User:AlanTheScientist I agree with you but the categories have been added since this idea was proposed :) Stephanie921 (talk) 02:36, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
@Stephanie921 my bad - should've read the rest of the page haha. Happy the categories were added, thanks for initiating all this! AlanTheScientist (talk) 09:17, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Category error

I added that category because it is heavily implied that Gus was involved in the murder of Tomas Cantillo, an 11 year old boy. It's thought that he did this as a loyalty test and to tie up loose ends, even if it's made clear he didn't initially know that the two "Rival Dealers" working for him were using a child to sling meth and kill people.


He did say that Jesse "should have let him deal with them", but he later goes on to threaten Walter White's two children, a teenager and an infant.


Sorry for the error. It's just that the article had that category in the past, and it seemed accurate.

Titanoboa Constrictor (talk) 08:52, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

The category in question is "Fictional murderers of children". "Heavily implied" is not the same as "was" involved in Tomas' murder. To me, when Gus said Jesse "should have let me handle them", it is heavily implied that he had no advance knowledge of the dealers' plan to murder Tomas. I don't think it's an appropriate category at all. signed, Willondon (talk) 14:25, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
Yeah my bad. Thanks for the correction. Titanoboa Constrictor (talk) 20:13, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gus_Fring/Archive_1&oldid=1238420047"