Talk:Anjada Gandu (2014 film)

Copyright problem removed
Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://www.filmysphere.com/anjada-gandu-kannada-movie. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and according to fair use may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 08:27, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Plot section
I've removed (for the second time) a completely unreferenced plot section here, per WP:V, "Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed". I'm prepared to accept, as AGF requires, that editor went to the trouble of obtaining and and watching this film, in a language that many of us would find hard to follow, before writing his summary. What is stretching my belief somewhat is that he could have done all that in the eight minutes between and  of a (partial) summary; but perhaps he was already familiar with the film?

If the summary is sourced from the film, that should be clearly stated with an inline citation of the edition that he watched (the publisher, date and so on, from the jewel box of the DVD). If it's just some stuff picked up from the internet and recycled here as "sourced to the completed film itself" then it has no place in Wikipedia. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 08:23, 6 October 2014 (UTC)


 * You are incorrect. Read WP:NOR. Guideline does not require that a film plot be cited nor that an editor must add a cite stating he has personal knowledge of the film or plot.. Again, that's WP:NOR. You may take your case to Project Film or Project India, or even to WP:ANI, but before you please re-visit MOS:FILM and pay specific attention to WP:FILMPLOT, which states "Since the film is the primary source and the infobox provides details about the film, citing the film explicitly in the plot summary's section is not necessary."  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 00:23, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * So where did you get your summary from, ? Did you watch the film, or just copy some stuff off the internet? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 01:22, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * My version of a returned shortened plot is based upon my WP:AGF in the work of others, and not based upon any unrealistic "expectation" that I learn the Kannada language and travel to India to watch the film personally and then offer my "own" interpretation of what I might then see or hear. Sadly, your edit summaries upon removal of the plot section reflect a misunderstanding of MOS:FILM and WP:FILMPLOT.
 * summary "rm unreferenced content - Wikipedia is built on independent reliable sources" appears decent on its face, but is made in contradiction to the MOS:FILM instruction at WP:FILMPLOT.
 * summary "rm unreferenced Plot section" is a completely contrary to MOS:FILM and WP:FILMPLOT.
 * An editor does not remove a film plot because he did not personally see the film. Read WP:SELFSOURCE. This began with your original violation of guideline by assuming bad faith in others and improperly removing a plot section as being unreferenced, and continued with your ignoring guideline and removing it a second time. I do not see a need for WP:ANI and so have sought a opinion from Project Film.
 * Your stating "If the summary is sourced from the film, that should be clearly stated with an inline citation of the edition that he watched (the publisher, date and so on, from the jewel box of the DVD)" is incorrect, as film plots do not require referencing... but please come and explain why or how you feel applicable guideline is wrong.  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 07:19, 29 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment The film itself suffices as a WP:PRIMARYSOURCE for the plot section. The film is essentially cited by the infobox. If the plot is sourced indirectly from a second-hand account then that would need to be sourced. Since no citation is provided then it's a convention that we assume whoever wrote the plot summary watched the film and wrote it up from their own personal experience. Provided the summary strictly relays the events of the plot without adding in any personal interpretation or analysis then there isn't a problem. This is further explained at WP:PLOTSUM. Betty Logan (talk) 07:51, 29 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment - and  are correct. In addition, WP:AGF would apply as well.  Another reason to remove (other than that cited by Betty) is if a plot summary was a WP:COPYVIO, being simply cut and paste from an outside source. Onel5969 (talk) 12:56, 29 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree with the statements above. WP:FILMPLOT encapsulates all these arguments well. We could be pedantic and add citation tags at the end of the plot summary's paragraphs, but it is really not warranted. If there is content to be disputed, that can be discussed and/or simplified, much like trying to summarize information from a secondary source. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 16:32, 29 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment - I also concur with the comments made by by MichaelQSchmidt, Betty Logan, One15969 and Erik. WP:FILMPLOT sums it up. The one thing to be avoided is WP:POV interpretations and analysis of what is shown onscreen. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 16:41, 29 October 2014 (UTC)