Talk:Le Boucher

message: :Image:TheButcher.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 18:47, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:TheButcher.jpg

message: They're almost entirely useless, based on original research/analysis and opinion. For example, how is the movie a "character study"? When are character studied in it? How could it be a character study if you know little about the characters at the end? This is fuzzy language at best.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.229.115.207 (talk) 05:14, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: agree language like "natural in the purest meaning of the word" is very fuzzy. Mirtar (talk) 23:19, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

text: I have to agree. An interesting but entirely personal view of the film that is open to a number of challenges and needs extensive rethinking.--Clifford Mill (talk) 20:18, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Remove/severely trim discussion sections?

message: I have great sympathy for the author of this paqe. This is his or her own impressionistic review of the film, by no means foolish or "wrong." But it is still just one subjective opinion after another. A simple synopsis that falls short of spoilers, some sourced quotations from prominent reviews demonstrating why this film is highly thought of--that is what called for here. Not one person's highly idiosyncratic exegesis and review. Mandrakos (talk)
: I have to agree. An interesting but entirely personal view of the film that is open to a number of challenges and needs extensive rethinking. --Clifford Mill (talk) 20:18, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: This page needs to be entirely rewritten

message: This article is way too short and needs to be expanded. The plot needs to be expanded in more detail, information on the film's production and reception should be added and also information on the film's legacy (it does have a cult following) should be added as well.--Paleface Jack (talk) 16:10, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article needs Expanding 

message: I've rewritten the plot section which contained some errors and a style which did not always conform to WP:PLOTSUM. I will also try to find contemporary reviews for a reception section to be added in the near future. Robert Kerber (talk) 17:55, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rewriting started, reception section to be added