Talk:P. K. Rosy

Name and Source
Please use the name Rosy, not Rosie and please don't mix both. Since the title of the article is Rosy, we can safely assume Rosy is the correct spelling. The Mathrubhumi article seems the most reliable source, so the article has been edited to keep according to its version of the story. Abpillai (talk) 19:56, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Move
Why was the page moved without discussion?Slatersteven (talk) 10:26, 30 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Because it doesn't need discussion - it was a simple, conventional punctuation fix. No need for WP:RM etc. You are becoming a real pain regarding this article simply because you do not seem to understand the basics, just like in the RSN thread. - Sitush (talk) 10:43, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Christian
The fact her family have disputed the fact she was Christian are in a couple of sources, not just the one deemed unreliable.Slatersteven (talk) 10:33, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Religion
keeps reinstating a statement that according to X or Y (it seems to vary), Rosy was a Christian. He's basing it on this article. It should be blindingly obvious that we cannot say what Slatersteven keeps trying to say. The matter is contested, her family disagree with the claim, and the claim itself is based on a massive generalisation about her caste (as the source acknowledges). It is completely, utterly wrong to even use the form "according to X she was a Christian" in the lead section, and it is almost certainly wrong to mention it at all because the criticism is extremely valid. Thoughts? - Sitush (talk) 10:41, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
 * So someone has made the claim, we do not exclude material just because it is contested, we just point out the contest. I have also added another source for the claim.Slatersteven (talk) 10:47, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
 * As to what the original, source said "Celluloid shows Rosy as a Dalit Christian woman named Rosamma. This is based on Gopalakrishnan’s description of her. But, according to Kunnukuzhi, Rosy’s real name was Rajamma. “When she came to work in the film, J. C. Daniel made it Rosy. And then (in Nagercoil) she changed it to Rajammal.”
 * So yes my second edit (It should be blindingly obvious) reflected what the source said
 * And "Vinu Abraham, Celluloid’s screenplay writer, and the author of the book Nashtanayika from which the film has been inspired, says that his research found that Rosy’s family had converted. To explain this, he provides a sweeping generalization: “Because, in those days, the Pulaya community used to convert to Christianity.”"
 * So my first edit also reflected what the source said.Slatersteven (talk) 11:21, 30 July 2017 (UTC)


 * No. We reflect that it is contested and we keep it out of the lead. That is the minimum we do as a way of including the information. I am flabbergasted that you thought "(according to X a Christian)" would suffice. That's a newbie mistake. - Sitush (talk) 11:30, 30 July 2017 (UTC)


