Talk:Extraction (2020 film)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 April 2020

under "plot", please remove space between "Tyler Rake" and the comma. (first 2 words.) 96.44.108.170 (talk) 22:04, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

 Done –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 22:34, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

"Probably Rake"?

Seems more like possibly Rake. KcorriganM (talk) 00:10, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 April 2020

Remove the entire Image of Bangladesh section as it is written in a commentary fashion rather than factually based with proper references. It sounds like propaganda written by a nation state. 72.74.38.193 (talk) 06:20, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

 Already done Already done by CanAerospace99 Aasim 09:25, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

The text about Bangladesh has been deleted[1] and readded several times since then. I found a version of it in the article, a short mention in the Critical response section did not seem unreasonable, so I cleaned up what I found as best I could.[2] (BBC Bangla seems like a good enough source. I dont know if The Daily Star is a good source or not.)

I am still not entirely sure that it is WP:NOTABLE. There should probably be some discussion, and an attempt to find a consensus about keeping or removing it from the article. -- 109.78.197.202 (talk) 00:44, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Controversy

Now some guy has started a whole Controversy subsection [3], which seems excessive to me, especially since there is a guideline that recommends we avoid creating Controversy sections. Again there is a need to discuss this and get some agreement if we should keep some of this, or none of this. -- 109.78.222.21 (talk) 22:32, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

I do not think there is anything wrong with a controversy section. What you linked was not a guideline, but an essay. Plus, guidelines are considered "best practices". If you believe that the header should be something else, feel free to reopen this edit request. Aasim 20:34, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm not concerned about the heading specifically, or the existence of a Controversy in general, but is it necessary in this article? Is this Controversy section notable enough, are the sources reliable enough? Local people get annoyed by Hollywood misrepresention and stereotyping all the time, it is pretty standard I think, but think it only needs a line or two to acknowledge it exists, not a multiple paragraphs. See for example the very short Controversy section in the article Sicario (2015 film)#Controversy. (Also when the subsection was added the short note in the Critical response section was not removed, so one or the other redundant and should be removed.)

The article is not locked at this time, so I could easily make edits myself, but variations on this theme have been added and deleted several times already, and I thought it was important to try and get some consensus. -- 109.76.193.112 (talk) 01:38, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

There was plenty wrong with the section but User:ZimZalaBim has cleaned it up substantially. It would still be good to get some discussion about if the sources are good or if the section needs to be as long as it is. -- 109.78.214.243 (talk) 21:32, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

We certainly don't need 5 sources to cite the fact that some internet users complained about the movie. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 21:42, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

The Economist also has an article on the Controversy[4] -- 109.79.66.188 (talk) 13:12, 16 May 2020 (UTC)