Talk:Lata Mangeshkar/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

The neutrality of this article is disputed.

This article shows following problems

  • problem 1: It shows she sang 35 languages. if any body would like to show Please

please verify it. if which languages ? or which songs or just give a refrence of her official website.Reference site should be a standard. If any interview with her about her multi language songs ? if OK.

problem 2: The Nightingale of India. Sarijini Naidu is the Naighingale of India not Lata mangeshkar. It will mislead entire world.

06:22, 6 December 2006 (UTC)Lata is widely known as India's nightingale. In fact, Padma Subramaniam (Bharatanatyam dancer) also called Lata as the nightingale 06:22, 6 December 2006 (UTC)on the highest perch (source: Raju Bharatan's book on Lata).


problem 3: In her Doctorate awards I found some university name. I am not sure that India has such like universities. or the certificate of such university is valid in India or not. Please clear such blunder like New york University, India.

problem 4: This article has no Quality.

problem 5: Her caste was described Maratha as her Grand Father was Brahmin as Abhisheki in Mangeshi temple. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.50.161.81 (talk) 14:27, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

NPOV

Apart from NPOVed, there are factual inaccuracies. Lata's sister Meena is not Mangeshkar, she is Meena Khadikar. And she is very much into Music. She is a composer and works with Marathi language songs. --Sunita Dharwadkar, 5th May 2006


Not only the part moved below, almost all of the article needs to be NPOVed and grammatically corrected.

moved from main page. The text appears to be unoriginal. It can be NPOVed and moved back

Lata Mangeshkar. The queen of playback. If you aren't convinced of Lataji's greatness, have a listen to the 1973 smash-hit Bobby soundtrack, and you will be persuaded. And listen to the soundtrack of Hum Aapke Hain Koun recorded some twenty-years later; you'll hear her greatness still alive and kicking.

Lataji's voice is the epitome of versatility. She can belt out an upbeat, playful number like "Ae Phansa" from Bobby, just as easily as she can bring you to your knees with a sad number like "Aankhiyon Ko Rehne De" of the same movie or "Mohabbat Ki Jhuthi" of Mughal-E-Azam. Lataji's voice at times can be smooth and flowing, and even "lilty." Then there are the times where her overpronuncialtion of words and short breaths between notes can be distracting, for example, in the song "Jo Tum Todo Piya" from Silsila, Lataji stresses the syllables too much, which in turn makes her voice screach into octaves not meant for her, clearly, alto pitch. Although, I am aware that it is common prractice for female singers in India to go beyond their pitch, but it should be noted that some singers cannot do that easily -- Lataji being one of those who can't.

If there is a true weakmess in Lataji's voice, then it's her runs. Lataji has never been able to hit clear, controlled runs. Her runs are often all over the place, which makes for unpleasant cringing when you hear her "going there." But to her defense, Lataji has done some great runs, too; like in "Thoda Resham Lagta Hai" from the movie Jyoti. Lataji hits every note, every run and every breath on key. It is one of her best songs. Some have also said that, unlike her younger sister, Asha Bhosle, that her voice has never been "sweet." I invite you to listen to the Mughal-e-Azam soundtrack, and especially to "Mohabbat Ki Jhuthi," where Lataji voice is at its sweetest.

Overall, Lataji has been an wonderful force in playback singing. And, although there are many singers have come after her, none have been able to capture her "hold". Every song that she has done, never have I felt like another singer would have been better. Lataji has a way of making a song her own. In her later years, Lataji voice has weakened, became more screachy, but still she is able to give a good performance. The Mujhse Dosti Karoge soundtrack, where she sings some of her old songs is done beautifully, and the queen is still there.

Although Lataji has never been a great ad-libber or flowing with her language, she is still the best versatile playback singer of her time, and maybe of all time.

This has been included in the article with modifications. More cleanup needed. Jay 15:19, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)


Needs more shortening (probably splitting) and cleanup. Its also not NPOV. Take a look at the section titles.

1960s: Lata is the playback queen 1970s: Lata is ageless diva

The adjectives used to describe the decades dont look objective to me. I am considering an NPOV tag. --Soumyasch 10:48, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

TODO

- Aye maalik tere bande hum (Do Aankhen Barah Haath) - Lata and composer Ravi *Tumhaari Nazar kyon Khafa ho gayee(Do Kaliyan, duet with Rafi) *Milti hai zindagi mein mohabbat kabhi kabhi (Aankhen, Sahir Ludhiyanvi)

- Lata Mangeshkar and Yash Chopra * Silsila * Mere haathon mein nau nau choodiyan (Chandani) - musicians: Shiv-Hari(Shivkumar Sharma and Hariprasad Chaurasiya)

- Lata and O P Nayyar - Lata and Asha's relationship - Heroines she sang for

Too many superlatives

The article is full of superlatives about the 'magic' of her voice. The article needs some major cleanup and re-wordings.

I agree with that. Also large portion of the article would be better served as a chronological table of her recordings. As plain text, it simply rambles. I don't know any Indian languages but it seems someone will need to check the consistency of the song title romanizations.

Yep, really in need of an npov edit. :-( Rick Boatright 14:43, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Too many errors. Needs to be sorted out in order to stop future problems. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.98.153.212 (talk) 11:57, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Standard english

Wikipedia is not a U.S. english language resource, but many of the sentence structures in this article are _very_ non-standard english. They "sound hindi." That said, it's an Indian-oriented article about an Indian singer. Perhaps the Indian-english syntax is appropriate. I'm reluctant to start editing syntax without someone elses comment on it. Rick Boatright 21:18, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I see no reason not to. Yes it may be Indian-oriented, but that isn't an excuse for poor grammar. Lots of things even in Hindi are misspelled (why are there underscores in names...?), punctuation is incorrect, etc. I don't find it to be a cultural matter so much as the original writer being too much of a fan and not all that given to formal writing. The article needs to be more objective and less adoring. I tried cleaning up a couple of the areas, so I hope others will take noticed and help out as well. Hidoshi 14:39, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
It's been a while since the post, but yes in general please do so. Hindi-english is no standard of English. I wouldn't change British spellings to US ones, but ungrammatical English, syntax errors etc. can always be corrected - and these are minor edits. Just fix them and don't worry about it. Tbyrnestl 05:39, 10 July 2007 (UTC)tbyrnestl

Copyediting

I have done substantial copyediting for consistency in the use of italics for song titles, and to convert to Standard English, and I have removed the cleanup tag.

What I am not capable of doing is copyediting the song titles themselves... someone from India will need to take care of that, I suppose.

