User talk:Sinkazama82
March 2024
I have noticed that you have included a review from Asian Movie Pulse in the article WP:NEWSBLOG), it would be inappropriate to include such a review on the platform. Please refrain from doing so. Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 13:20, 14 March 2024 (UTC)]
- Hello the review is done by me, Panos Kotzathanasis, and I am a professional critic, I actually live from writing criticism. I am a member of FIPRESCI, NETPAC, Online Film Critics Association, Hellenic Film Academy, and Greek Cinema Critics Association. I am also approved by Rotten Tomatoes, a writer in Hancinema and you can find my articles in Taste of Cinema, SIRP in Estonia, Film.sk in Slovakia, Asian Dialogue in the UK, Cinefil in Japan, Talking Shorts, with my writings about Asian cinema exceeding 300 on a yearly basis. Furthermore, I contribute analysis videos in the digital releases of the French company, Spectrum Films, and Dekanalog Films in the Us.
- Furthermore, Asian Movie Pulse, of which I am an owner and Editor in Chief, is the biggest website, in terms of traffic and content, about Asian cinema in the English language.
- On a last note, occasionally I do find references to my texts in Wikipedia, which I have not added, as in the following
- Pandoora
- December (2022 Japanese film)
- so I am surprised that it was a problem this time.
- I hope this is enough not to consider me a blogger anymore and reinstate my contribution Sinkazama82 (talk) 06:55, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
- I looked up Asian Movie Pulse on MOS:FILMCRITICS.
- I looked up Asian Movie Pulse on
- Worse still, you claimed that the review was written by yourself, which is a clear violation of Wikipedia's conflict of interest policies (WP:COI). Please do not contribute sources about/written by yourself. I noticed that you have already attempted to include your own review in film articles but was reverted.(Special:Diff/1191300515) Please refrain from doing so as it goes against Wikipedia's policies.--Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 10:09, 16 March 2024 (UTC)]
- According to MOS:FILMCRITICS, "The use of print reviews is encouraged; these will be more reliable in retrospect."
- It says 'encouraged'. And do you really mean to tell me that Wikipedia is not considering any non-printed information as reliable? You are using Deadline as a source, which is only online, for example
- I understand the second part, and I will refrain, but ditching a whole website that has been up since 2011 does sound a bit harsh, as do phrases like "worse still". And considering the fact that all the sources you mention in the critical response section are from Asia, I guess you think only people from the region are allowed to review Asian films Sinkazama82 (talk) 11:14, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
- Worse still, you claimed that the review was written by yourself, which is a clear violation of Wikipedia's conflict of interest policies (
- The "print review" is just one of several criteria that determine the reliability of a source. It is just one of the many doubts I have about the reliability of Asian Movie Pulse after checking the website. As I said, there are other doubts, for instance, the source wasn't listed in WP:RSP, and it is powered by Wordpress, which gives it the impression of a tabloid/blog. All these factors led me to the conclusion that it may not be a reliable source.
- No, WP:FILM/R, Deadline is recognized as a reliable source on Wikipedia. I used "worse still" on citing one's own work on Wikipedia, because it is a clear violation of Wikipedia policies.
- Also, it is coincidental that all the reviews I cited in this article are from Asian sources. I did not exclusively cite sources from Asia for Asian film articles. For example, I also cited The Guardian in Time Still Turns the Pages. Personally, I am genuinely pleased to see more western critics writing about Asian films and I believe it would be valuable to include more western reviews to present a more diverse perspective on the critical response, given that it adheres to Wikipedia policies.--Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 13:11, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
- So, the fact that Asian Movie Pulse has been up since 2011, is right now the biggest website in terms of traffic and content about Asian cinema in the English language, a number of the 30+ writers are approved by Rotten Tomatoes, that we get accreditation in every festival we apply for including Cannes, Berlin, Busan, Rotterdam, Sundance, have sponsorships from a number of companies dealing with Asian cinema, media partnerships with even more festivals around the world etc is not enough, but the crucial factor is that it was made in Wordpress and that YOU have doubts about its reliability.
- Anyway, since I do not have time to try to convince YOU about the reliability of the website, could you at least inform me of how I can include Asian Movie Pulse in the list of reliable sources? Unless you decide about that too, so there is no point. Sinkazama82 (talk) 18:16, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
- The "print review" is just one of several criteria that determine the reliability of a source. It is just one of the many doubts I have about the reliability of Asian Movie Pulse after checking the website. As I said, there are other doubts, for instance, the source wasn't listed in
- No, you are weirdly misinterpreting my statement. I said I searched on WP:RSPMISSING and start a discussion with other Wikipedia editors to seek consensus if you wish to propose your website as a reliable source.--Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 19:09, 16 March 2024 (UTC)]
- Will do as I leave you to your assumptions and your "charity" in getting back to me Sinkazama82 (talk) 07:21, 17 March 2024 (UTC)