Talk:Narcos

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Manuelgomez123. Peer reviewers: Manuelgomez123.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 01:24, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

"Positive" Reception
It reads contradictory to say that the show received positive reviews from critics, but then follow it (almost exclusively) with derisive quotes from critics. Any agreement to replace some of them with positive quotes to maintain Wiki neutrality? (Antinate (talk) 06:12, 27 September 2015 (UTC))


 * This is factually wrong. There is more positive review than negative. zzz (talk) 12:28, 27 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm not here for a conversation about what is or isn't an objective fact. Each of the quotes are a bit backhanded, in my opinion. So I'm leaving the neutrality tag until there's actual discussion about the content of the quotes, not impulsive "nope, you're wrong"s. (Antinate (talk) 17:03, 27 September 2015 (UTC))
 * There's nothing actionable in what you're now saying, except, you could try adding another review. zzz (talk) 18:18, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
 * He's saying it's an issue of undue weight to include only negative reviews when the show has received generally positive reviews, which I agree with. The section ought to be rewritten.  Calidum   22:15, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
 * He's either choosing to ignore rt's positive "consensus", and a 7.8/10 "good" review written out in full, (first message above), or (second message) he's saying that these positive reviews are "a bit backhanded" (WP:OR). Clearly, anything scoring less than 80% on RT has issues, so there's no surprise to find criticism in the criticism section.zzz (talk) 22:26, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
 * If you're going to say "He's saying it's an issue of undue weight to include only negative reviews when the show has received generally positive reviews, which I agree with" then you seem to be saying that the two positive reviews written out in full are in fact both "negative reviews". I'm inclined to believe they are positive as advertised/claimed by the author, so the positive and negative have therefore been given due weight. zzz (talk) 22:45, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
 * This was the problem. zzz (talk) 13:09, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Self-contradictory preamble removed. If someone could better sum up what's allegedly so great about the series, that is worth a try; unless it's just "good story, acceptable acting" like it says. zzz (talk) 13:44, 28 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I definitely don't agree with the way you chose to handle that, so I went ahead and revised the Reception section to better demonstrate what I mean. It sounds more neutral, and it sorts out positive from decidedly negative quotes. Also truncated extraneous lines. Now: as far as lifting quotes from Rotten Tomatoes is concerned, I added a Who? tag, since if we're going to quote reviewers—Rotten Tomatoes is an aggregate website, so we should lift quotes from the respective viewers, not Rotten Tomatoes. But overall, I think it reads more balanced now. (Antinate (talk) 21:33, 28 September 2015 (UTC))

Well, the review with the "who?" tag would require you to go to the website to verify. Other than that, you re-added the pointless and contradictory "Narcos received positive reviews from critics", you split the RT into two separate sections, which is clearly not an improvement, and wrote out the full details of one RT reviewer, which are in the ref already. Also not an improvement. As I've suggested already, if it's not positive enough for you, add some more positive review. Please justify your edits before reverting. zzz (talk) 21:52, 28 September 2015 (UTC)


 * You disagree with my edits, and I disagree with your objectionable opinions that they're "pointless" or "contradictory." It's not contradictory when neutrality demands that you show both sides. But if it satisfies you, I will make an addendum—to my previous edit—and say that it received "mostly" positive reviews. Furthermore, most Reception sections in Wikipedia articles separate positive and negative reviews. These are quotes that were on the page before I sorted them out, so the change is for clarity. Now, I do want to note that you haven't given me any actual justifications to revert to my changes beyond "it's CLEARLY not an improvement!" Your absolutism is neither meaningful or constructive. Provided that, I do not expect a fourth revert on your part or I will make a submission to the 3RR noticeboard for edit warring. (Antinate (talk) 22:21, 28 September 2015 (UTC))
 * If you revert again, that will be your fourth revert in row. Please read my explanation again, and attempt to justify your edit based on my actual objections to it, and avoiding WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS as your sole reason. zzz (talk) 22:26, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Ah, you don't mind your WP:SLEEPER account getting blocked. diff zzz (talk) 22:29, 28 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I made a contribution, not a revert. And insults are unworthy of you. Since you still haven't contributed any meaningful dialogue to the discussion, I don't expect the article to change. (Antinate (talk) 22:34, 28 September 2015 (UTC))
 * You did 4 (four) reverts, after being warned, above. Why don't you use your regular account, Antinate? Or are we to believe that this is your 56th edit ever, in about 9 years? zzz (talk) 22:39, 28 September 2015 (UTC)


 * summary
 * 1) The claim that the reviews are "almost exclusively" negative - which no one believes.
 * 2) Also, that they are all "somewhat backhanded" - which no one believes.

The section was changed to include precisely all of the same reviews.

Then, and only after further incisive commentary, "neutrality demands that you show both sides" etc, the actual concern is finally revealed: the theory is, apparently, that a negative review must not be mentioned in the same section as the others. This is not a policy, and here it is being used in my view to degrade the quality of the article. The reviews selected by Rotten Tomatoes clearly make more sense in the RT section.

