Talk:Mere Yaar Ki Shaadi Hai

WikiProject class rating
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as stub, and the rating on other projects was brought up to Stub class. BetacommandBot 18:45, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Help needed

 * Moved from User talk:AnmaFinotera to put in its appropriate location

Hello AnmaFinotera. I need your help because I'm aware of your involvement with WP:FILM and as you already helped me with a similar issue back in time. A user called started editing different Indian film articles claiming they are copied from other films without any sources. I reverted him and he turned to an administrator who informed him that my edits were correct and he should cite sources for anything he adds, else it would be just his OR. He started adding sources. In the case of a film article, Mere Yaar Ki Shaadi Hai, he cited bollycat and planetbollywood, two completely unreliable sources (which I clearly know from my experience while working on a BLP FA). I reverted him and informed him that every source must adhere to WP:RS (and he of course blanked his talk page). He wanted me to prove that they are unreliable, even though I explained that the onus is on him to prove the reliability of a source, not on me to prove the opposite. Today I looked for a decent source and found an article from The Times of India, which supported the previous claim in the article, according to which the film is partly inspired from My Best Friend's Wedding. He reverted me again calling my edits vandalism. I need your help here because I think you will explain it in a better way to him. Shahid •  Talk 2 me  15:55, 21 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi AnmaFinotera, I would welcome more eyes on the matter although I don't understand why the user when knowing very well that an administrator is already looking at the issue had decided to open this discussion at your talkpage and currently awaiting their response. I have tried to convey to user Shahid that he should explain why he deems the references unreliable. I also find it strange to cite a directors own version to back up the claim that the movie is not a remake when it clearly is. However, in such a case, it would be valid to have the whole context of the article rather than just cherry pick what the director said, as he in the absence of creditting the original moviemakers, would clearly not admit to having made a remake. I use wikipedia regularily to read and find that many things are not referenced especially in movie articles. Be that Hollywood or Bollywood or Euopean movies or Asian movies. It is common to discuss things and possibly reach a consensus before reverting. Starrylight (talk) 16:21, 21 November 2009 (UTC)


 * The burden of evidence and proof is only on you, Starrylight. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  16:24, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * AnmaFinotera, there's no edit warring on the page. In fact, I did not revert him and came to you for your help. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  16:26, 21 November 2009 (UTC)


 * It would be great if you, Shahid, could remember the burden of evidence and proof when making allegations. You are not being engtirely truthful and you know that. Starrylight (talk) 16:31, 21 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Shshshsh, can you point me to the RSN discussions you mentioned discussing those sources so I can review them as well? -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 16:27, 21 November 2009 (UTC)


 * It was a long time ago. I was actually the one who used these sources. User:Sarvagnya started removing them. It doesn't matter because in any case a newspaper like The Times of India is more reliable. And if the director of the film denies having copied MBFW, it cannot be called "a remake" but has to be described as "said to be a remake". Starrynight insists on contradicting the director's words. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  16:35, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * In any case, onus is on him to prove their reliability. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  16:38, 21 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Again false statements. I do not contradict the director. The sources I provide do that. There are even full lists listing all remakes done by Bollywood. Shahid continues to draw out one statement from a wider context to support his claim. Clearly if we are to include to the directors own comment (who will not admit himself that he made a remake or else there could be legal and credit issues) then we must also include the context in which the comment was passed. This article simply relates to the movie. This is like the Ring, that was a copy of Ringu the Asian horror film from 1998. This is common knowledge and mentioned on in the article of The Ring as well. But in this case credit was passed to Asian makers. For the umpteenth time why are the references I cited less valid? Substantiate the claim. Starrylight (talk) 16:45, 21 November 2009 (UTC)


 * The movie is not a remake - it is said to be a remake and that's something the director denies - that's how it should be presented. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  16:49, 21 November 2009 (UTC)


 * The movie is a remake indeed as reported many places which is also common knowledge and the director denying it does not change that. Starrylight (talk) 16:57, 21 November 2009 (UTC)


 * First, both of you go to your corners and stop the incivility and personal attacks, as well as going from place to place with this argument. Discuss the issues, not each other. Consider this a civility warning for each of you. Now, while you both hopefully review that and WP:AGF a bit, I've looked at the sources added by Starrylight, and Shahid is correct. Bollycat is clearly not a reliable source as it is someone's personal blog, and does not meet Wikipedia's guidelines for reliability. I'm also inclined to believe that PlanetBollywood.com is also not a reliable source. It was blacklisted for a time. In several discussions, its reliability has been questioned and it was rejected in an FAC. In looking at the site myself, it does not provide any information on its sources, its reviewers, or any thing else that might help indicate why it is reliable. Starrylight, if you feel it meets Wikipedia's WP:RS guidelines, I'd recommend posting a neutrally worded note at Reliable sources/Noticeboard asking simply - is it reliable for making a statement of fact. If it were considered reliable, however, please realize that the source is a review, not a statement of fact. At best, one would say that "some reviewers felt it was a remake of..." instead of stating that "it is a remake of...". In this case, the director is the one who decides if he remade something. Whether others believe him should be backed up by very good reliable sources, particularly as saying otherwise would also be a violation of WP:BLP without good quality sources.--  AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 17:27, 21 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I was not being incivil and I don't think you can just throw lines such as "consider it a civility warning" because I'm as much an experienced editor on Wikipedia as you are. I came to you because I appreciate your input. I thank you for the message. And what you say here clearly supports what I had said before. Thanks, Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  17:38, 21 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Shahid has been incivil and made accusations without proof against me rather than sticking to the topic. I have asked my question regarding the references again, and Shahid failed to answer. You, AnmaFinotera, however did. Good. So we can move on. I will consider making a comment about this reference, AnmaFinotera, although nothing may come of it. However I have found other references which maintain it is a remake. The storyline is the same. But the setting is Indian (just like the setting was American in the Ring) and the genders have been reversed. This does not add up to 1% or miniscule inspiration. The director can not admit to having made a remake, as he could incur credit charges and legal hassle with Hollywood. However, despite everything, it is biased to take the directors comment out of context (cherry picking). If that comment is to be included then the original context needs to be mentioned as well. Or else the comment can not stand alone for the sake of truthfulness. Your comments would be helpful, AnmaFinotera Starrylight (talk) 17:54, 21 November 2009 (UTC)


