Talk:Neerja

Semi-protected edit request on 26 February 2016
Neerja: The Story of a Brave Air Hostess Neerja Bhanot

Prakhar Sahay (talk) 00:30, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg 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. Datbubblegumdoe[talk – contribs] 01:02, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 February 2016
Please delete 8th bullet of cast, Abrar Zahoor as Safarini as it is already mentioned in the 5th bullet point, Abrar Zahoor as Zayd Safarini.

Snowyplayer (talk) 18:22, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 19:26, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 February 2016
please add ‘it was futher reported that Neerja has now been tax-free in Delhi and UP also" to the text "It was reported on 24 February, 2016 that the film had been declared tax free by Maharashtra state government" Source= "http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/hindi/bollywood/news/Sonam-Kapoors-Neerja-now-tax-free-in-Delhi-and-UP/articleshow/51159118.cms"

Arunkumar1576 (talk) 20:05, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: Why should this change be made, exactly? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:22, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

History lesson in plot
In these edits, I removed content from the plot section. The point of a plot section is to provide an overview of the film's plot and I don't think all of the details presented in that run-on sentence are germane to our understanding of the film's plot. We're not writing a historical article, we're summarizing a film. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 07:00, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Reversions
In these edits, I reverted content submitted by. Firstly, he restored a summary of overseas critical response without providing a reference for that summary, which I'd previously removed here. We can't cherrypick positive reviews and then describe those reviews as positive. There's too much of an opportunity to confirm our own bias. If I hated the movie, all I would need to do is fill the section with negative reviews and write "the film was received poorly overseas". We should be quoting specific voices when we summarize overall response. Secondly, the marketing section, while added in good faith, only details the mundane, which contravenes WP:TRAILER. There's nothing special about appearing somewhere to discuss the film. Actors do that all the time for every movie. It's mundane. I'm baffled by the inclusion of content about the sheer top she was wearing. I don't comprehend why that would be noted in an encyclopedia. It's completely ridiculous and I can imagine any number of people would perceive that to be sexist, because we almost certainly wouldn't mention a man's sheer top. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:55, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Mundane marketing
, do you have a reason for silently restoring the Marketing section to the article after I removed it for contravening WP:TRAILER? It's not much different from what you originally added, so per WP:BRD, the onus is yours to open a discussion when content you submit is reverted. I'm doing that for you here. Mundane marketing techniques, like making an appearance somewhere, is not noteworthy. Per WP:TRAILER:
 * Topics that can be covered include target demographics, test screenings, release dates, scale of release (limited vs. wide), merchandising, marketing controversies, and contending for awards. Do not merely identify and describe the content of customary marketing methods such as trailers, TV spots, radio ads, and posters.  Instead, use reliable sources to provide useful commentary about a method, such as a trailer's intended effect or the audience's reported reaction to it.

The bold text appears in the guideline, so it must be important. Mentioning that she appeared somewhere is what I would consider merely identifying customary marketing methods. And "She thanked Bachchan for making her a part of his show." Of course she did. That's what you do when someone has you on a television show--you thank them. When someone invites you to a party, you thank them. This is not news. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:09, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Additionally, I have removed this content, which is just an extension of mundane marketing. They released a trailer. Big deal. And why do we care about the release of a logo? This is completely not important information... Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:17, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Earlier, I understood that the information that I added that "she delivered speech in a college" was not so important to include in the article. But I think appearing on a reality TV show is important. It's not that she appeared for only 1-2 minutes. And I have not reverted the changes. I added new information of her appearing in a TV show by searching a lot on Google. How can you say that I have reverted my changes? If I added this information again than you should say as "reverted". Mr. Smart ℒION  ⋠☎️✍⋡ 15:41, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Can I add this little para. information in the article. It's seems important to me?
 * A coffee table book on Neerja Bhanot "The Neerja I Knew" was released on 17 February 2016 in Chandigarh by Harjinder Kaur (councillor of Chandigarh municipal corporation). The book was conceptualised and compiled by Aneesh Bhanot (brother of Neerja). The book contains 11 chapters in the book with each chapter written by people who knew her. The book has a number of photographs of Neerja and has two versions -hardback and paperback. This is the source. Mr. Smart ℒION  ⋠☎️✍⋡ 16:12, 9 June 2016 (UTC)


 * On the first point, I understand that you think it's important to include her appearance on the TV show, what I don't understand is why you think it's important. Television appearances are not inherently noteworthy. How is it any different from appearing on the Graham Norton Show for an hour? There is a common understanding that people promoting a film will go around to various talk shows and promote the film. This is common. What's so special about this show or this appearance? There's no context that explains why we should care about it. How is your addition consistent with the MOS guideline? As for the coffee table book, what does the book have to do with the movie? This isn't an article about Neerja Bhanot, this is an article about a film. If there's no clear relationship between the book and the film, why would we consider including it? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:40, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
 * OK, I'll not include it. By the way, the article has been much expanded. But I want to say that the book and film both have relationships, because the book was released on 17 February 2016 and the film was released on 19 February 2016. This means that if the film hadn't been released, the book also had not released. Mr. Smart ℒION  ⋠☎️✍⋡ 18:02, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
 * The family is selling a book to profit from the publicity of the film. So what? Is the book written about the film? No? Then it isn't relevant to the film and including it does not expand our understanding of the film. Is the merchandising of the book relevant to an article on the general subject of Neerja Bhanot? Maybe. If a new Batman film is released, we aren't going to mention that a new Batman comic was released unless that comic was an adaptation of the film or somehow directly tied to the film. There has to be some direct correlation between the product and the film for there to be a mention of it, not just a tangential coincidence. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:32, 9 June 2016 (UTC)