Talk:Cuck (film)

Was this movie actually released in theaters?
I know this question sounds weird, but I can't find any evidence that this movie was actually released to the theaters. The IMDB page says that it grossed $0.00 in its opening day but makes no comment on any other revenues. This movie does not appear on Box Office Mojo's 2019 worldwide box office, which can be found here: https://www.boxofficemojo.com/year/world/2019/. It's a pretty comprehensive list and includes such low-grossing movies as The Portal ($685). Does anyone know what this movie grossed and if it was even actually released? May His Shadow Fall Upon You ● 📧 14:23, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Inclusion of the $0 box office rumours
Hello - I would like to address and get to the bottom of the wiki editing on the CUCK film page. I have identified 2 contributions on the CUCK wiki page that are not neutral reporting and seem to be consistent and persistent attempts to smear the subject. See the two contributions below that do not belong to a neutral wiki page:

1) “According to some sources, Cuck made literally no money ($0) at the box office, which became the source of some ridicule.[5] It was later reported that the box office amount was misinterpreted due to the box office not being reported.[6]”

2) “Following the movie's release, Google reported the box office for Cuck as "0 USD". This was later revealed to be due to the box office figures remaining undisclosed.[6] However, this did not prevent some ridicule from occurring, with people declaring it a prime example of the idiom "go woke, go broke" in effect.[5]”

These contributions (#1 and #2) and edits are not a neutral point of view concerning an unsubstantiated online rumor. The fact that this rumor has been proved incorrect (https://www.the-numbers.com/movie/Cuck#tab=summary), the insistence of putting it on this page not once but twice, reveals that there are editors on wiki with a personal vendetta against this film. A rumor or lie spread online is not a worthy or neutral wiki contribution. The source being sited for this information (National File) is an unverified and unsourced blog with clear bias and cause to smear this film. To publish a rumor as some type of fact without getting sources or facts right is not a source we should be promoting on wikipedia. To continue to make it part of the CUCK film wiki page is a clear sign of disingenuous wiki editing and clear bias. This is the type of misinformation that needs to be stopped as it is watering down the validity and reader trust of Wikipedia.

The second contribution (see #2) of this same baseless misreporting may even be less neutral than the first one, including internet slang that clearly has nothing to do with the film and is instead an opinion and way to further spread false information about the film. There are several editors contributing to this page that clearly have negative bias towards the subject.

To answer the questions about CUCK’s theatrical release and proof of a theatrical release:

The film was released into theaters Oct 4, 2019 (https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-arts/story/2019-09-26/movies-opening-in-la-this-week-sept-29-oct-6-joker-joaquin-phoenix) and was in theaters for 2 weeks. There is no disclosure of the box office numbers by the distributor, as reported on by NUMBERS Box Office (https://www.the-numbers.com/movie/Cuck#tab=summary). For further proof that the film was in theaters see Oscar eligible list in Variety (https://variety.com/2019/film/awards/oscars-academy-announces-344-films-eligible-for-2019-best-picture-1203446314/) in which the guidelines for eligibility per the motion picture academy states “that to be eligible for awards consideration, a film must have a minimum seven-day theatrical run in a Los Angeles County commercial theater, with at least three screenings per day for paid admission.” See Oscar eligibility rules here: (https://www.oscars.org/news/academy-announces-rules-92nd-oscars). CUCK would not be on this list if it did not meet these guidelines for the Academy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GeoffreyE.Patten (talk • contribs) 22:24, 24 April 2020 (UTC)


 * It is not unsubstantiated rumour to say the factual fact that these rumours existed. Yes, the rumours were bogus, but they were still rumours that existed. Pointing out actual the rumours that existed is not the same thing as presenting those rumours as if they are fact, which no one has done. I do not understand the point you are trying to make here. --2A02:C7F:3A2B:3B00:D5AB:F3B6:6D57:1575 (talk) 02:33, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
 * You're really upset about people lying about Cuck Knst132 (talk) 01:22, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Reverting of edits by Naluchanda
On April 30th, an IP user reverted the edits of the user Naluchanda, who was indefinitely blocked earlier that same day for making undisclosed paid for edits on articles about movies and other medias. Naluchanda made a string of edits, which began with this edit and ended with this edit. This IP user reverted this string of edits to the version of the page that exist prior to Naluchanda's string of edits. After this occurred, another IP user undid this revert, citing "spam" as the reason. An edit war then occurred between these IP users, during which it appeared as if the initial IP user was being accused of inserting bias onto the page, even though they were simply reverting edits, due to them not being valid. He was not "inserting" anything, he was reverting invalid edits.

What I want to know is, why was this even a problem that occurred in the first place? The slanted position that seemed to be painted was that the IP user was inserting rumours onto the page (not inserting rumours as fact, but inserting rumours), but they weren't, they were just reverting invalid edits. Isn't there a distinction between inserting information and reverting invalid edits? Please, give a valid explanation for why the IP user's initial revert was invalid and even warranted discussion beforehand in the first place. "Rumours don't belong on the page without discussion first" doesn't cut it, because that's a straw man interpretation of what they were doing. --94.10.99.121 (talk) 15:43, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Please dont edit the page until there is a conclusion drawn. The content added by you is sourced by Non-RS. 197.234.153.120 (talk) 17:16, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * User:Girth Summit, this is technically same user from same location, same ISP provider, but hiding his details. He has explicitly said here to you that he is not going to edit the page but he is coming back every time. 197.234.153.120 (talk) 17:21, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Stop it OK guys, I've just protected the page to stop the edit warring over this. To be clear - edit warring doesn't mean going over 3RR, that's just the bright-line point after which you will be blocked. As soon as you reinstate an edit that has been reverted without gaining a talk page consensus, that's the point at which edit warring begins - and it takes two to tango, re-reverting an edit when an edit warrior has reinstated it is just as disruptive. So, stop it, both of you.