 * No matter what you will find - the way we should write it is:
 * "According to some critics,...., although the director said...."
 * And not the way it is now in which you emphasise that it is a remake and that the director practically lies.
 * That it is a remake is not a fact, it is something that you claim, I claim, some people claim, but it is still a claim. The director says he did not remake MBFW, it is much stronger than any claim. I'm done here. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  18:00, 21 November 2009 (UTC)


 * "No matter what you will find - the way we should write it is:" Really says who? You? Well I disagree and other sources clearly state it as being a remake so writing that would be accurate and truthful without bias. I hold nothing against the director. Whether he lies or not, I can not comment on. If you want to include his view, then a seperate section with the directors objection as well as the context of the criticism should be made. Do you think it would be possible for you to contain the discussion in one place, as it is getting tiring and absurd with the numeours discussions elsewhere. Starrylight (talk) 18:11, 21 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Says who? Yes me. Also AnmaFinotera clearly said "At best, one would say that 'some reviewers felt it was a remake of...' instead of stating that 'it is a remake of...'". And if we must, I'll take it to RfC, where people will clearly support the fair version. The simple reason is that the director denies it, therefore it can never be described as a remake but as "said to be a remake". There's also this Times of India article, which clearly suggests that the film only partially resembled MBFW and nothing else. In this case, there are many views on this (which means that there are no facts) and one very firm statement by the maker himself. So you have an answer now. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  19:37, 21 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Well your say have little relevance, as this is wikipedia. And as you can see, I have above asked AnmaFinotera some further questions with regards to her last comment which you cite as being the final word. I therefore do not have an answer yet, as I disagree with you and am awaiting AnmaFinotera's response. When Indian media (apart from your reference) is nonchalantly referring to to MYKSH as being a remake, this needs to be stated. I am sure if you asked anybody to answer in a way that might incriminate them, they would tend to deny. That is why the full context behind the quote you cited by the director is relevant. You can not cherry pick only his comment and not have the context. But this would seem irrelevant in the introduction of the article, why I suggest there is a section on its own where the full context, the objection and the criticism can be mentioned. I feel both stances should be mentioned, the remake and the denial. The readers can then make up their minds themselves, I am confident of. There is a centre for international studies, which actually mentions a long list of bollywood movies. MYKSH is mentioned as being a remake of My best friends wedding (MBFW). India Today says the same. This tends to be the most common of stances both when you judge subjective sources like blogs, viewers but also objective sources like reviewers, foreign media. Remake is not a bad word. No shame. I will await AnmaFinotera's opinion. Starrylight (talk) 19:56, 21 November 2009 (UTC)


 * No one has the final word. No one owns the page, so please read WP:OWN. Other than that - if you can provide with other sources which call it a remake, it's fine, but there still will be an objective way to mention it in accordance with WP:POV. If X says the film is a remake, we will say "according to X, the film is a remake". In our case there are contradictions, such as The Times of India - which has a much more detailed review by a very reputed jounalist. And of course the director denies having copied MBFW, which is the strongest part here, so it can never be described as a remake but merely a film that "is said to be a remake by some, partialy a remake by others...". Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  20:08, 21 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Good to know because it felt like your word was to be the final. Alas, I feel we are going around in a ring. I agree on the objectivity factor no doubt. But the commonly held opinion appears to be that of remake. That the director objects is of little surprise. The contradiction is biased as you are going by the director. If you want to include all possible opinions, that would need to be done 1) seperately and 2) including the full context when quoting people (i.e. director). But as stated previously I am awaiting AnmaFinotera's reply. This is only reasonable after I posed my question to her. Let us discuss it then. Starrylight (talk) 20:20, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

(←) I think it makes sense to concentrate this discussion in one place; it has spread across at least three talk pages and two (archived) ANI threads. I'm really just reiterating what others have explained above. No-one owns any pages, and subject to Wikipedia editing policies anyone can change their content. It's that "subject to Wikipedia editing policies" that's the sticking point though :) Reading through the above discussion, it looks like Starrylight has found some reliable sources (ie not blogs!) that take the view that Mere Yaar Ki Shaadi Hai is based on My Best Friend's Wedding to a greater or lesser degree. The director's denial is also important; we can speculate here on his motives for denying it, but unless we have reliable sources our speculation doesn't belong in the article. We should also attribute opinions to make it obvious that we as authors haven't made them up, thus something like: "Although the director denies it,[ref to director quote] a number of sources view Mere Yaar Ki Shaadi Hai as a remake of the US movie My Best Friend's Wedding.[refs to sources that say this]" EyeSerene talk 10:30, 23 November 2009 (UTC)