Talk:Tokyo Story

message: Reading the plot, it is not at all clear who Kyoko is.  Noriko's son?  This should be fixed.  Thanks!  78.26 (talk) 20:16, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The plot currently says A retired couple, Shukichi and Tomi Hirayama (played by Chishu Ryu and Chieko Higashiyama respectively) live in the town of Onomichi in southwest Japan with their unmarried youngest daughter Kyoko What do you suggest changing it to? JoshuSasori (talk) 22:49, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plot 

message: I added a paragraph to the "reception" section, about negative reviews, to give a more balanced view:
:Contrastingly, a small minority of reviewers lambast the film as repetetive, unengaging, unsubtle, and very dull.
Another editor reverted this addition, on the grounds that the websites to which I linked contain user-generated content and are therefore unreliable sources.  Upon checking, it appears to me that both of the reviewers to whom I referred, James Blake Ewing and Mel Valentin, are professional film critics, and (having reviewed the MOS) therefore valid sources.  I think the user comments on those sites don't detract from the professionalism of the referenced reviews, and don't disqualify them from being valid sources.  I'm therefore restoring my addition.  If I really am wrong in referring to these reviews, please explain more specifically here.  195.81.245.98 (talk) 12:32, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The critics do not seem to be professional; their websites are self-published sources. I would not reference them. I also think that presently, negative reviews would be undue weight: "Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views as much of, or as detailed, a description as more widely held views. Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all." I looked at Rotten Tomatoes, and the score is 100%. I think this article's "Reception" section has a meta-analysis of the reception, which is fine, but it is lacking in quoting any specific reviews, especially to illustrate why the film was so well-received. We don't have that right now. We would need a fuller body of that kind of content so any negative reviews we also include would be more clearly indicated as a minority view. Erik (talk | contribs) 12:48, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

text: Upon checking, it appears to me that both of the reviewers to whom I referred, James Blake Ewing and Mel Valentin, are professional film critics - Those reviews certainly don't read like they were written by professional film critics. I looked on the websites and googled for the names without success. Can you please give your evidence that they are "professional film critics"? Thanks. JoshuSasori (talk) 12:51, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: James Blake Ewing seems to be a self-publishing blogger: . The efilmcritic.com site looks like user-generated content site: . I don't think either of these guys are "professional film critics" (which was kind of obvious from reading their reviews, really). I'm sorry but this content doesn't belong in the article. JoshuSasori (talk) 13:00, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Negative reviews

message: There are a number of dead links in the article to the 1992 and 2002 Sight & Sound polls. I'm not sure of the correct way to mark them. NotYourFathersOldsmobile (talk) 00:34, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sight & Sound dead links