| Revision as of 14:28, 6 July 2012 editTelevision fan (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users2,986 edits →When discussed by Esposito← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 07:40, 8 October 2024 edit undoQwerfjkl (bot) (talk | contribs)Bots, Mass message senders4,012,643 editsm Removed deprecated parameters in {{Talk header}} that are now handled automatically (Task 30)Tag: paws [2.2] | ||
| (186 intermediate revisions by 31 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{Talkheader}} | |||
| {{WikiProject Fictional characters|class=start}} | |||
| {{WikiProject banner shell|class=C| | |||
| {{WikiProject Television|importance=high}} | |||
| {{WikiProject Fictional characters}} | |||
| }} | |||
| {{User:MiszaBot/config | |||
| | algo = old(365d) | |||
| | archive = Talk:Gus Fring/Archive %(counter)d | |||
| | counter = 1 | |||
| | maxarchivesize = 150K | |||
| | archiveheader = {{Automatic archive navigator}} | |||
| | minthreadstoarchive = 1 | |||
| | minthreadsleft = 1 | |||
| }} | |||
| == Gus' sexuality, implicit, explicit, orientation, active lifestyle == | |||
| ==Pinochet== | |||
| ===Untitled=== | |||
| Hi is referred to as "little Generalissimo" by Hector.{{unsigned|212.129.66.130}} | |||
| :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 . ] (]) 17:05, 2 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| I see Gus' sexuality in his description has become a point of differing opinion again. I hope not to rehash what's been said already in the ] (''Gus' sexuality'', ''Gus being gay'', ''Gus being queer''). I '''agree with characterizing Gus as homosexual''', or likely homosexual, but I '''don't agree with referring to Max Arciniega as his boyfriend''', etc. | |||
| "Throughout the series, it has been strongly suggested that Gus was close to Pinochet." | |||
| *Gus' activity as a homosexual is never made explicit; his orientation is only hinted at. Given Gus' personality, it's possible that he is extremely cautious and either never fully acknowedged his orientation with action, or was cautiously reluctant to act on his sexual desires at all, and wine bar David is the closest we see him coming to that. Gus may have cherished Max as a friend and business partner along with having homosexual feelings that were not expressed. | |||
| *I give very little weight to comments from cartel members. When used as a homophobic insult, it ''may'' come from a suspicion based on as much as the viewer has seen, too; but in the end, those slurs are just insults meant to denigrate, and are not infrequently levied without the slightest shred of evidence of a person's actual orientation. | |||
| 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. | |||
| *In my view, comments by the writers and producers outside the work itself are not canon. The wise artistic choice to make it ambiguous in the story is what defines Gus. They had a choice to make it explicit, and didn't. So meta-fiction statements can't help to define the character; they had their chance. | |||
| Not wishing to rehash the previous discussions, I would say '']'' is the most pertinent conversation to review if we're to pick it up again. So again, I think the material in the work of fiction itself makes it fairly clear that Gus' sexual orientation is homosexual, but it's not clear at all that Gus was a practicing homosexual, and much less clear that Max Arciniega was a romantic partner. My two cents. <small><sub>''signed'', </sub></small>] (]) 18:17, 27 August 2023 (UTC) | |||
| 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. <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 18:03, 2 July 2012 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| :I'm not arriving at a conclusion, read ] – 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. ] (]) 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.] (]) 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 ]", 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 ]. ] (]) 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.] (]) 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. <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 18:12, 2 July 2012 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| :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". ] (]) 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.] (]) 16:08, 3 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::Again, tell me where you see a concrete conclusion (after re-reading ]). ] (]) 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.] (]) 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).] (]) 18:35, 2 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :Again, there is no speculation in the article, just a side note. Read my response to "Untitled". ] (]) 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 some great stuff that maybe aligns 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.] (]) 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 ]. ] (]) 15:25, 3 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::Nope. Gus was aligned with the government.] (]) 16:21, 3 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::...which cancels out him being aligned with Pinochet? ] (]) 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.] (]) 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? ] (]) 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.] (]) 