Talk:Satyamev Jayate (talk show)

Some URLS
Here are some more URL's for the article to be expanded.

--Msrag (talk) 09:28, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * http://zeenews.india.com/entertainment/idiotbox/aamir-beats-bollywood-biggies-on-tv_110386.htm
 * http://zeenews.india.com/entertainment/idiotbox/aamir-khan-s-debut-tv-show-gets-great-money-start_109371.htm
 * http://zeenews.india.com/entertainment/celebrity/aamir-khan-dearer-than-money-for-salman-khan_109998.htm
 * http://zeenews.india.com/entertainment/idiotbox/satyamev-promos-give-insight-into-aamir-s-creative-process-imran_109235.htm
 * http://zeenews.india.com/entertainment/idiotbox/satayamev-jayate-has-made-life-tough-for-me-kiran-rao_110071.htm
 * http://zeenews.india.com/entertainment/idiotbox/no-villain-in-satyamev-jayate-says-aamir-khan_110854.htm

I think most of them have been included in some or other form. JP MEE NA (talk) 12:42, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Section : Progress of the show
This section is I think extremely important as this show brings out some startling facts. Everything can't be summarized. The listing in section list of episodes hardly makes any difference as it shows a routine chart of show. Who doesn't know that female foeticide is big problem in India?? But how this show brings that issue (and other issues later on) that is important to mention. When a movie of 3 hrs can have big plot and story sections what stops a show having 3-4 lines summary points. Here we can't talk about and compare it with game show, of-course, as writing plot summary will be a joke for them. I am not comparing what we have in other articles but it's quite good enough to mention at-least few summary point than rather writing a summary line for this particular show. JP MEE NA (talk) 16:10, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * You are write. But there is some problems. Current section looks like a report of what happened. It should be wikified, and should presented as paragraphs. Existing points should be expanded and more content to be added, like about the letter written to rajastan gov., impact(if any), about donation to Snehalaya, btw the problem is, we have to open sections for every 16 episodes. I dont think it is a good idea, it will make this article much bulkier. What about creates a separate article for each episode. I searched, but didn't found such episode articles in WP. Would it be feasible as per rules?  rahul  ( talk2me ) 02:53, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * you sound quite well with each episode having own article. See these for better guidance - List_of_How_I_Met_Your_Mother_episodes, List_of_Lost_episodes (feathered article), List_of_Gossip_Girl_episodes etc. I think it will big wiki-project. I will not be available for next few months otherwise I would love to start this project. Have a nice time with new articles. JP MEE NA  (talk) 06:07, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Jpmeena, the section can be anything except "Progress of the show". "Progress of the show" is definitely not encyclopedic and sounds more of the likes of Blogs or Forums. Encyclopedic material cannot and should not be portrayed as any present tense or future tense. We should just indicate as it is. Progress of the show indicates the article from today's (present) point of view. Later after the show it is over, it'll definitely needs to be changed. So you cannot keep changing an encyclopedic material format as per your convenience and only the content can and should change. Please indicate any reputed, reliable article on Wikipedia if you have come across this section. Moreover, if you fail to read the sources provided, have a look at this which clearly indicates "Aamir along with the music director of ‘Delhi Belly’ Ram Sampath has created roughly 16 songs for the 16 episodes that are expected to roll in the inaugural season of the show". Hence I advise you to please refrain from reverting it back just because you named the section that way and think its correct. And lastly even you could've discussed it over here before reverting it twice.--Msrag (talk) 07:15, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Image
Should we change logo image of the show to this? Its the updated logo from satyamevjayate.in having 'Satyamev Jayate' handwritten by Aamir.  rahul  ( talk2me ) 08:18, 8 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't see a need. It should not be included for the same reason the sponsor logos were removed. — Ganeshk  ( talk ) 12:13, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Problems
Some problems remain in this article :-


 * While I can see that the show has got generally great reviews, there is no chance that not even a single negative review exists. We will need negative reviews to balance out the overwhelming positivity, otherwise we fail neutrality.


 * The article is suffering from peacock terms such as "shocking", "marvellous", "disastrous" etc.

