Talk:Sorry (2021 film)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Sorry (2021 film) article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Film: American

	guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles
	This article is supported by the American cinema task force.

Comedy Low‑importance

	Comedy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comedy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of comedy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComedyWikipedia:WikiProject ComedyTemplate:WikiProject ComedyComedy articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Daily pageviews of this article

A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org

Bias

bias is showing. CaffeinAddict (talk) 01:07, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

I searched for all the reliable sources I could find. I'll be pleased to see you prove my research flawed. But even the ones you included all contextualise the special with C.K.'s sexual misconduct, and the special would seemingly not be notable if not for how it relates to the misconduct. The article you created certainly didn't show

draftify

it. The Cut introduces him as a "disgraced comedian". A Vanity Fair article has the literal headline "How Saturday Night Live Awkwardly Grappled with the Louis C.K. Allegations". Decider mentions early that C.K. "almost crashed and burned his career completely in 2017 ...", Uproxx dedicates almost none of its article to a review but the whole first paragraph to the sexual misconduct, and even the dreadfully unreliable New York Post article is almost entirely about the misconduct. I didn't notice TMZ was being used, my mistake—this source also needs replacing, though it too mentions C.K.'s misconduct.

Please don't use tabloid sources and ensure notability is clearly shown in articles you create in future. — Bilorv (talk) 01:18, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your tone implies that you edit articles such as these with an eye on improvement of an article but I see you injecting intentionally negative imagery into articles of which you have a clear bias toward. It does not go unnoticed. CaffeinAddict (talk) 02:00, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm more than happy to take on constructive criticism, but to make your comments constructive (i.e. possible to act on), you need to show me the reliable sources commenting on Sorry that are more positive towards C.K. — Bilorv (talk) 11:03, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@CaffeinAddict: thanks for your addition of a MovieWeb review! It's a source I wasn't aware of. I think the case for notability is stronger with the inclusion of this. The next step for improvement is probably a synopsis of the special. — Bilorv (talk) 17:51, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]