I have tried to tone down some of the superlatives, not out of disrespect for Lata Mangeshkar, but in order to pursue the encyclopedic ideal of WP:NPOV. Additional work may still be needed in this area. In particular, it would be useful to quantify the "hits" and "superhits" if there is an equivalent of the "top 40 songs" in the Indian market. Mamawrites 16:03, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Hi all! Zora has enlisted me to contribute to the overall editing jumbo endeavour. Honestly, this is going to be a more fun page to edit than Asha Bhosle's which I have just begun to tackle. Please speak to me on my discussion pages as well if I can combine elsewhere. My first task must be to put the nomenclature into Wiki/Encylopaedic form - namely calling the subject Mangeshkar as opposed to Lata. This is not meant to be a fan-site but should speak to the disinterested too. As to the structure of the page, I will venture cautiously!Autumnleaf 15:08, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

In need of major shortening

as with the aforementioned usage of too many superlatives, there are other problems with this article.

to wit, the sections have a lot of superfluous information in them. they are little more than lists of songs and producers that the singer has worked with.

this could easily be cut down to a few lists of producers and songs, perhaps in a tabular format to keep the relationships intact.

otherwise, it's just a way for fans to note just how many people she has worked with, and to insert comments about how great she is. --Yoasif 21:13, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

I think I can agree with most of what you say. When I have time I will be going section by section and pruning in any case. Meanwhile - I realise that she has some rather unusual sponsorships and a venture into the jewellery trade by the looks of it! Incidentally, could all of you contributors please sign in with four tildes ~ ~ ~ ~? Autumnleaf 19:50, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Way too long

Should be shortened. Also the division of sections should be reconsidered. Rather then descrbing in detail each decade, a broad overview of her career may be presented, followed by a graphical timeline, that will contribute significantly in reducing the length. And her songs may be copiled into a new discographic article. --Soumyasch 18:54, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

One reason is probably the large amount of copyright violations, especially from here. I've just caught a few and am working on that mess. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:53, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
And have reverted attempts to keep it in. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:10, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

NPOV, cleanup, english

I have slapped an NPOV template on the top of the page again. This article is clearly POV per reasons mentioned above. It is very long and needs to be shortened a bit. Various petty and trifling matters are also mentioned on the page which need to be weeded out. The English used is substandard. This article has clear potential of reaching a Featured Article status, but before that there is a lot of work to be done. Perhaps an INCOTW. --Andy123(talk) 15:28, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I fixed some of the language problems. I suggest that in the future, instead of putting the NPOV and other disclaimers, it would be more productive to point out and fix actual problems in the article. Jayanta Sen 20:01, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Albert Hall

"Mangeshkar was the first Indian to perform at the Royal Albert Hall in London, in 1974." Do we have a source? Can this be right? Seems hardly likely!Cravenmonket 03:08, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Hema Hardikar

Can somebody add that Lata Mangeshkar was born as Hema Hardikar which is her real name ?? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 60.240.187.133 (talk) 13:32, 29 April 2007 (UTC).


Can someone please add source for Lata's birthname being Hema Hardikar, if we are going to add this information in main article? I am Maharashatrian and this is a news for me!!! info4all

http://books.google.com/books?q=hema+hardikar -- The Mangeshkar family's original surname was Hardikar, and Lata's birthname was Hema. Lata's father changed their surname to "Mangeshkar" to identify with their village, Mangeshi. utcursch | talk 03:31, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

The Voice

Why is there no discussion of her voice? Criticisms of her and Asha Bhosle's alleged monopolization of playback singing in 60's and 70's (even 80's) Bollywood? Lata's undoubtedly a great singer, but the nasal quality of her tone has been largely ignored. It seems to me this article reads more like hagiography than biography.--128.59.26.54 18:20, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


Lata is good but her voice just doesn't seem to touch the heart. Or is it just me? Her voice is too thick. Unlike Alka Yagnik. I think Alka would've made a better rating if she was in Lata's Place.

Well, please add then, and find sources. The problem is finding sources for all this stuff. Lata's voice becomes much more nasal as she ages, but quite frankly I find most Indian classical vocalists a bit nasal. So I assume the acceptable nasal quality in a singer is just a matter of taste. What I hear in Lata's voice is first an obviously profound ability to intuit ragas. The sound just feels right. Her tropes, ornaments, shading: it sounds classical without being classical. But she also sounds personal. You can hear the voice itself speaking in a way that doesn't happen amid the depth of classical indian vocal style with it's baroque ornamentation. Of course none of this sort of thing belongs here in wikipedia. It's all personal opinion. What one would need to bring this sort of thing into the article would be the opinion of a musicologist specializing in Indian music. Even an album liner by a famous musician would help. (E.g. for Asha the liner notes on Legacy talking about her classical ability etc. are fair game). Tbyrnestl 05:49, 10 July 2007 (UTC)tbyrnestl

Song List

anybody can add the list of song that sung from Lata? not all of them, but as growing list. 125.163.31.162 (talk) 14:35, 14 December 2007 (UTC)


The whole number of songs sung by Lata section needs to be seriously cleaned up. The claims of 25,000, 30,000, 50,000, etc. are completely unsubstantiated and shouldn't be included. The 5250 figure is the only one that is backed-up by an actual listing of those 5250 songs (Vishwas Nerukar's book) and I think that's the number that should be given. If someone wants to use the 25K or 50K figure then a source enumerating those 25K or 50K songs should be provided. 69.143.162.216 (talk) 01:40, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Doctorate

She was Awarded D.Litt by the M S University of Baroda, Vadodara in 2005.

http://www.planningcommission.nic.in/aboutus/speech/spemsa/msa044.pdf (page 1)

I knew of this, given she was awarded the doctorate at the same convocation as I. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.240.41.69 (talk) 15:00, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Personal Life

There is very little personal information about her. This article should be called "History of The Career of Lata Mangeshkar" (I'm joking). There is no information about whether she is married, if she has kids, etc. --Zybez (talk) 06:01, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

The article does not use references properly

I do not know who records facts and makes changes. But when a reference is made to an article, it should properly quote from the source and not manipulate the source to fit the writer's whims and fancies.

The second sentence in this article says "She is one of the best-known playback singers in the Hindi film industry." When I checked the sources cited here, interestingly enough, they do not refer to her as "one of the..." but, "undoubted queen of playback singing for almost 60 years" and "melody queen". I wonder, why the author of this article chose to miss the terms clearly stated in the source articles and instead used his/her own imagination!

In standard writing, if someone quotes from a source, he uses the exact terms or he should begin the sentence as "I think/believe that...".

