Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics/Archive 29

Yadavindra Singh of Patiala
The article about him had the title Yuvraj of Patiala because it was originally written as a cricket article. Somebody has moved it to Maharaja Yadavindra Singh. IMHO, it is fine, except that it should be changed to Yadavindra Singh of Patiala. If you have any views on this, please comment at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Cricket Tintin 15:12, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Osho
There may be cross-cultural issues of perception here  that could benefit from the perspective of Indian Wikipedians. While Osho has become part of India's mainstream, in the United States he still does not get a fair hearing, IMO. -- Jayen 466 00:58, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Mappila Malayalam
In view of the Malayalam language article, Articles for deletion/Mappila Malayalam may benefit from your input. Please consider participating in that discussion. -- Jreferee    t / c  06:33, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Reliable source for Bollywood related articles
Hi! Continuing with the discussion on Bollywood-related websites, I am copy-pasting a thread of discussion from Preity Zinta talk page. Sorry for adding a lot of materials, but advices/comments are needed, this involves a whole lot of India-related articles.

Bollyvista
Ok. Bollyvista—"About us" says, "Through years of hard work, Bollyvista.com has been able to assemble a syndicate of reporters and dedicated technical staff to bring the best of Bollywood to its viewers around the world." So it is not a fan-managed site. It has proper staffs, and offices etc. Disclaimer says, "Bollyvista.com expressly disclaims any and all warranties, express or implied, including, without limitation: (a) Any warranties as to the availability, accuracy, completeness or content of information, products or services that are part of the Bollyvista.com web site..."

The disclaimer is pretty generic; indiatimes "terms and conditions" says, " All the contents of this Site are only for general information or use. They do not constitute advice and should not be relied upon in making (or refraining from making) any decision"; rediff.com disclaimer says, "REDIFF .COM AND/OR ITS RESPECTIVE SUPPLIERS MAKE NO REPRESENTATIONS ABOUT THE SUITABILITY, RELIABILITY, AVAILABILITY, TIMELINESS, LACK OF VIRUSES OR OTHER HARMFUL COMPONENTS AND ACCURACY OF THE INFORMATION, SOFTWARE, PRODUCTS, SERVICES AND RELATED GRAPHICS CONTAINED WITHIN THE REDIFF SITES/SERVICES FOR ANY PURPOSE."

So, disclaimer-wise, bollyvista is comparable to rediff and indiatimes. And it is not a fan-managed website. Yes, it is smaller in size than ToI or rediff. And it is not as widely read/consulted as indiafm. So, what may be it's reliabilty??? My opinion, it is reliable for non-exceptional claims, if properly considered along with the context (just like any other media reliable source, where context should be taken into consideration while deciding reliability). It seems to be "trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand". Comments?--Dwaipayan (talk) 17:46, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Planetbollywood.com
This is a website from INDOlink, which "...is the first Ethnic portal serving Asian-Indians worldwide since 1995. INDOlink is a US Corporation, located in San Ramon, California - with satellite offices in New York, and Bombay, India".

In its terms of service, it has similar disclaimers,disclaiming inaccuracies etc. So, it seems to be not a fan-managed site. However, on checking a few articles, most of them seemed to be written by someone named "Abid". Also, no formal statement on office or stuffs have been made. So, my view on planetbollywood is, it is probably not reliable. It is definitely less transparent than bollyvista or indiafm.--Dwaipayan (talk) 18:24, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


 * So, my question is, can we use review from these site? It is an active site and every new released film receives a review there (not from this Avid, by different writers. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  18:55, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


 * No, we should not be using for reviews too. Instead it would add more value to the article in terms of credibility, if we use well-accepted sources mentioned above. - KNM Talk 19:07, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I cannot answer Shaid's question right away. I am not an expert in examining WP:RS. My opinion is it will be better not to use this site, as it's RS-ness is debatable. You can ask in Reliable sources/Noticeboard, and, wait for other editors to express their views here. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 19:10, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Apunkachoice
I could not fine out any "about us" or 'disclaimers' in the website. It is hard to prove it's reliability, even if to support some non-exceptional claim.--Dwaipayan (talk) 18:28, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

indiantelevision.com
Can someone check the reliability of this site? Gnanapiti 22:40, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Indiantelevison.com seems to be reliable in the context in question, and for non-exceptional claims. The about us and the disclaimer clearly state about the eponymous private company, and their office, and their strving towards accuracy. It is not a blog/fan site, with considerable transparency about their way of working and the content.--Dwaipayan (talk) 01:00, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

www.fullhyderabad.com
It seems to be RS. Is it? Shahid •  Talk 2 me  19:23, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

ibosnetwork.com
This website is relatively transparent about their way of working. They are telling, "IBOS is India's first online news service geared towards providing news focusing on the business of cinema and related media metrics. Founded in 2002, IBOS promotes systematic reporting of comprehensive as well as granular Industry trends. The publication is the premium source of industry tracking"