Obviously, the changes were not discussed, and I am restoring the stable version. If there are objections, please use words to describe what they actually are. zzz (talk) 18:33, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
 * It's been pointed out why the previous version problematic. Those issues have been resolved with the addition of a positive review to better reflect the critical reception. Your change here is without merit and I don't need your approval to improve the article. There is little wonder why you've been blocked three times for edit warring in the past 11 months; do you want to make it four?   Calidum   18:46, 30 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Your only previous comment here stated that the reviews are all negative. You clearly don't believe that, since your preferred version contains all the same reviews.
 * Now you claim that a positive review has been added, although in fact no reviews have been added.
 * If you continue to use the talk page, you may avoid both of us getting blocked for edit warring. Clearly I am not going to accept your statements thus far, which have both been entirely divorced from reality. zzz (talk) 19:09, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
 * But the version preferred by myself and rejected by you better organizes the reviews (putting positive before negative) and provides a less back handed quote from the IGN review. You still haven't provided a reason for your objection other than WP:IDONTLIKEIT.  Calidum   19:18, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

My contribution to this debate is that I prefer the Reception section as it last appeared in this revision. Without input from additional editors, and provided that I changed the preface of Reception to "mostly positive" (as per, conceivably, zzz's concerns; also noting that he did not articulate his other, arbitrary problems with this revision defensibly or with civility) I believe this is grounds for consensus, reminding contributors that consensus does not have to be unanimous. Thus I will revert the Reception section to the aforementioned revision, barring satisfactory dispute. Antinate (talk) 20:42, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Reception of Spanish spoken
Could a subsection be added to the reception section talking about the reactions to the Spanish spoken/accents. To the average Anglo viewer this may seem trivial, but this has gotten quite a bit of media coverage (naturally more so in Spanish media). Here is the opinion of a member of the Academia Norteamericana de la lengua Española (http://www.univision.com/noticias/noticias-de-eeuu/impresiones-personajes-de-narcos-no-hablan-bien-el-espanol).

Couple of sources in English
 * http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/sep/17/narcos-netflix-colombian-accents
 * http://www.miamiherald.com/entertainment/tv/article35428524.html

ref removed post magazine
I just hid the following:


 * Cuauhtémoc Ruelas of Post Magazine Tijuana suggested that viewers read up on the true story, which "surpasses fiction."

The ref does not say that. First of all it is in Spanish, and probably a South American dialect(?), and Google Translate is fallible.

From reading my version of the translation, he suggests reading up on the story to avoid getting lost while watching.

"So, besides giving a recommendation to this series, I also suggest documented before her, to familiarize a little with the facts and does not get lost in the dense passages in unlikely appearance of argument, as I happened to me."

Hmmm ... worth keeping? Chaosdruid (talk) 16:46, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Uncredited appearance by real life DEA Agents
Real life former DEA Agents Steve Murphy and Javier Pena appear as two bar patrons during the "Pablo is dead" montage: Season 2, Episode 10, 44m15s to 44m19s. They're the two gentlemen whom clink glasses while watching a basketball match, just before Pena downs his drink and receives a page. Neither are credited at the end of the episode.

The two chaps at the bar match photos I've found of the real life Murphy and Pena. Murphy Pena

How would one describe their uncredited appearance (I assume, a cameo) and alter the article to reflect this appropriately?

--Eain Redbeard (talk) 02:22, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

"Special guest appearances" in cast?
Why are some actors / characters listed under a separate heading "Special guest appearances" ? Why are these any different from the recurring characters? 24.136.125.188 (talk) 20:29, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Criticism of historical accuracy
Apparently this show "distorts history and misrepresents the conflict": https://newrepublic.com/article/123287/what-narcos-gets-wrong and that "Critics have confused Narcos’s overt cynicism for a deeper rejection of the U.S.’s war on drugs": https://newrepublic.com/article/136643/narcos-still-gets-wrong-war-drugs Omgtotallyradical (talk) 15:42, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Juan Pablo Shuk as Col. Hugo Martinez
I notices while watching season 2 there is no mention of Juan Pablo Shuk joining the cast. I did find a link clearly stating he did join the cast. http://www.morningledger.com/narcos-season-2-spoilers-reveal-emotional-end-for-drug-lord/1398181/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joker4lifead (talk • contribs) 08:55, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Also, the article describes Carrillo as being based on Hugo Martinez,  when the character of Huge Martinez has an actual role in the show on his own, which is a little odd. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Holmes108 (talk • contribs) 13:54, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Narco series and bif drug cartels
Just punks and bunch of poor people havi g money still dont trow away those shities cellradios jaja I was better in prison bop Not with little brats 189.202.52.30 (talk) 12:01, 13 December 2022 (UTC)