After having gone through the referred sources, I yesterday edited the aforementioned sentence and replaced it with the one, stated in the sources. But today, I see that my editions are removed and replaced by the same fanciful sentence.

I am surprised at the policy of Wikipedia in managing facts and references! I used to believe that the text presented here is true upto some extent, especially if a source is cited. But now I think that for every reference cited, one should also go to the sources and see if the writer has given facts or presented them in distorted manner. In a nutshell, I am disappointed with the quality and neutrality of Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 153.96.133.33 (talk) 12:28, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

The source you refer to was added by me, and no - we should not use overly glorifying information. It is an encyclopedia, not a fansite. Fancruft should be left out. Thanks, Shahid • Talk2me 21:41, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Konkani or Marathi?

This article claims that Lata was born in a Marathi speaking Kalavant family. However, the Wiki page for Kalavant community states that they are a Konkani-speaking tribe. As it stands, neither parties have any reliable sources, so it would be best to simply say 'Kalavant' without attributing which language they spoke at home. Unless one can come up with a reliable source, this should be left out. So I'm going to delete the Marathi/Konkani bit for now, until someone comes up with a source. --74.215.179.159 (talk) 18:38, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Only Konkani

  • ...Kalavants or Professionals, from the Sanskrit kala an art or profession, are singers and dancers, who are perhaps better ... Both men and women are for the most part fair, regular-featured, and delicate. Their home speech is Konkani...

Reference:Gazetteer of the Bombay Presidency: Ka'nara (2 pts.)

  • ...In Goa, the Gomantak Maratha are concentrated in the ... Their mother tongue is Konkani, but they are bilingual for they ... The Kalavant are singers and dancers who claim a higher social status in their community on account of the ...

Reference:India's communities: Volume 1,by Kumar Suresh Singh, Anthropological Survey of India - 1998

  • ...In the social scale she ranks below the Kalavant and is not allowed to sing or dance in public, nor may regular musicians ... Their home tongue is Konkani. Their marriage and other ceremonies resemble those of the Konkani Marathas. ...

Reference:The tribes and castes of Bombay: Volume 1 - Page 146 ,by Reginald Edward Enthoven - 1990 - 1914

  • ...population of this community in Goa is not available. They speak Konkani and use Marathi as the language for correspondence. They belong to Sudra Varna. As per the constitutional provisions, ... and Kalavants. ...

Reference:People of India: Goa ,by Kumar Suresh Singh, Anthropological Survey of India - 1993 Nijgoykar (talk) 04:51, 14 December 2010 (UTC)


If these are reliable sources and if everyone agrees to the reliability of these sources, then Konkani must be mentioned. If that happens, Marathi transliteration must be replaced with Konkani. But for now, keep it status quo (do not make any changes). Let everyone else pour in their thoughts and when consensus has been reached, only then make the change. --74.215.179.159 (talk) 05:15, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

List of songs?

Huge task!! But can we do it. i mean wiki has List of songs by Elvis Presley. If we want to do it, please someone who is very familiar with Wikipedia should propose a simple way. -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 18:40, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Hahaha, impossible (IMO). They don't even know to the nearest thousand how many thousands she has sung. BollyJeff || talk 19:05, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

At least start. Call it List of notable songs or list of KNOWN songs :) -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 19:15, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Was this serious at all? This lady has song more than 30,000 songs, many of which are lost now. Selective lists are POV... and then again, there are too many notable songs sung by Lataji and Ashaji. Shahid • Talk2me 20:35, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
Could we use the proper names? There are people who don't know what the -ji means. Hekerui (talk) 07:34, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
That's not a big deal. Shahid • Talk2me 06:35, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

It surely was serious. A list of these songs should exist. & if not here then where? This is an encyclopedia. I guess the policies here dont object this. Come on! Tough job! But we can do it. -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 07:42, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Most of the Elvis songs have articles - I dare say almost none of Mangeshkar's songs do, so this would be a mere directory (and far from a discography), which is what Wikipedia should not be. Hekerui (talk) 20:50, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
Well... if we have a list, we can make your so called discography too. but i dont think that would be needed. Because Mangeshkar & Bosale have most contributions to films & a large chunk of those films already have separate articles. Luckily/unluckily Hollywood didnt work that way. Hence Elvis had to make albums. & hence these albums have separate articles. Also i have noticed that few links in Elvis's list take you to the main article of that album. In our case, it can direct it to the movie. And......i have come across a few such pages too. I've Lost You. That would be easy for us also to make. But we wont do that. I was thinking of one complete table summerizing all essentials of a certain song & not just directory. Something of this sort.....-Animeshkulkarni (talk) 08:03, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Sr. No Song Co-singers Music Director Lyricist Movie/Album Year Language Notes
00001 Maye Ni Maye -Solo- Raamlaxman Asad Bhopali Hum Aapke Hain Kaun...! 1994 Hindi
00002 Didi Tera Devar Deewana S. P. Balasubramaniam Raamlaxman Asad Bhopali Hum Aapke Hain Kaun...! 1994 Hindi Filmfare Special Award for Mangeshkar
00003
Well how would you source the list please Animesh?Yogesh Khandke (talk) 13:09, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Well...there are two lists here. The first is the list which we will be publishing & the second would be the list which we will never be able to publish as the contents of that list are long lost in history. And the longer we wait, the longer will the 2nd list be growing. Hence am (almost) forcing everyone to act on this.
To answer Yogesh's question, the majority of the references of the list will be here in wikipedia itself; the main articles of those films in which these songs feature. & as wikipedia doesnt have this list yet, i am sure its nowhere on internet. Hence the sourcing has to come from individuals. I know that in this manner it will be difficult to prove its reliability. But a list having few wrong enteries (either not sung by these singers or of non-existing songs itself) is much better than nothing. -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 15:27, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
No it's not. Wikipedia is about referenced material. You are free to make a list on some other website with wrong or non-referenced information, but it is discouraged here. BollyJeff || talk 17:32, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Regarding sourcing - don't rely on crowdsourcing without published lists for an article like this - especially in wikipedia. A potential source is songbooks for films. if i remember correctly, the older indian films - till the 80s atleast - used to have songbooks.--Sodabottle (talk) 18:27, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
What about album covers? Would crowd sourced images of album covers count as sources for the purpose of verifiability?--rgpk (comment) 18:52, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
No Animesh Wikipedia cannot be a source for Wikipedia? That would be circular.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 02:28, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
@BollyJeff Means Wikipedia should wait till someone compiles it & then we can just copy it here; ofcourse it wont be copyrighted as its just compilation of titles? I know that wikipedia is not about original matter or hypothetical musings of anyone's mind, but then there would be many things in here that dont have references. I am new here, you can only give examples of such types. Also, Indians never believed in documenting anything untill now. Information has always passed on orally & now we know that its a great mistake. Take a few rounds in mathematical history & you will find many claims that say that such and such theory was already proposed by some Indian scholar. We never took documentation seriously & hence we never get credit for that & thus this lack of sources will always remain.
@Sodabottle Songbooks were not very popular in Bollywood. But thanks for the suggestion. Few of those kinds would be available.
@rgpk Thanks for this!
@Yogesh Khandke Well...of course Wiki cant source itself. It will be Catch 22. What i meant was that the main article in Wiki would anyway have references & hence seperate references here too wont be needed. Isnt it? or else we will have to have one reference per song & then even have separate article for these references :)
I had another doubt. Can sites like Youtube, Cooltoad, mp3hungama, songs.pk, etc be used as references? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Animeshkulkarni (talk • contribs) 06:46, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
Is this a good source?[1]Yogesh Khandke (talk) 08:41, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
We could have a best of Lata page, with use of various sources see [2]Yogesh Khandke (talk) 08:58, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
Elvis page has only 800 odd numbers, Lata is in another league. A best of Lata would be more manageable, and if it is well sourced there would be POV or other issues.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 09:05, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
I dont see any other way to get this started than this one. So be it! & the page can always start with "This is an incomplete list of songs" as it does in List of awards received by Lata Mangeshkar. Also found another source which lists more than 1500 songs with lyrics & other details. HERE -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 09:26, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
Another one here -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 09:49, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
Hi all. You have correctly said that listing Lata’s songs is a very difficult task. But don’t you think it is not impossible to just start listing her songs? Once started the list will go on increasing. Who knows one day we may also need this list. And I think you all will agree that, this list will constitute some contribution to our nation, to our Hindi cinema. Thanks for reading this and thanks for getting started with this list, in advance :-). For us, one more database of her songs is: HERE -Sameer S Swami (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:41, 21 July 2011 (UTC).
I agree. Just call it List of songs by Lata Mangeshkar and start it off. The point of wikipedia is people will keep adding to it and will keep adding citations. The list doesn't have to be qualified by 'notable' or 'known' (notable will add a second dimension to sourcing, which is hard enough as it is). Are there any Indian newspapers with online archives? Film reviews would be a useful source. --rgpk (comment) 22:02, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
Now that many of us seem willing to do, lets get to my 1st question of proposing a simple way to handle it. Do we make a table as shown above? Or just a list with no details? (No!) In table, how do we originally place all songs? Alphabetically, Year wise or Language wise? Should there is only one table? (Huge to edit everytime) Or split that table decade wise as is Lata's career done here? Or do we have separate pages altogether for all decades? -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 08:21, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