In lieu of this, I may engage in copy-editing of this article. If editors can work together, we could get this to a GA, you know :). ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 18:44, 11 May 2012 (UTC)


 * 1. GA is not possible until the entire 13 shows have been telecast. 2. Can you get us some links for bad reviews? I'm sure you will have tough time finding those. 3. Will be working on peacock terms now :) -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 18:52, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I spotted some rather cynical remarks in some places, but those may not be complete reviews. Will try to locate.--Dwaipayan (talk) 19:12, 11 May 2012 (UTC)


 * With show getting popular, article, sometime, sounds like a newspaper. We need to make sure that content is encyclopedic and not otherwise!! Thanks. -  Vivvt Talk 19:29, 11 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Wow! Great! One TV serial less for me. I am glad! As you all seem to take this, please also pay attention to other articles sprouting from this one, eg Female foeticide in India. Also 3-4 weeks from now i guess episode list will have to break out. Thats justified & wise too. Wish you all the best! §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk)  20:16, 11 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Please do not misunderstand me. I am in no way saying that the show is bad (I loved the show's concept) but from a completely uninvolved editor, such overwhelming praise will raise eyebrows. That's all I'm trying to say, and its solely for the article's future benefit. I second Vivvt's concerns, since it is now visible that certain POV-pushers are beginning to re-populate the Indian film articles, and this is only going to increase when the bigger films start coming out, and so the Satyamev Jayate article will be the target of a lot of fanboyism and hatred. Maintenance will be required. As an aside, I suggest that the current lead format of listing the topic of each episode be abandoned. I don't think we could accommodate thirteen such statements :P. We could instead opt for something like this :- "The show began with a discussion on female foeticide and ended with so-and-so issue, and dealt with a number of other social issues such as child sexual abuse, so-and-so issue and so-and-so issue." Or perhaps simply, "The show dealt with a number of social issues present in Indian society, such as female foeticide, child sexual abuse and so-and-so issue." What's say? :). ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 17:10, 15 May 2012 (UTC)


 * You mean writing all episodes as one para in bulk instead of separate sections? I agree halfway with this. No separate sections are needed. But i dont like one bulk para. Indian shows rarely have such a format where every episode is unique and can be separated. Lets use this to have some compact and good presentation. I would suggest a table. This format used in List of Boston Legal episodes and numerous other articles can be used here too. In case needed we can write episode description in one row and add another for impact. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 19:23, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * No, Ankit is referring to mentioning that each of the themes of 13 episodes does not merit one sentence in the lead, as that would inflate the lead. Ankit is spefically referring to the lead, as far as I understand.
 * As Animesh is telling, eventually we may need to use table format. However, as of now, we can follow the current format, with descriptive paragraphs for each episode. --Dwaipayan (talk) 19:39, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Dwaipayan is correct; I am talking only about the lead. The format for the main body is actually very good, and I would rather have this than go for a table format. However, in case you are aiming to make this a list of sorts, then tables would be advisable (though i doubt we want a list here :). ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 04:21, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Not True
Article says that there is a self-imposed and self-enforced ban on dubbing in Kannada by Karnataka Government. Unfortunately this is untrue and such kind of ban is un-constitutional. This ban was self-imposed and self-enforced by Kannada Film Industry in sixties and further it was extended by television artists and technicians on Doordarshan & Satellite Channels as and when they came into existence. This ban is not Government sanctioned. I request somebody to correct this mis-information.

Subramanya (talk) 12:33, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

True, That has been corrected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bharathiya (talk • contribs) 04:03, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

date format
Before the article becomes very large, we need to change all the dates to DMY format, and follow that, as India uses DMY format.--Dwaipayan (talk) 02:21, 14 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Its not mandatory to make it to DMY format for just a reason being an Indian article. Instead we can focus using a single format throughout the article. If it's MDY, so let it be! -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 06:06, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, it should be a single format throughout the article, that's the only mandatory part regarding dating format in any article. However, since India uses DMY format, it is preferable to use DMY format in India-related articles. You can see the related Manual of Style here. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 13:33, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * On what basis do we decide the date format in the article? I see lot of articles using date format invariably. One fine day admin puts the "Use British English date" template or otherwise and format is changed!! If we know the criteria, we can use the same across all the Indian articles. Thanks. -  Vivvt Talk 20:49, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * There is no RULE really on date format. If you follow the wiki link given above by me, you will see the MoS guidelines that articles with strong connection to a particular nation should follow the date format used in that country. So, India related articles should ideally follow dmy format whenever possible. Since this article is still in early stage of development, dmy should be followed before the article inflates. Indeed all Indian articles should follow dmy. However if some article is already quite large in size and had followed some other date format, it will be a lot of work to convert that. The only rule for date format is each article should be internally consistent, that is should follow only one date format consistently.--Dwaipayan (talk) 01:00, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Some proposals on citation template use
Hi! Let me present a few proposals for citation template use.

Let's mention the agency that is providing the news under "agency" parameter (in "cite news" template) whenever that info is available. (This has been done a few times already, so I propose it).

