Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Ralph Bakshi/archive9
Latest comment: 14 years ago by Ibaranoff24
- "All sources have been exhausted for critical opinion": this is patently false. DocKino (talk) 22:54, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
- No, it is not false. It is 100% true. It is completely lazy to not look at the article and make an opinion based on the fact that I'm saying it. If fifty people tell you that I am correct, are they wrong? (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 03:41, 9 November 2009 (UTC))
- If fifty people told me you were correct, I'd believe you were correct. If ten people told me you were correct, I'd believe you were correct. If five people told me you were correct, I'd probably believe you were correct. But only one person has told me you are correct. You. And you're wrong. 03:59, November 9, 2009 DocKino
- Contemporary reviews of Coonskin are quoted from Playboy, The New York Times, Variety, and the Los Angeles Herald-Examiner. Contemporary reviews of The Lord of the Rings are quoted from Newsday, the Chicago Sun-Times, The New York Times, and New York. It is patently false to claim that not even one of these publications, nor any of the hundreds of other newspapers and general-interest magazines around the country reviewed Wizards, or American Pop, or Fire and Ice. Talk about lazy. DocKino (talk) 03:59, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
- Coonskin, Wizards American Pop and Fire and Ice were put out in limited releases. The best reviews that I could find for The Lord of the Rings which could be easily accessed are posted. Fire and Ice has no reviews on Rotten Tomatoes, nor does Coonskin. To call extensive research lazy is nonsense. It is also incorrect to state that I am incorrect, when it is clear that I am, indeed, correct. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 21:06, 11 November 2009 (UTC))
- No, it is not false. It is 100% true. It is completely lazy to not look at the article and make an opinion based on the fact that I'm saying it. If fifty people tell you that I am correct, are they wrong? (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 03:41, 9 November 2009 (UTC))
- "All sources have been exhausted for critical opinion": this is patently false. DocKino (talk) 22:54, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
- Doc I removed some of this to talk (the "If fifty people para ... ) as it might not be helpful. I left the para beginning with "Contemporary reviews of ... ", but I suggest striking the "Talk about lazy" from the main FAC page, so we can keep this review on track. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:08, 9 November 2009 (UTC)