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.] (]) 16:25, 3 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :Is this why you removed it '''again'''? ] (]) 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.] (]) 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 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 some great stuff that maybe aligns with the Pinochet government in Chile.''' ] (]) 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.] (]) 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'''. ] (]) 13:30, 6 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Say what? Did you read the sentence? The Yahoo! TV reference was NOT removed! <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 13:45, 6 July 2012 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| :::::::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. :-)] (]) 13:51, 6 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| {{od|8}}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): | |||
| #"at the time of the dictatorship" vs. "a few years before the fall"; | |||
| #<s>"ref" vs. "note";</s> | |||
| #"was likely involved in" vs. "may have been connected to"; | |||
| #"before he emigrating{{sic}} to Mexico in 1986" vs. "left Chile in 1986"; | |||
| #removing "leaving no traceable records"; | |||
| #adding "When Max was shot in the head" to a side note about Gus' past, which makes the addition trivial in that context; | |||
| #"reminded himbut{{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)"; | |||
| #repeatedly changing present tense to past tense, in direct contradiction with MOS. ] (]) 13:59, 6 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :#"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. | |||
| :#"ref" vs. "note" --> It fixes the link to the Note. Your link was dead. | |||
| :#"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." | |||
| :#"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. | |||
| :#"removing "leaving no traceable records" --> The reference uses no "immigration" records. Use that instead of "traceable." | |||
| :#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. | |||
| :#"reminded himbut{{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. | |||
| :#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.] (]) 14:28, 6 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| == Assassins flee and change identities? == | |||
| Hearfourmewesique, | |||
| Where is there support that "those who were close to to flee the country and change their identities to avoid prosecution"? I cannot find such information in ].] (]) 16:49, 3 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| == Hearfourmewesique: Stop Your Blanket Reverts and Edit Warring == | |||
| 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.] (]) 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!] (]) 14:00, 6 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :Dude, this is a serious ] 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 Misplaced Pages. '''For real'''. ] (]) 14:04, 6 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 07:40, 8 October 2024
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Gus Fring article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 12 months  |
 | This article is rated C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||
Gus' sexuality, implicit, explicit, orientation, active lifestyle
I see Gus' sexuality in his description has become a point of differing opinion again. I hope not to rehash what's been said already in the first archive (Gus' sexuality, Gus being gay, Gus being queer). I agree with characterizing Gus as homosexual, or likely homosexual, but I don't agree with referring to Max Arciniega as his boyfriend, etc.
- Gus' activity as a homosexual is never made explicit; his orientation is only hinted at. Given Gus' personality, it's possible that he is extremely cautious and either never fully acknowedged his orientation with action, or was cautiously reluctant to act on his sexual desires at all, and wine bar David is the closest we see him coming to that. Gus may have cherished Max as a friend and business partner along with having homosexual feelings that were not expressed.
- I give very little weight to comments from cartel members. When used as a homophobic insult, it may come from a suspicion based on as much as the viewer has seen, too; but in the end, those slurs are just insults meant to denigrate, and are not infrequently levied without the slightest shred of evidence of a person's actual orientation.
- In my view, comments by the writers and producers outside the work itself are not canon. The wise artistic choice to make it ambiguous in the story is what defines Gus. They had a choice to make it explicit, and didn't. So meta-fiction statements can't help to define the character; they had their chance.
Not wishing to rehash the previous discussions, I would say Gus being queer is the most pertinent conversation to review if we're to pick it up again. So again, I think the material in the work of fiction itself makes it fairly clear that Gus' sexual orientation is homosexual, but it's not clear at all that Gus was a practicing homosexual, and much less clear that Max Arciniega was a romantic partner. My two cents. signed, Willondon (talk) 18:17, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
Categories: