Talk:Simran (film)

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles
	This article is supported by the Indian cinema task force.

India: Cinema Low‑importance

	India portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Indian cinema workgroup (assessed as Low-importance).

Improperly sourced summary of critical response

In this edit, I removed content submitted by Aruvn. When we summarise critical response, we need to attribute that summary to a specific voice. We don't pick review excerpts, then summarise those excerpts in a way that suits us. We need to quote reliable sources that say "overall response was positive" or "critics responded positively to Ranaut's performance" or something of that nature. The content I chopped says "Critics lauded Kangana Ranaut's performance". Well, in the Quint source provided, there was some criticism levied at her poor comedic timing and scenes that felt like an acting workshop. That's hardly "lauded". This is why we don't cherrypick reviews and then summarise that selection.

Also, we shouldn't deal in absolutes. We can say that "some critics praised Ranaut's acting, although some critics criticised her comedic timing", and "Reviewers X felt that the story was sluggish in the second half, a sentiment not shared by reviewer A, who wrote, 'it picked up in the second half and my eyes were wide open'." This is how a neutral encyclopedia should be presenting information, not in hard-line black or white. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:19, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In a message left on my talk page, @Aruvn: wrote:

Hi. I think you are contributing your edits by 'over-analyzing' the subjects which also breaches the neutral tone expected in an encyclopedia. You yourself , are 'cherry-picking' the lines which are against the word 'lauded'. As far as my 'new' reference is concerned you should read the 'concluding line' or 'titles' which straight- forward tells the overall results. So, in this case the particular sources have overall 'lauded' the performance etc in their respective overall verdicts and what you are highlighting is your 'cherry-picked' lines from their criticisms. Also, I have given due credit to the overall criticism that was only against the screenplay of this film.I have also added 'mostly' which itself explain's that there is little critisim also present .I hope you understood. If not, you can message me your queries on Aruvn (talk) 17:00, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

With regard to that,

Aruvn, you have no consensus to restore that content. Per WP:BRD, if you are reverted, the burden is yours to open a discussion and seek consensus for the changes. I did that for you. So you are presently in contravention of community expectations, and when there is a dispute like this, the status quo (i.e. the version that did not contain the fluffy verbiage) should be preserved.
Since you did not respond to the points made above, I don't know if you even read them, but with 64 edits under your belt, you're no expert on Wikipedia community guidelines. I, however, am quite familiar with them, and I attempted not only on your talk page, but on my talk page on the 18th, to explain to you what the requirement is for summarizing critical response. Per MOS:FILM#Critical response, "The overall critical response to a film should be supported by attributions to reliable sources. Avoid weasel words. If any form of paraphrasing is disputed, quote the source directly." This is the second time I'm pointing you to this. You did not provide a sufficient reference that summarizes the entirety of critical response. You provided a reference that has selected several reviews excerpts, then you personally interpreted these selections and presented your conclusion either as "lauded", (without providing any contrasting opinions) or as "mostly lauded", which again, is unsubstantiated, as nobody has explicitly said that most of the reviewers loved her performance.
Since I am contesting your choice of phrasing, per the Manual of Style guideline, you would be required to quote the source directly. Since The Quint (is that even a reliable source per our standards?) doesn't summarize the critics' attitude toward Ranaut's performance, you have no basis to restore either "lauded" or "mostly critics praised".
Please also be clear about this: any edits that look like they're promotional in nature are highly frowned upon by the Wikipedia community and they will be dealt with. When people speak in absolutes about subjective matters, that's going to draw a good deal of scrutiny. Indian cinema is a notorious venue for promotion of films, and that sort of thing will not be tolerated.

Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:55, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Cyphoidbomb , you didn't got my point. Nevertheless,I'm taking my edit 'back' .Aruvn (talk) 09:32, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Aruvn: If you want to clarify your point, feel free, but you don't seem to understand the idea that we are not critical response aggregators and it is not our place to decide what the overall response to a film was. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:08, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]