List of songs!

TA-TA-DA!!!!! Presenting....User:Animeshkulkarni/List of songs by Lata Mangeshkar. Please donate your time generously over here. Also feel free to change the format to any better one. I guess when the list gets big enough & the scroll bar small, we might have to split it into various pages. That day will come soon only if all editors helped. Thanks in advance. -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 08:12, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Nice work Animesh! Come on frnds, let's contribute over here. Sameer S Swami (talk) 10:08, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Seriously, for Hindi songs refer to the Hindi Film Geet Kosh by Harminder Singh Hamraaz and the derivative work Gandhar Swar Yatra by Vishwas Nerurkar. They both catalog the complete lists of Hindi Film songs and Lata songs respectively. The latter is more current, and I believe also contains complete lyrics of each song. Alternately, you can start with this web reference - http://www.giitaayan.com/search.asp?browse=keywords&s=Lata&submit=search, which is based on the pioneering ITRANS Song Book (http://www.aczoom.com/isongs). You can fill in the gaps later gradually using the aforementioned references. Bmurthy (talk) 22:10, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Guinness thing

Look, I personally really don't care who sang and how much. But I do care for the neutrality of this article. Guinness said she sang more than 25,000-30,000 songs (I doubt they would just write it out of nowhere, but that doesn't matter). The thing is, there are many who support this, and there are many who say the numbers are exaggerated. That's what we have to convey through the article. Guinness said, some supported, some did not. We can give one example of someone who disputes this claim, but according to me that's as far as we should go.

User:Bmurthy makes some changes in the prose, and what I notice, it seems like he is essentially pushing his own personal and subjective opinion into this. It clearly looks like he's trying to make the claims of those who dispute the Guinness numbers, kind of appear factual (like, "with more research and published material", "has been shown to be exaggerated"). Just as we wouldn't go on to say, "she has sung a million songs" without attribution just because Guinnness said so (I mean, we would probably say, "according to..."), we should not 'support' the claims of those who dispute it, by making it appear as a fact.