 * No we do not keep it out of the lead, the lead is a summery of the article, and this appears to be a major bone of contention (as well as reflected by multiple sources). It is in about the only book about her, and at least one of the three films.Slatersteven (talk) 11:32, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
 * In fact only one (of many sources) claim this is not true (well saying it is disputed rather then unequivocally coming out and saying it is false), if anything therefore saying it is controversial in the lead is a breach of undue. To properly reflect the balance of sources we should say she was Christian.Slatersteven (talk) 11:39, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
 * At the time I wrote, you only had one source there (the one I mentioned) and I'd already had to remove the statement because it wasn't in the citations that you had placed against it. That is where the confusion started.
 * Regarding the lead, her caste is significant to her achievement; her religion seems not to be. I know a lot about caste and how we treat it on Wikipedia; I suspect you do not. For example, one of the most controversial verifiable statements is the varna of a caste but we very deliberately- by long-standing consensus - avoid putting it in the lead because it just creates a storm. We discuss it in the body, showing all opinions with equal weight. That is not what you have done - even using the word "controversially" there is a bad move. Just relegate it. And please don't rush to suggest RN or 3O as you did in the RSN thread - I'm not interested. - Sitush (talk) 13:31, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
 * You do realise that you are essentially citing a work of fiction for the religion claim, don't you? A film based on a novel, where the film-maker has no expertise in the matter and he has a film to sell. - Sitush (talk) 13:33, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I have no idea what the "Varna of her caste" (which as far as I know relates to books) has to do with her religion. And no I do not cite a work of fiction (essentially or otherwise) I cite an article about the work of fiction that discuses the controversy about her religion.Slatersteven (talk) 15:14, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
 * You are being obtuse. He (the film guy) isn't qualified to comment and his work is fiction. Find something better. - Sitush (talk) 15:21, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Actually, I am starting to think that either you have a competence issue or you are deliberately trying to take the piss. My mind really is boggled here. Have you any experience of writing articles? - Sitush (talk) 15:24, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
 * We do not second guess RS, the source talks about the controversy (and it mentions two people claiming this, not one try reading it). This is my last word here, I oppose changing the text, and nothing you have said has changed that.Slatersteven (talk) 15:40, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Religion again
Describing someone as "purportedly Christian" while citing a source which unequivocally states that they were Christian is ridiculous. What the hell is it supposed to mean? 'Purported' by whom? If there are other sources that say that she wasn't a Christian, the article should cite them too, and make it clear that her religion is disputed. And if there are no such sources, and the source cited meets WP:RS, what it says should be simply stated as a fact. Wikipedia does not second-guess the sole source cited for something to imply that they have got it wrong. 109.159.88.9 (talk) 22:35, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
 * It was a compromise to end a conflict. I am happy to change it with consensus.Slatersteven (talk) 10:40, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, but what was it a compromise with? Until you cite another source that says something different, it can't really be read as anything more than an assertion by whoever wrote it that the source cited may be wrong. If the source cited can be shown to be questionable over this issue, either inform the readers that her religion is disputed (citing further sources), or omit it entirely. 109.159.88.9 (talk) 12:49, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * It was a compromise between leaving it out and saying she was a christian as a fact, See the talk section above this.Slatersteven (talk) 13:15, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * It isn't a 'compromise' as far as the article is concerned. It is an implication that the only source cited may have got it wrong. Why, if there are other sources saying something different, aren't they being cited? 109.159.88.9 (talk) 13:20, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Err the body says the name change may have been purely Aesthetic and not due to conversation to Christianity. As such I now do not think it should be changed, its clear its not a given fact, its contested.Slatersteven (talk) 13:24, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * This is getting even more ridiculous by the minute. I have said nothing whatsoever about a name change, and the article cites only one further source regarding her religion: which again states that she was a Christian. Unless you can provide a source which suggests otherwise, there are only two possible courses of action. Either state as a fact that she was a Christian, or remove any statements about religion entirely. 109.159.88.9 (talk) 13:37, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * See the talk above, and by the way I have now amended the article with a source that says she was not a Christian. I suggest you drop this now having managed to argue me round from " I am happy to change it with consensus" to "As such I now do not think it should be changed".Slatersteven (talk) 13:42, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * No, I will drop it when the phrase 'purportedly Christian' is removed from the lede. It doesn't belong there, as phrased with the single source cited, and seems not to be a defining characteristic of the actress anyway. Her religion, or at least the dispute about it, is now adequately covered in the article body. 109.159.88.9 (talk) 14:12, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Read wp:consensus, you have been told that is should not be changed. That the claim she was christian is disputed is clear, that there is a claim she was a christian is clear. So we say its disputed, that was (and is) the compromise.Slatersteven (talk) 14:13, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I can see no evidence whatsoever of any consensus regarding the phrase 'purportedly Christian' in the lede. All I can see is a dispute between you and User:Sitush where you appear to have agreed about nothing. And no 'purported' does not mean 'disputed' - look it up in a dictionary. 109.159.88.9 (talk) 14:23, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, that was the compromise, as we arrived at a form of text (but the was if you read wp:consensus you will see editing can be used to achieve it, not just discussion) that we both could accept. That is what consensus is. This will be my last comment on this topic, as it has been exausted.Slatersteven (talk) 14:27, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * It may be your last word, but since you have failed to provide any evidence that a 'consensus' was actually arrived at (i.e. a post by Sitish agreeing with the phrase), I see no reason why it should be mine. And since we are bandying WP policies and guidelines around, read Consensus. I may be editing as an IP, but that doesn't mean I'm unfamiliar with the ways things work here. 109.159.88.9 (talk) 14:34, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

I see that the lede has now been amended to read 'disputably Christian'. 'Disputedly Christian' would seem to be a more accurate reflection of the sources, but I still fail to see why the lede needs an unexplained assertion regarding her religion at all. It isn't a defining characteristic (or at least, the article presents no evidence that it is), and the question is covered in the relevant part of the article body, where the reader can see the context. Not everything belongs in an article lede... 109.159.88.9 (talk) 14:45, 26 October 2020 (UTC)


 * This is long standing content, it is down to you to make the case to remove it. Multiple RS (at a guess about half the one we use) say she was a Christian, a could dispute this. Now wp:brd is clear, you only are bold if you do not know there is disarrangement, you know there is disagreement (thus you violated it). We often mention a persons religion, if RS think it is notable.Slatersteven (talk) 15:23, 26 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Saying "purportedly Christian", "disputedly Christian", and such phrasings are both awkward and border on violating MOS:DOUBT unless the sources use the same phrasing, which they don't. They aren't a compromise between anything, it should either be removed or simply say Christian. I would go with the latter because there's multiple sources that say she and her family are, but I don't know if they are enough for her religion to be notable. RedPanda25 15:28, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Well its clear RS think its notable, and discus it. As I said the wording was a compromise between saying she was christian or not saying it at all. The bulk of RS seem to say she was a Christian.Slatersteven (talk) 15:31, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * But why do we need a two-word assertion about the dispute in the lede? It explains nothing at all, and doesn't provide the context to show how it matters. 109.159.88.9 (talk) 15:33, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * We don't we can reduce it to one word, most RS say she was Christian (hell its to do with her name).Slatersteven (talk) 15:40, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * You surely aren't suggesting that Wikipedia simply asserts that Rosy was Christian in the lede, while citing sources in the article body that suggest she wasn't? 109.159.88.9 (talk) 15:50, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I have suggested a compromise, two users have rejected it.Slatersteven (talk) 15:52, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Which rather implies it isn't in fact a 'compromise'. But whatever. We clearly aren't going to resolve this ourselves, and third-party input is probably required. How about an RfC? 109.159.88.9 (talk) 15:58, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * We have had third party input, but sure RFC.Slatersteven (talk) 16:06, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I'll leave it for a day or two, if that's ok with you. Maybe others have this article on their watchlist, and will want to chip in meanwhile. 109.159.88.9 (talk) 16:08, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

