Talk:Rishta Likhenge Hum Naya

Removal of context
why did you remove important context that explains why this new series was created? We're not here to whitewash the show's history, we're here to explain the 5 Ws. "Why" is a fundamental question to be answered. The removal of this content has the aroma of someone trying to do promotional damage control by suppressing facts about the series. That's not what we're here for. And since another editor thought to include some mention of the controversy surrounding the show, (albeit vague) it would seem this is an important issue for people. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:19, 8 October 2017 (UTC)


 * The reason I removed it was causing the show's history was already mentioned in the canceled show, so I didn't think it was necessary to mention it again. Plus the previous show was a controversial one, which led many to believe that it was promoting child marriage when it wasn't. Many people had signed the petition without watching the show which I believe was wrong. However, my point is that this new show isn't a sequel of the old one, it's a completely new show with the same cast since the old show was pulled off air mid-way by the makers because of the late time slot as the show was meant for a particular audience. However, the makers decided to go with the same character names for their new show which I repeat does not make it a sequel. Dear, the information that was entered in the article about the old show has got nothing to do with the new one, so why bring controversy to this show too, by linking it. --Princessruby (talk) 22:44, 8 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Why bring controversy into this? Because it's an encyclopedia article, and the only reason why this series exists is that the controversy drove producers to have to rethink the series. You're hiding information about the history of the series, which is inexcusable, like here where you removed content about the show being restructured. "It's not a sequel," you say, but then what the heck is it? And why was a new series started? You're missing more Ws. Surely you don't think that an academic resource should be suppressing important information, do you? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:08, 8 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Yes, I comprehend, but I'm not hiding anything. According to some of the articles released by the media online, claim that the show is not a sequel, while others call it a sequel. well, that's what I would like to know too that what the hell it is. But according to the producers, it's not a sequel. I believe what I read, am sure we all do. Yes, the old show is the reason why the new show started in the first place. However, if you still wanna add the controversial part, then be my guest. I do not have any problem with it, I kept editing the controversial part because I didn't think it was necessary to mention it again. Just because I don't think it mustn't mean I'm trying to hide the history. The plot of this new show seemed interesting to me, so I decided to create a page for it. Hope I've made my point clear --Princessruby (talk) 23:26, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Have we arrived at any consensus here? I think it's weird to describe something as "not ___". I thought that "restructuring" or whatever the previous phrasing was, was a little more clear than saying the show is not a sequel. What about something like "the series is not intended to be a sequel, rather it is a restructuring of story elements found in the precedent series." I also still think that an explanation for why the show was restructured is vital to our understanding of the series. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:08, 13 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Yes dear, of course, we have. Very true, it doesn't make sense, since the same characters are brought into the new show, even though the makers and those close to the show are denying it being a sequel, it all points to it being one. Yes, it sounds good to me. Before you do, allow me to explain why the sequel was created in the first place and the old show was canceled. According to the maker, Sumeet Mittal, the reason they decided to end the show was because of the time slot they were given, they weren't happy about it, so they decided to pull the show off air mid-way and come up with a new show instead. They were asked by the Broadcasting Content Complaints Council to change the time slot and display a disclaimer that it does not promote child marriage, which they did. The only reason the makers ended the show was because of the late-night slot. Hope we are on the same page here? (http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/bccc-takes-action-against-pehredaar-piya-ki-asks-sony-tv-to-change-its-time-slot-lifetv/1/1027128.html, http://www.livemint.com/Consumer/sWvGK7LEsXj0EAyqyO54KP/Sony-pulls-plug-on-controversial-show-Pehredaar-Piya-Ki.html ) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Princessruby (talk • contribs) 17:07, 13 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Why did you delete this content? I thought you opted to yield on your perspective that it should be removed. You said, "if you still wanna add the controversial part, then be my guest. I do not have any problem with it". I included information about the change in time slot per your notes above, so it's confusing why you would yet again remove it. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:12, 12 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Oh sorry about that. You can add it again. I must have done that accidentally. --Princessruby (talk) 08:23, 13 November 2017 (UTC)