I think the way the prose is presented right now, is definitely very good. Keep it neutral and short, after all it is just not that big of a deal. Shahid • Talk2me 08:44, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I was afraid of this. It appears that the 25000-30000 number is just being pushed down everybody's throats. That is definitely not neutral. If you want neutrality, please see how the Rafi article has handled it. I am *not* pushing my personal and subjective opinion, I am citing valid references, and these are not claims, they are researched and published works (there is data on why Guinness entry cannot be even reasonable). The onus is on you to disprove published works. If you believe the 25000 or 30000 (or whatever else the number to be) the correct information, please provide valid references (Guinness has long since removed the entry, why, and Lata has distanced herself from that number). At the minimum, provide the researched data alongside the wild claims that are being made. You say, there are many who support this. Provide names, where the figure originated, what the basis was etc. Just saying some people support this doesn't cut it. I will agree with your claim of neutrality as long as you provide both the numbers, until then your claim rings hollow. As for it not being that big of a deal, why do you then care if the smaller number indeed appears alongside the larger number? Accuracy is as important as neutrality is, perhaps even more so. Bmurthy (talk) 15:45, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
Let's start with saying that I personally have no beliefs whatsoever. The Guinness Book of World Records is not a second-rate source and it is as researched and reputable as it can get. We publish what it says, and we did publish the other number (5025). In case of disputed claims, we should present all sides objectively and not present others' claims (whether reasearched or not) as facts. And what if they missed many songs? Nowhere in the article is it written, "Mangeshkar has sung 25000-30000", it says that Guinness is the one who makes this claim. Everything remains in the form of a claim, and nothing more. And no particular names of those who do or do not support is requited. After all the disupute is over the Guinness report. No one runs away from the fact that some question its veracity - it's all there.
You say, "Accuracy is as important as neutrality is" - now how do you know that your sources are accurate? Why are they more important than Guinness, which is the best-selling in the world? We do mention them, but it doesn't mean their assertions will be given more importance than others' and will be presented as facts. Shahid • Talk2me 16:08, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
Simply put, here are the facts. Guinness published in 1974 that Lata sang 25000 songs (taking it up to 30000 over the years). In 1991, the entry was removed. Guinness has not answered where they got the original number or why they removed the category (try getting that from them!!). Now let's look at the data. Between 1931 and 1980, about 5664 Hindi films (about 113 per year) were released with approximately 44000 songs (in total), about 7.7 songs per film. Lata was actively singing for about 33 years in that period (1948-1980), during which approximately 28000 songs were sung (in all movies in total). There is absolutely no way Lata could have featured in half of them (assuming she had about 11000 songs in non-film and regional films).
Now contrary to your assertions, the above numbers are not claims. They can be verified. Just because you are not aware of the sources, doesn't mean that the works are not important for serious researchers of Hindi Film music. Do you dismiss them because they are Indian sources? Especially look at HFGK (look at the website and samples therein http://hamraaz.org, which you removed from references in your edit). It provides original record numbers for each song, censor certificate numbers for each film along with many other details. It documents songs not used in the films. It catalogs films not released or incomplete and any songs recorded for them. First look at the publications, before summarily dismissing them. Is it likely they have missed some songs? Absolutely! Has the miss been by an order of several magnitudes, not likely. And why is Guinness more important, have they never made a mistake? Why have they removed the category, not just the entry? If Lata's record was good enough for a number of years, it should be good enough now, or someone else's name should be there who rightfully deserves that honor!! After all, there still are many entries related to music, singers and records in Guinness.
You say, the 5250 number has been mentioned!! Really, by burying it at the bottom of the article? If one is to give equal weight to all the sources, at least mention it alongside the other numbers prominently with proper attribution.
I am all for discussion, but it should be not push one agenda over another, especially, in the light of overwhelming evidence against it. Fact of the matter is, the number of 25000 or more has been pushed for a long time without basis, and now has taken a life of its own. So much so, that now there are many others claiming 50000, 65000 and more to their credit, which is rather ridiculous and humanly impractical. As someone said, if you live to be hundred and recorded one song every day of your life, you would still have recorded only 36500 songs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bmurthy (talk • contribs) 18:39, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
First off, please chill and do not get personal. You are the one who's questioning the veracity of Guinness, so go get it from them yourself!
I'm sorry, Bmurthy, I'm not going to take notice of your personal calculation. Mangeshkar has worked in many other films in regional language at the time, so? In any way, I can also make my own calculation which would be different from yours but it would not matter. And that's the problem, you are editing while personally keeping your personal disbelief in mind.
What is hamraaz.com? What's its reliability?
You say, You say, "has been pushed for a long time without basis" - so? That's once again your opinion. Guinness includes a group of experts! Guinness is the basis. And yet we never present it as a fact. Guinness said, we cite it; someone agrees, we cite it; someone disagrees, we cite it. In the lead, we summarise it. After all, the whole dispute surrounds around this Guinness entry, so its numbers will always have to be mentioned, with attribution of course.
As for the researchers, if I had been dismissive of them, like you say, I would not have supported their inclusion in the first place. I can now go on to ask you what their credentials are, as you are making them appear as kings of the world whose every word is unimpeachable. With all due respect, they are not. We mention their claims, and yes, contrary to what you say, these are claims and not facts. Just like historians' claims are cited with proper attribution.
I would also thank you if you did not accuse me of bias on the ground of nationality. I am Indian, so in no way can you come to me with such poor accusations of me dismissing some sources because they're Indian. As for your question about Guinness and why they removed it, I don't know. Can you check why? Go and do that. And please do not come up with more speculations. Maybe they decided not to have any such entry again? All's possible.
As for your statement, "burying it at the bottom of the article" - sorry? It's where the issue is discussed in more detail and that's where it should be. The lead summarises it well enough, and that's what it should do in accordance with Wikipedia's policy for leads. Shahid • Talk2me 19:30, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
I will respond to the rest of your response later, but let me clear up one unfortunate misunderstanding. I did not attack *you* on the grounds of nationality. My lament was based on the general perception that if the researcher is Indian, somehow that is substandard or less reliable compared to a European/"Western" work. It appears to have come across wrongly, and my sincere apologies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bmurthy (talk • contribs) 20:13, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
It's okay, friend. Shahid • Talk2me 20:18, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, let's take it one by one. Guinness had an entry, then removed it. What was the basis of the original entry and why was the category removed? Well, Guinness has not been forthcoming on that. If I hear back from them I will let you know. However, what is true is that Guinness did carry the record between 1974 and 1991. Nerurkar's publication came out in 1991. Subsequent to that the record or the category hasn't appeared in Guinness. An interesting coincidence. BTW, I did not edit based on my personal disbelief, I made an edit, citing references, you complained it was verbose, I made it brief, keeping the original content substantially intact, adding the counterargument in the disputed part, which you again undid. Thereafter, we have been discussing.

You refuse to look at the numbers, refuse to consider them, and attack them as my personal opinion. These are not my numbers. You refuse to look at the data. I have provided references, just like you cite Guinness. You can attack them with appropriate data just as I cast doubt on the Guinness number. Be sure to back it up with data.

You ask who is Hamraaz (it is hamraaz.org BTW). If you are editing an encyclopedia, it is incumbent upon you to at least look up the references provided before rejecting them. And if you are a serious researcher of Hindi film music, you would be familiar with the name of Harminder Singh 'Hamraaz'. It is akin to asking who are Suresh Chanvankar and Michael Kinnear. If you are not familiar with these names, you are proving my point, you would rather blindly accept Guinness, because it has been better known, but would refuse to even consider local sources. The fact that Guinness has long since discontinued this category is of no consequence to you!!

And yes, the 5250 number has been buried at the bottom to the point of insignificance. If you believe the number doesn't belong in the lead, then, neither does the 25000 or the 30000 number. Instead modify the lead to mention simply that Lata was featured in Guinness as the most recorded artist from 1974 to 1991, but the veracity is disputed by some. This will be brief, factual and neutral. Move *all* the numbers to where the issue is discussed in detail and give all sides of the story, including the fact that Guinness discontinued the category after 1991. And a small note here, the bottom section does mention that "reputable sources claim that she has recorded thousands", nice bit of editorializing here. Who are these "reputable" sources, and why are they "reputable"? If you question people like Hamraaz and Nerurkar, who are referred to by name here and have staked their "reputations" on their work, the other side should at least be identified and authenticated.