Their data are "...sourced from reported Trade journals and IBOS System Projections", and, "...Overseas figures are gross box office (GBO) based on US EDI (http://www.nielsenedi.com/corp/index.html ??), Variety Corp. (http://www.variety.com/index.asp?layout=about_variety_layout), and distributor reports".

Their disclaimer says, "Though best efforts have been taken to provide accurate reports and figure charts, the scale of IBOS project and lack of absolute uniformity in trade outlets renders it important to note that all information and data provided on IBOS is provided 'as is' without any explicit or implicit guarantees to the user." Just like other disclaimers.

So, it is definitely not a blog/fansite, and has transparent way of working. IMO, it is reliable. Please comment.--Dwaipayan (talk) 20:28, 9 November 2007 (UTC)


 * boxofficeindia is also not a fansite, and its disclaimer is almost identical to ibos' one. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  21:02, 9 November 2007 (UTC)


 * ..and how do we ensure that disclaimer is true? If I open a website tomorrow, and will have its disclaimer identical to a well established, well accepted reliable source, then will my site be considered as reliable source for referencing in Wikipedia? - KNM Talk 21:52, 9 November 2007 (UTC)


 * No. Of course not in a single day. But if your website continue to provide reliable information for some time (and your material is used in other reliable places like websites and newspapers) then your reliability would increase. The problem with several website (especially Indian ones) are that they are much less used than many similar foreign sites.
 * For example, indiafm.com is definitely a reliable site. But it does not have a wikipedia article, while many less traffick websites/ blogs do have.
 * So, that is what I am asking. How to evaluate the "credibility of the author and the publication, along with consideration of the context"? I thought their disclaimers, transparency of working, physical presence of the publisher etc may be taken into account. Do you suggest anything more so that reliability of these sites can be checked?
 * Regarding popular culture articles, WP:RS says, "With regard to popular culture articles, they may be the best or only source but should still be treated with care, especially with regard to assessing a neutral point of view". The data for which ibos or boxofficeindia are being used, is usually the verdict in box office. In most cases, verdicts are not really very debatable (except borderline cases). For accuracy of data, we can double check with available data in IMDb, which has gained a stature of reliable source now. Any comments? --Dwaipayan (talk) 22:05, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