So want to start the wp:RFC?Slatersteven (talk) 09:36, 29 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Before we do, can you confirm that the wording currently in the lede, 'disputably Christian' is what you actually want it to read? It will make things a lot simpler if we offer a simple choice, though obviously people will still be free to offer alternatives. 109.159.88.9 (talk) 12:42, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I am happy for it to just say Christian, "disputably" was a sop to exclusionists.Slatersteven (talk) 18:26, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * You wish to just say 'Christian' in the lede, despite the article citing a source which disputes this? How could that possibly be justified? 109.159.88.9 (talk) 18:32, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

We have been over this again and again, now launch the RFC.Slatersteven (talk) 10:15, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Request for comment regarding the lede.
Should P.K. Rosy's disputed religious affiliation be mentioned in the lede? 109.159.88.9 (talk) 13:04, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

*No', it is disputed and Rosy's main claim to fame is her acting and not her religious affiliation.--Astral Leap (talk) 08:32, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * No. This is a short article, concerning a person about whom relatively little is known. She came to public attention solely due to her role in an early example of Indian cinema, and in particular to the outcry generated due to a 'low-caste' woman playing a 'high-caste' role. Little is known about her beyond that. Her caste status was clearly relevant to the outcry, but the article presents no evidence that her religious beliefs played any significant part. Indeed, as the article makes clear, it isn't entirely certain what her religious affiliation was - some sources state unequivolcally that she was a Christian, but others dispute this. That seems to be the extent of what can sensibly be said about Rosy's religion, and it is already covered in the article body. Until recently, the article described her as 'purportedly a Christian' in the lede, which to me made no sense at at all, since it didn't explain who was doing the 'purporting'. As of now, it reads 'disputably Christian' which is, in my opinion, only marginally better. A two-word phrase in a lede that fails to explain what the dispute was, who was or is having the dispute, and why it is of any significance, is less than helpful for the reader. And nothing presented in the body of the article suggests that there was really any 'dispute' concerning her religion at the time of the events that brought her to public attention anyway. It was her caste, not her religion, that caused the controversy. In a short lede, it is thus entirely inappropriate to give undue emphasis to one particular, apparently undetermined, aspect of her life, seemingly of more significance to Wikipedia contributors now than it was to anyone at the time of the events being described. Wikipedia articles are written to summarise the significant aspects of a subject, as verified through appropriate external sources. And article ledes further summarise that - they don't need to contain every verifiable 'fact' in an article, never mind every dispute about a seemingly peripheral one. And if they did, ambiguous two-word snippets wouldn't be the way to do it in any case. 109.159.88.9 (talk) 13:06, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
 * No - per 1) failed verification and 2) WP:UNDUE for the lead. The source in the lead supporting the claim disputably, clearly says the first Malayalam film actress was a Dalit Christian: PK Rosy, no mention whatsoever of a dispute. The prominence of the placement of her religion in the lead is WP:UNDUE, as it is not a significant viewpoint or relevant to her notability. Additionally, in the body of the article it says - many claim her family converted to Christianity, but yet there is only one source that mentions converted into Christianity. The other source is the same as the one in the lead. So where is many claim, it's misleading and fails verification. I also agree with Sitush above who says "her caste is significant to her achievement; her religion seems not to be." Isaidnoway (talk) 15:56, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
 * No - I agree with the above opinions. If something is disputed, the information shouldn't be included on the page until a decision is made. Additionally, unless the person is well known for their religious affiliation, that information shouldn't be present in the lede. Quorum816 (talk) 14:58, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
 * No - - 109.159.88.9|109.159.88.9 above gives an excellent analysis. The relevance of this info is not established nor is there adequate sourcing for the facts nor for its relevance, or for any controversy surrounding it.Pincrete (talk) 10:08, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

I see that the article has already been amended, per the unanimous discussion above. Thanks to everyone for their participation. 109.159.88.9 (talk) 15:24, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

PP
Will we need PP? Slatersteven (talk) 13:27, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

PP now asked for, enough is enough. Slatersteven (talk) 16:05, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

FIlm release date
We have sources that say 1928, a Wikipedia article can't be used to say they are wrong. Slatersteven (talk) 16:24, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Refs on her page conflict too. Nswix (talk) 16:29, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that is better than linking to a Wikipedia page or just saying "film". Slatersteven (talk) 16:31, 11 February 2023 (UTC)