Bmurthy (talk) 23:52, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

You are wrong, I do not refuse to see any numbers, they are mentioned. I do not refuse any sources, they are there. Yes, the other number's place is not in the lead, while the Guinness' definitely is, because that's what this dispute is all about and it has more weight. We do mention that some question its veracity, don't we?
No, I do not know who Harminder Singh 'Hamraaz' is. So? I looked up the source and I personally don't find it reliable, and if you want I'll take it to RS investifation. BBC and The Tribune are reputable sources.
The 'researchers' you mention are, again, not authorities (neither is Guinness, though). You are citing them so you have to prove their credentials and notability to have their claims mentioned in the first place. I do not have to prove the reliability of Guinness, as everyone, including you, knows it. And yet, we never project their claims as facts.
Let's assume the Guinness book means to me much more than the others, so what? Does it mean it's better? No! You see, that's the problem, your assertions are opinion-driven. By the same token, you dismiss Guinness and say the other sources are more credible. Unless Guinness published that the entry was a mistake or sent a firm declaration of this sort to the Wikimedia foundation, there's no problem with this entry not being included since 91, simply because everything you would say about this would be a speculation. We do mention the years, don't we? Let the reader make their own conclusion, do not push your personal conclusions into a Wikipedia article. This discussion is really blown out of proportions as all you have to understand is that nothing can be presented as a fact. Again, Guinness said, some supported, some did not. It's as simple as that. Shahid • Talk2me 00:36, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Please read my response again. I did not push my conclusions to Wikipedia articles. Based on your own logic, here is what I suggested. Specify in the lead that Lata was cited in Guinness as most recorded artist from 1974-1991, mention that some dispute its veracity. Move all the numbers and details of arguments and counter-arguments to bottom. Cite references and sources in each case. Provide numbers clearly in both cases. Do not editorialize by specifying one set of sources as "reputable".
BTW, since you seem to favor Western sources, I thought you may like this
Please read page 180 at the following link, which is available as an ebook on Google [| Soundtrack available: essays on film and popular music By Pamela Robertson Wojcik, Arthur Knight]
Please specifically read footnote 40
Harminder Singh and his work are widely cited in musical works related to Indian film music in general and Hindi film music in particular. I can provide the details till the cows come home. But, if the above doesn't convince you, nothing will.
And finally, here is a quote from the noted film Journalist Raju Bharatan in his Lata Mangeshkar: a Biography, 1995, page 291
"Lata should not be inhibited by the fear that the emergence of such a Geet Kosh would only shatter the Guinness myth"
I will wait to see your action in moving all the numbers to the bottom section. Bmurthy (talk) 01:11, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
And if you have the time and inclination to actually do some sincere looking up, try this http://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&tbo=1&q=Geet+Kosh&btnG=
Another citation specifically addressing this issue, not that this or anything else will change anything for you!!!
[| Wanted cultured ladies only!: female stardom and cinema in India, 1930s-1950s By Neepa Majumdar] page 189
http://books.google.com/books?id=TdM2Ben3alIC&lpg=PA189&pg=PA189#v=onepage&f=false
Quote
"For fans, the numbers game of who sang how many songs is a subject of enduring and passionate interest. The publication of Har Mandir Singh's four-volume Hindi Film Geet Kosh (The Encyclopaedia of Hindi Film Songs) in the 1980s added fuel to this pastime and settled many old debates, such as the controversy over Lata's entry in the Guinness Book of World Records."
As I had said, your not knowing about Harminder Singh 'Hamraaz' doesn't really surprise me. Most casual film song fans do not, but those who are passionately into it not only have heard of him, but likely possess a copy of the treatise. It is quite likely that you have never heard of Suresh Chanvankar or Michael Kinnear either.
Bmurthy (talk) 02:30, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Once again, the original number has to be mentioned in the lead because that's what this controversy revolves around. You so dislike the mention of this number because you have a clear picture in mind but that's how it should be. We do not ignore the existense of opponents, they are there, right in the lead. Doesn't it not say that the number is "highly exaggerated"? It does. If this article was not fair, the mention of those who dispute the claim would not exist in the lead at all and would be written only as your say at the bottom of the article. And this easily could have been done. You show me source, I see, I check, I respect, but what is there? Their claims are respected on WP and fairly discussed just like Guinness (and as you can see I have added one of them long ago just as well). The difference is that their claims, like many others' are based on this one claim by Guinness, so everything on this article is an extension of this very Guinness entry. The supporters, the opponents - the are just some of many! Okay then, I removed reputable as I agree it gives the sources a certain unnecessary highlight. Added another source, which mentions Mandir Singh, I can't what else can be done. Nothing is a fact, neither Guinness nor anything else. Shahid • Talk2me 10:54, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
I do believe we need to change the article. But quickly, I have heard back from Guinness, and their response, I quote
"We no longer recognize this record as our researchers determined the number was exaggerated and incorrect."
Let me know what is the best way to get this information in the article, with appropriate citation of course, and remove the now known inaccuracy. Bmurthy (talk) 17:09, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
If they indeed acknowledge that it was a mistake, they should not have a problem with publishing it somehow. Shahid • Talk2me 17:17, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I haven't had the time to come back here, but it is clear that a couple of changes need to be made. First, the Guinness nonsense needs to be removed from the lead. Especially now, in view of the fact that even Guinness now recognizes Asha as the most recorded artist with just 11000+ songs in here entire career, Lata's numbers of 25000+ in 70s look very foolish. Second, even in the original article, the Guinness reference should not have been the main focus. Guinness could have been sourced, but other sources, especially when pointed out, should at least have been given equal weightage, since the focus should be on the total and not who says it. I will respond more when I have time, but this is what I propose,

  • put in the lead that Lata is believed to have sung about 7000+ songs, provide the cite Hamraaz and Nerurkar
  • create a section about the Guinness saga and mention the timelines and numbers, this section can also mention that based on this "record" others staked their own claims and cited their own numbers. Also, Asha's newly recognized should find its place here.

