Talk:The Tashkent Files

User-reviews

We don't provide user-reviews from random sites, for they are heavily manipulable. See WP:USERGENERATED which states:- Although review aggregator sites such as Rotten Tomatoes are used across the site, audience ratings based on the reviews of site members from the public are not. Accordingly, reverted. ∯WBG^converse 14:15, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

The Shawshank Redemption mentions it being in the peak of IMDB list; since the occassion was covered by other independent reliable secondary sources. If Vivek manage to render some masterpiece, (drifting apart from these piss pathetic political hit-jobs) and make it to the IMDB top 200, he too will be covered by enough media-units to incorporate that achievement. But, with this film, that chance has evaporated. ∯WBG^converse 14:45, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

IMDb ratings are used everywhere. It's standard practice to check the IMDb rating. But you seem to have a problem with all of these. Perhaps that why you deleted IMDb rating too. GUNJAN037 (talk) 15:39, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

I don't have a problem; our guidelines, which have the consensus of the community, have a problem. Feel free to propose changes to those guidelines, if you are confident enough. And, finally, if you continue with this unnecessary straw-man personalization of the dispute, you will get blocked. ∯WBG^converse 15:43, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Paraphrasing

Our rules on copyright and close-paraphrasing are religiously followed and thus such a long quote ain't permitted. Summarize the review, in a few words and mention it. You might have seen that, not a single review has been afforded such a long quote and the longest quote is about a line. Accordingly, reverted.∯WBG^converse 14:20, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

CineBlitz

fails WP:RS courtesy a near-blank About Us page which mentions precise nothing about editorial policy, contributors et al. Seems like a gossip-zine. Also, neither the reviewer is a famed critic to be worthy of a mention per WP:SPS. Accordingly, reverted. ∯WBG^converse 14:26, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

OpIndia.com

is unreliable per this RSN thread. If you wish to change the existing consensus, (participated by numerous INB-pedians), feel free to start a new thread but that consensus exists unless you get it vacated. Best, ∯WBG^converse 15:12, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Also, mainstream critics is a misnomer. If I run a blog from tomorrow and start reviewing movies, I don't become a film critic. ∯WBG^converse 15:16, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Additionally, almost each and every of Jim's mainstream critic (and even foreign critics) mentioned that the motivations of the film were extremely dubious (an underhanded reference) or straightway deemed the film to be a politically motivated propaganda.

Not mentioning the sole common locus of all prominent critics is in contravention of WP:FALSEBALANCE. Another acronym, huh. ∯WBG^converse 15:19, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

You are welcome to run a blog and to do a movie review. That how things start from small towards big. But if small enterprises are not allowed to grow just because they are new and are not as popular as big ones then will never grow. Everything starts from small and builds slowly but you are only comparing based on popularity and how big firm is. This is really bad. Also, you don't appreciate different views because you keep on deleting others view that doesn't satisfy you. That is why you deleted mine and gave vague reasoning for your doings. By the way, OpIndia is really doing well.GUNJAN037 (talk) 15:49, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Let them grow big and gain a respectable status, we will surely deem them to be reliable enough to serve as an encyclopedic reference. Read WP:NEWSORG for more understanding of the issue.

I can't care less about how a fake news peddler does in the market. And, if you continue with your continued personal attacks, I will ask for sanctions. ∯WBG^converse 15:55, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

NPOV

I am opening this thread as a way to discuss and reach a consensus about the article's overwhelmingly non-proportional way of writing. As per the common Bold, revert and discuss cycle, I rewrote the Lead section of the article to conform it with WP:MOS/LEAD, according to WP:BEGIN, "The first paragraph should define or identify the topic with a neutral point of view" which it does not as of now. And as already mentioned it does not involve all the balancing aspects of the subject. Now, the next issue raised was about Opindia.com not being a RS. Now I don't see this thread on RS has a very clear consensus, I will open the dispute resolution again. But meanwhile I will use this as a reference to back up the fact that "it was positively received by audience".

almost each and every of Jim's mainstream critic (and even foreign critics) mentioned that the motivations of the film were extremely dubious, now since we are discussing about the review (or opinions) of critics we cannot take it as a fact and write "and widely deemed as politically motivated in light of the concurrent 2019 general elections." in the lead of the article as per the first principle of WP:WIKIVOICE, we have to rephrase the sentence such that it includes public reception in the lead (source available).

Now, the "mainstream critic" is a very self explanatory word to define critics that are reviewing films from a mainstream media outlet when the response from public is different from the mainstream media outlets, I don't see how it is a "misnomer".

Again, false balance does not work in this case because it is not an established fact but an opinion that the movie is bad or good, so I would suggest removal of the word "grossly". It depends on the perspective of the person observing it, so I don't believe WP:FALSEBALANCE is effective. Thanks and excuse the jargons. Jim Carter 16:34, 22 April 2019 (UTC)