Let's not mention the place mention under any parameter such as "place" or "location". This parameter is supposed to tell the location of the publisher. From personal experience, this is a hassle (we did use that parameter in the article Kolkata).

Again, there is no rule really, but the article needs to be internally consistent, that is follow the same pattern throughout.

If all the major editors involved agree, we can follow these guidelines. (Personally speaking, I am against using "agency" parameter, as despite out best effort we tend to miss it often. However, this has been used already a few times in this particular article). Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 01:33, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I recommend using citation templates in general, and using them for agency is great and using them for location of publisher may or may not be relevant. I would never fault someone for providing too much information about a source.  Blue Rasberry    (talk)   17:28, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Some editors need to be put in their places
Yes, you are reading it right. After the sort of name-calling and bad-faith accusations that are ripping the air apart at the Shahrukh Khan talk page, I decided that its time to put some of the editors in their proper places, seeing as it is that there seems to be a great penchant among the said editors to talk a lot about neutrality but do very little in reality.

One look at the Critical Reception section is enough to understand that the section has been written with the sole aim of promoting the show and advertising the praise the show has got, which is a very clear violation of Wikipedia's neutrality policy. Wondering how I am able to say such stuff? Could some of the esteemed name-calling editors (who work on this article as well) tell me why the following reviews have failed to find any mention in this article? :-


 * Aamir Khan's Satyameva Jayate played it safe


 * Aamir couldn't show genuine feeling!


 * Aamir Khan's Satyamev Jayate: Doordarshan like imitation of Oprah Show


 * A Case Of Bazaar Piety (a more mixed one which outlines that there won't be much actual change from the show; see the last paragraph)

Now unless you will shoot down all these as unreliable or biased (which makes you no better than a certain editor at the Khan talk page), I think it is time you cleaned up your self-centered pompousness over neutrality and start doing some actual work regarding it. NOTE - This message is not for everybody, but the required editors will understand that this message is being sent to them. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 15:07, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Hey Ankit, just go ahead and appropriately add these information in the suitable sections of the article.--Dwaipayan (talk) 17:58, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Ankit, I know who you are referring to, I know a few people who do what you are talking about, [though I see no connection between SRK and Aamir], but I think the simplest thing to do if something seems wrong, is to change it. Many people are there, who do a lot of wrong stuff, but refuse to listen, or react instead urging you to do the thing. Relax, --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 09:34, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Ankit, its great that you found some valuable sources on the negative reviews to balance the neutrality of the article. But I wonder, if you had come across these articles and had these sources, why didn't you update those for yourself? Nobody ever stopped you, opposed you or reverted you. No one had any problems updating those. As far as I understand, Wikipedia is a collaborative effort. One cannot be / should not be blamed for not including so-n-so information in so-n-so article unless someone constantly tries to remove or stop someone else adding a piece of information which is not the case here. Finally I too don't see any connection between SRK and Aamir. Anyways, for now I've added all those reviews you mentioned above (except Glamsham) but this kinda reaction was not expected by someone who has written a bible on Wiki named Ra.One. --Msrag (talk) 12:41, 28 May 2012 (UTC)


 * My point was to show the irony of the cause of some editors in the different articles. Of course there is no connection between SRK and Aamir, and I have never stated that, but the common factor was a lack of neutrality. You may have noticed that my activity in recent times has reduced, and I hadn't really got the time to adding the reviews myself. I am happy that you have added the reviews. Could you clarify what you meant by "writing a Bible named Ra.One"? ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 15:51, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I was only appreciating your herculean effort and hard work on Ra.One to be one of finest, detailed and comprehensive articles on Wiki. Hence named it as 'Bible' and thus your reaction came as a shocker. That's it and nothing much. Hope this is not misunderstood, At least. --Msrag (talk) 07:36, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Ankit, where you went wrong was exactly stated well by Msrag, no one stopped you for adding anything. In the article Shahrukh Khan, many people know hell number of controversies about him, and yeah, good works too; espacially when he hosted KBC; he gave sometimes his watches to participants. He is worth praises, but this is Wikipedia. We must try out best to be neutral here, and frankly that's what I wanted too. I always wanted to stay out from controversies, but we need is sometimes for betterment of an article. -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 07:59, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I just asked what you meant by "Bible". Am I so jumpy that whatever I state is taken as anger? i must take some anger management classes :P ;). I do agree that nobody stopped me from adding them, but my stand was for an entirely different reason. I hope you guys didn't misunderstand either. Anyways, in the end, the job is done here and in all likelihood will be done in the other article too. So no fuss :). ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 14:50, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm removing the orange tag on top now, assuming that the issue has been cleared.  Lynch 7  07:06, 3 June 2012 (UTC)