The focus here should be on the total, which is very well known and is quite a settled matter to those who are the acknowledged experts for quite a long time. Bmurthy (talk) 16:44, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. I think the way the lead is presented now is just fine. The fact that she was ever featured in Guinness is noteworthy. The dispute as well as Asha's new record are all mentioned in the lead. Hamraaz's reliability still has to be checked and verified. Now the text couldn't have been clearer on the page. Let the reader make their own conclusions, and it's easy to do it. Shahid • Talk2me 22:01, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Hamraaz's reliability has to be checked and verified??? By whom? The work on which Nerurkar based his research and presented the evidence to the self same Guinness, which issued a back-handed mea-culpa and summarily removed Lata's record and now has replaced with Asha's is not validation enough for you? I never mentioned that Guinness mention should be removed. In fact, I specifically stated that it should be kept, but in context. Even Guinness can be fallible!!! You would rather focus on an invalid record than acknowledge the facts?
The focus should on the body of work (of which the total is a measure), not on who erroneously said something some time. Guinness entry is a sidelight, not the lead. Bmurthy (talk) 01:56, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
By Wikipedia. When I made a check on RSN I got no concerete reply so I'm waiting again. But my opinion about the lead is firm. The fact that she was featured in Guinness for so many years is noteworthy, the fact that several sources have supported it is also notable. The fact that many have disputed it is notable, the fact that Bhosle has been recently acknowledged by Guinness is also notable. Everything should be mentioned fairly without bias. The fact that Guinness mentioned Lata back in time does not mean she held a record, and neither does the fact that Asha is mentioned there. Ever occured to you that it could also be a mistake? It could be, could it not? Well but you are so sure of your own version that you want everything removed. I do not agree with that. As I said, the text couldn't have been clearer, let the readers make their conclusions based on what they read. Shahid • Talk2me 10:13, 22 November 2011 (UTC)


The one thing that comes out loud and clear is that you are totally fixated on this spurious Guinness entry, while professing that you really don't care who sang how many. As for your opinion being firm on the lead, it is just that, your opinion. You have shown that you have absolutely no standing on the topic, nor are you a neutral party here, as you repeatedly refused to look at even the cited sources, until forced to do so. Now that Guinness themselves have recognized Asha as the most recorded artist, you have the temerity to suggest that that may be a mistake. The text in lead is completely irrelevant. Guinness needs to mentioned, not in the lead, but later in the article, noting a) there was no basis for the original record b) the entry mysteriously disappeared in 1991, when Nerurkar's publication with complete listing of Lata songs came out c) Asha was recognized by the self same Guinness in 2011 for the same record with a far smaller number 35 or so years after the original entry. The text will be absolutely clear. Meanwhile, the correct number should be put in the lead, where it rightfully belongs. If you dispute the facts above, I challenge you to prove the details otherwise, show me the citations, and who has specifically listed the originally claimed 25000+ songs, provides names. Don't wave your hands in air and say the text couldn't be clearer. Once again, it appears that you lend more credence to Guinness only because it a foreign publication, and relegate Hamraaz and Nerurkar who happen to be Indian, even if Guinness themselves accept their errors and accept the data provided by these respected researchers. Bmurthy (talk) 07:00, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
You better discuss the issue. I am of course not a neutral party, and definitely neither are you. It is of course my opinion but so is everything I say. You have yet to provide the credibility of Hamraaz and the credentials of those who started it. She was featured in this book for years - notable. The fact is that many supported it, and that's mentioned. Many did not support it and that's mentioned. Guinness published another far smaller record. The record is mentioned and if you want the number mentioned, then be my guest. That's it. Shahid • Talk2me 08:38, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Isn't that what we have been doing for the last few weeks? Discussing :)? Or did you have something else or some other forum in mind? I gave you many, many cites of those who quoted Hamraaz, including those that are cited as references in the main article, viz. Lata Biography by Raju Bharatan (ref #9), who by any accounts must be considered a reliable source. You keep saying "fact is many have supported it", so far you have yet to provide a single name or cite to that end. As for Nerurkar, how about this [Asha Bhosle enters Guinness World Records for most single studio recordings], Asha mentions Nerurkar by name - "Vishwas Nerurkar ne mere sab gaano ka pata karke Guinness World Records ko correct information diya aur aaj yeh samaan mujhe mila hai (Vishwas Nerurkar found out about all my songs and gave the correct information to Guinness World Records, because of which I got this title)". Not credible enough for you? I have given many references, I have given the details of the printed publications and online references. Even Guinness has acknowledged it, even you would have to agree they would have thoroughly vetted it, the once bitten twice thing :). Show me the supporting evidence from your side - details of the 25000+ songs, or some data about how this is possible, e.g. movie list, list of recordings etc (I gave you the math stating why this was physically unlikely, given the conditions of most of Lata's career), names of those who have "supported it" as you claim. BTW, I have a serious question, have you even looked at the Geet Kosh or the Nerurkar books, or are you just arguing for the sake of arguing? Bmurthy (talk) 15:46, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Dear friend, I think you will have to check the pages of both Lata and Asha to realise that I was the one who added Asha's new record on both. I think it is useful to add it all, and I do not oppose to having the number of songs Asha reportedly has sung on this page too. Otherwise I feel this discussion is going nowhere, don't you? Shahid • Talk2me 18:05, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Hello Shahid, I believe the reason the discussion is going nowhere is, because every time there is something under discussion, you change the topic and go in a completely different direction. The last response from you is a case in point. You asked for Hamraaz's and Nerurkar's credibility, I provided you plenty of information. I asked you to extend me the same courtesy, provide the credibility of the 25000+ number, provide the names of those who have supported, give me cites, give the evidence of that number. Instead, you responded with something completely irrelevant.
This time my question is quite direct, so that you do not change the subject again. Please provide names and references of those who have supported the original Guinness number. What evidence they cite for this claim? Do not dance around this time. Until that I cannot take you seriously. I can tell you this much, Lata herself never claimed it, and when the controversy erupted about the credibility of the number, smartly distanced herself from it, stating she never kept track of her songs and doesn't know how many she has sung. Additionally, if you dispute some facts, you are incumbent on providing the proof thereof. Please provide proof that Hamraaz and Nerurkar are not right, they are not credible, especially when Guinness has accepted Nerurkar's word more than once, and Hamraaz has been widely cited by many students and researchers of Hindi Film music. Do not change the topic under discussion. The bottom line remains, the correct number, per Nerurkar should be put back in the lead. Guinness saga can and should be mentioned as I have outlined in my responses above, but not in the lead, there is definitely place, if only to show that the mighty Guinness can get it horribly wrong too. I have also refrained from making any changes to the actual article itself, since we started this discussion, with the assumption that we are discussing in good faith about the article being accurate, up to date and neutral, and well sourced. I hope you are doing the same. Once again, the response to this should be the answer to the specific question I asked you, evidence and references in support of your arguments, the 25000+ number. If not, you are just blowing hot air. Bmurthy (talk) 07:02, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
"Do not dance around this time" - I do not accept this kind of tone, and I'm not going to "dance" to your tunes. Everything is cited on the article, okay? And you have your "respected" researchers (who are quite unknown to the world) there too. I think everything is notable to be mentioned. Mind you, not truth and accuracy but notability. Asha's new record, the fact that some have disputed Lata's old record are mentioned in the lead. People who are smart enough (or better say, normal) will not have any problem to make the right conclusion based on the neutral info which we provide. Your problem is that you see certain people's words as actual facts (and it was even before). I do not do it as a Wikipedia editor. I chooce to leave my bias aside and not have personal belief in any of the sources there - not Guinness and not the researchers, and that's why there is a noticeable level of neutrality on the article. You are now sure Guinness' recent record is true? How do you know they're not mistaken again? Maybe they did not check Lata's? Maybe in a year or two from now another researcher will come and dispute it? We treat nothing as "facts" - we cite them with proper attribution. I had my say, let's wait till someone else does, because I have better things to do than to go on with an unconstructive discussion. Shahid • Talk2me 10:05, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
"Everything" is *not* cited in the article - see below!!!! I am not surprised that you again did not answer the question, because you don't have an answer. Do you or do you not have evidence for your claims? You expect me to prove the credibility of the people who dispute the Guinness record, but are completely unwilling to provide supporting evidence for those, that *you* say in the article support this number. Why can't you provide anything in support of your arguments? Because, there are none!!! Once again, the article says "over the years, several sources have supported this claim", who are these sources? WHERE ARE THE CITATIONS? In fact, the original text said "several *reputable* people supported" until I called on it, and you say there is no bias. Until, you or some else provides the names and references, that statement needs to be removed. You may have had "your say", but then the article as written is unacceptable. It needs to rewritten. Either you argue your point logically and with supporting evidence and data, or agree for the changes to be made. Disproving (not just disputing) Guinness is certainly notable, it just doesn't happen everyday. The discussion is "unconstructive" because you apply different standards to you and me, and balk when called on it. Finally, on a different note, I assume when you say "we", you are including me, I do not see this as you against me, since Wikipedia is an open source, not owned by anyone. Bmurthy (talk) 16:59, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Please chill. I see two sources which are used to support it: The Tribune and BBC - and the "reputable" thing was deleted a long time ago. "We" means Wikipedia. I'm outta here. Shahid • Talk2me 17:10, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Mentioning Caste