If you have reason to believe that an IP or a new account is someone evading their block, you can report them via SPI. If they are confirmed, then you may go about reverting all their edits. You can't use the WP:3RRNO exception for reverting an account/IP you suspect of being a sock, even if you are confident that you are right.

It doesn't particularly matter who added/removed what content originally. Per BURDEN and ONUS, if something is disputed, it is down to the person who wants it (re?)-included to make their case. I get confused looking at IP addresses, and find it difficult to tell who I'm talking to, so I'm going to address this to the person who wants this material included: please explain below, succinctly and with reference to reliable sources, why you believe this information should be included in the article. To the other person: please read what is said, consider it carefully, and respond to the argument. Girth Summit  (blether) 17:40, 3 May 2020 (UTC)


 * What the actual hell are you going on about with me suspecting an account of being a sock? This isn't the first time you or someone else made this completely random misdirection and I can't help but feel like it's being done on purpose, to be frank. I don't want to come across like a conspiracy nutjob, but none of what you've been doing has made any sense, and given the political background of this movie, it feels very much like there's a slanted perspective here. I very clearly outlined what happened. I didn't say anyone was a sock, I don't understand where this entire sock thing is coming from. They reverted Naluchanda 's edits because he was blocked indefinitely for undisclosed paid for content. Did you even read what I wrote, and click on the links I provided? I don't understand where the hell you're pulling this "sock puppet accusation" narrative from.


 * The point is that initial edit that sparked the so-called "edit war" was a IP user reverted a string of edits by a blocked user called Naluchanda; Naluchanda was blocked indefinitely for paid for edits to movie articles. It's got nothing to do with adding or removing information. It's about reverting edits that are no longer valid because they were paid for edits and how another IP user came along and began this entire misdirection that that other IP user was trying to add or remove information, when that isn't the point in the first place. I honestly don't care if the information gets added to the page or not, my problem, from a personal perspective, is how misdirected this entire thing got, because one IP user misconstrued the reverting of edits that were no longer valid with someone "adding" or "removing" information onto the page, when the two ideas are completely seperate. A user is well within their right to revert edits that are completely invalid. The information that gets added or removed in the process is not a point within the debate. 94.10.99.121 (talk) 18:01, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Let me make it very simple, as per Five pillars Editors' personal experiences, interpretations, or opinions do not belong on Wikipedia. If I claim Bill Gates to be sock and it is not correct as it was a rumor spread from my side, do you think even if it was published in non rs blogs it can be added on Bill Gates wiki page? If your answer is yes, I will do this and add this on Bill Gates wiki page. If your answer is no, please stop doing this. You seem to a mature person and comments like I don't want to come across like a conspiracy nutjob doesn't sound sensible. Also, your IP and last editor's IP is a perfect match. Is he your friend or do you have any specific interest with him?

Technically you both are same, same location, same isp and 100% the same person User:Girth Summit, this is a solid evidence I am sharing with you for a series of lies, you can confirm this with CU check. If you dont want to get that further check his IP location, also next time, he might be using a proxy server to do this. 169.255.76.250 (talk) 01:14, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
 * 2A02:C7F:3A2B:3B00:5012:AA3C:4BA4:EEEA- Location: London, England, ISP: Sky Broadband
 * 94.10.99.121: Location: London, England, ISP: Sky Broadband
 * This is the problem with trying to communicate with people using IP addresses. It's confusing, especially when the addresses change, and it's easy to lose track of who has said what.
 * To 94...121: I don't like your tone - you are coming very close to casting aspersions about my motives, I'd ask you to stop that immediately. I don't have any idea what the political background of this movie is, I haven't seen the movie, I haven't even read the article. I am here acting in an administrative capacity trying to put a stop to a disruptive edit war. The other person seems to be accusing you of being a sock of the other IP - that's what I was talking about. I don't know where you got the idea that it's alright to edit war to exclude edits originally made by UPE editors - just so we're clear, it's not OK to do that. Sure, we might revert all their edits when they're discovered - but if someone else contests one of the reverts, we discuss whether or not the content was an improvement. It doesn't matter who made an edit originally - the only question that matters is 'does it improve the article?'. In this case, the edit is contested, so make your case for it being an improvement, or walk away.
 * To 169...250: First, IP geolocations in the UK aren't particularly reliable, London is a city of around 10 million people, and Sky Broadband is one of the biggest internet service providers in Britain. Maybe this is the same person, maybe it's not - this isn't the right venue to discuss it. The only thing we should be discussing here on this article's talk page is whether or not that disputed content belongs in the article.
 * The only thing I should see beneath this post is a discussion of the article content. Girth Summit  (blether)  07:53, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Girth Summit  (blether), Again same team is back and posting things without discussing on talk page. Page needs a longer protection. 156.67.241.102 (talk) 20:25, 29 May 2020 (UTC)