Dear Editors!
There has been a discussion on India Portal related to mentioning of caste of subjects. The point is that mentioning caste of people, who have nothing to do with their caste, is found to be unnecessary by few editors. Hence the caste of the subject person needs to be deleted from the biography. I am not deleting the caste as of now but am only posting this here so that the regular editors of this article are well aware of it beforehand and no edit-wars take place. For details of discussion held on the portal please refer Wikipedia_talk:Noticeboard_for_India-related_topics#Mentioning_caste_of_Individuals. Your views if any are welcome there or even here.
And.... as the reasons of exclusion of caste pointed out were "irrelavant to notability of subject person", "privacy of the subject person", "inclusion of caste is like branding individuals", etc. other information included in the article which also fall under these cases will also be removed after discussions. Examples of it included religion, non-notable spouse's and children's and parents' information, previous occupation, lived in places, non-notability related educational qualification, etc.
Your views on this are also welcome here or at the India portal. -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 16:55, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Not here, please. There is a community discussion taking place at WT:INB and I would advise people to read the entire discussion before forming an opinion because the above summary is incorrect. Nothing more need be said here. - Sitush (talk) 02:21, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

File:Lata Mangeshkar - still 29065 crop.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Lata Mangeshkar - still 29065 crop.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests April 2012
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Lata Mangeshkar - still 29065 crop.jpg)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 14:27, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Lata mangeshkar's childhood.

Lata mangeshkar and her family lived few years in Thalner(village in Maharashtra) in her childhood.It is said that they were not accepted in village to stay because of their background of singing and performing in public shows,which was not appreciated by peoples of Thalner.That's why they left Thalner village.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.170.28.212 (talk) 10:29, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Problems!

The article mentions that their surname was Hardikar.Dinanath's mother was not was not lawfully wedded wife of Ganesh Bhatt Abhisheki(no offence meant),it was this family whose surname was Hardikar,most of the sources mention Dinannath's mother as Ganesh Bhatt's wife,but she was not his wife.(!!)And people belonging to Goan Kalavant community use names of the villages whose temples they are affiliated to,almost all sources have just assumed that they are actually the Abhisekis of Padye Brhamin community of Goa which is totally false,and they never lawfully married the ladies of Kalavant community,I know it sounds very very harsh n brutal but thats the truth. Nijgoykar (talk) 03:40, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 March 2014

Chhabik (talk) 17:46, 3 March 2014 (UTC) Amitabh Bachchan is the biggest fan of lata and her sisters plus brother, however they were also a great fan of Amitabh

 Not done Unsourced and unencyclopedic - Arjayay (talk) 17:52, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

you are really great & my favorite singer


god bless you............................. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.212.172.106 (talk) 11:34, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Lata Mangeshkar. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:16, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Useful link. Dhtwiki (talk) 18:57, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Lata Mangeshkar. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:05, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Link leads to error page. Dhtwiki (talk) 16:56, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 April 2016

In 2014, she sang a song titled "Oh Jane Wale Tujhko" for the album Women's Day Special: Spreading Melodies Everywhere. It was composed by Ram Shankar and penned by A. K. Mishra. this is a wrong information, she has not sung anything like this, usha mangeshkar ji has sung this, not lata ji. http://www.hindustantimes.com/music/lata-mangeshkar-records-song-composed-by-late-composing-maestro-salil-chowdhury/story-euZEu7ASmPyVqDmicoBAoJ.html ,  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raunaq_%28album%29

Mayuresh2001 (talk) 11:59, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

What is the relevance of those links with your claim? I googled and everywhere Singer of that song is given as Lata Mangeshkar. AbhiRiksh (talk) 12:27, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

 Not done if she "has not sung anything like this" what is this? - Arjayay (talk) 12:53, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Lata Mangeshkar. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true


Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:25, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Links #1–6, 8 work as advertised (including here the marked dead link which is probably correctable otherwise). #7 leads to 404 error page. It's also been erroneously reformatted into vertical format. Dhtwiki (talk) 22:37, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 February 2017

Mayuresh20 (talk) 14:35, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

hello, please add this info about her new recording- http://www.hindustantimes.com/music/nightingale-lata-mangeshkar-returns-to-recording-after-2-years/story-8Sm5JeCUAWu9tlvoSZ069L.html

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — Train2104 (talk • contribs) 13:49, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lata_Mangeshkar/Archive_1&oldid=1057087120"