boxofficeindia.com
I've already proved its reliability. I followed the instruction of some editors, to get an evidence to this or another site being reliable, and looked for it in different RSes. And I've found it! See please Indiatimes and ToI mentioned it on several occasions, writing "According to boxofficeindia.com..." -. I think if it is mentioned in reputable sites which. And it's not only mentioned. If these reputable RSes use boxofficeindia.com as source of information for themselves, it is definitealy reliable. User:Spartz and User:Nichalp support me now. Regards, Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  15:42, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Being cited in another RS does not make the site a RS itself. For example, wikipedia is sometimes cited in the media, but wikipedia is not a RS.--Dwaipayan (talk) 21:10, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * That's what Nichalp and Spartaz told me to do. It's not that it's just mentiones. It is used as a source of information. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  21:14, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Being cited by another RS as a source proves the notability of boxofficeindia, and is one step towars proving its reliability. But whether it is RS also depends on its editorial oversight, scrutiny etc (as explained in WP:RS).--Dwaipayan (talk) 21:33, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The case is, if strong RSes (newspapers) can use it as a source, Why can't Wikipedia? It is clearly an RS. IMO, it's not only a notability. Now, if we have to go further, we have to contact the site. Regards, Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  21:54, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Dont make it sound like they're using boindia the same way they use Reuters. boindia is no reuters.  Reuters would be notable and RS even on its own.  They dont need to piggyback or backdoor on the weight of less than a handful of throwaway mentions in RSes.  boindia isnt even 'notable' for wikipedia purposes, let alone reliable.  Try writing an article about boindia and you will realize why it isnt even notable.  Sarvagnya 22:22, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The fact that you have some problems with this site is your own problem, not mine. It's very difficult to find a site which cites a comprehensive info about consistent box office collections, like BOI does. Now I don't care in which frequency it's mentioned in RSes, but it's mentioned. It can hurt you, but... it's still mentioned, and it's used as a "source", again, as a "source" for these RSes. So I don't find a reason to invalidate it on Wikipedia, just because one user has problems with it. And the fact that you direct me to policies doesn't impress me too much, how much more so when you link the word "reliable" to WP:Redirect... Re creating, I can easily create one, and I'll do that later. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  09:22, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Getting stats on box office collections is not too difficult. =Nichalp   «Talk»=  02:48, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, now I have to say something about box office mojo and it's Indian Box Office Index. Box Office Mojo is a reliable source, I trust. Now, if you would just check the figures for Chak De India according to box office mojo as mentioned here it says that Chak De India has grossed over $13,672,145. Multiply that by 39.295 and you get Rs. 53,72,46,937. According to IBOSnetwork, Chak De's Raw Net Collection is Rs. 53,72,46,935. So, are we supposed to believe that this is the right figure? Another site, indiafm.com has lot in common with boxofficeindia.com, just like box office mojo's and IBOSnetwork's figures are almost the same. This is confusing me now since according to indiafm.com and BO india, Chak De has crossed 60 crores, but according to BO Mojo and IBOS it hasn't yet crossed 60 crores. Also, according to indiafm.com, Chak De has entered the "All-time Blockbuster" region by crossing 64 crores but according to BO India it has yet to cross the 64 crore mark. So we have totally 4 different sites (and I still doubt BO Mojo's reliability when it comes to international countries' domestic box office figures) with 4 different ways to make us think they're reliable but we're still back where we started!! For a long time I have been following BO India as if it's an official BO site. Anyway so many of these doubts in my mind, I hope someone can clarify them. Thanks, Maaz. Figurefour (talk) 08:54, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Figurefour, you're right and you're not the only one. I'm with you!:) Many editors on Wikipedia use BO India here. The fact is that it's very difficult to follow on precise numbers everywhere. What we do get is that all these four sites are reliable and very close to each other in terms of verdicts and general numbers. You won't find in any of these sites that Chak De was a flop, or average, or semi-hit. Every site clearly says that it's crossed the blockbuster verdict. Like yourself, we, the editors on Bollywood related articles, have always used this site as a source. It is very well written, and very active as well, updating itself every week or even 2-3 days. I won't give up, just because one editor or two find it unreliable for no clear reason. Regards, Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  09:35, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Veeramanidasan
The Veeramanidasan article talk page contains a controversy over the proper title, whether it should be Veeramanidasan or Veeramani Dasan. It also needs substantial cleanup and some references to demonstrate notability. --Kevin Murray (talk) 05:06, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

User:AlexNewArtBot - New Article Bot
In addition to the new article announcement page (WP:INBIN), we now have a new article page that is automatically updated by a bot. The bot reads all the new articles for a day and puts suspected India-related articles into this page. It can be accessed with the shortcut, WP:INNEW.

The bot runs on a list of rules that will need to be tweaked per instructions at the bot owner page. There is also the log on the User:AlexNewArtBot/IndiaLog explaining the rules that sent an article to the search results (the log is cleared every day, so try to look into the history of the log). Regards, Ganeshk  ( talk ) 19:45, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

A Support to Wikipedia Indian Editions
This is to bring into notice about a project developed to help Wikipedia in Indian Editions. Even before launching the project, considering the importance of the same DD NEWS (the official news channel of Government of India) did a story about the project and a recorded version is available at

http://mozhi.org/news

You can try some tools (for trying the coding) at

http://mozhi.org/hindi http://mozhi.org/punjabi http://mozhi.org/tamil

We can offer customized search boxes for Wikipedia pages for Indian readers to search in the respective languages and they enter words in the respective Indian language itself. The users can enter words directly in the respective languages and search.

Please let us know if you need any clarification or help in implementation. You can find the contact page in our site for the same.If interested we can launch it extensively and include all the pages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aasisvinayak (talk • contribs)
 * Hello Aasisvinayak. Welcome to wikipedia! Congratulations to you on the outstanding achievements mentioned in the video. Looking forward to your contributions here. Regarding the search function, non-English wikipedias already accept text in other languages directly. Please try typing in the search box at Hindi Wikipedia, for example.--thunderboltz(TALK) 13:57, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the response Yes I am aware of that. But it is very inferior version. The main defects (that I could find) are

1.Requires much loading of files. You can check this by entering any word in text box before the page is fully loaded. 2. Give support only to very limited number languages in India. For example there is no support for tamil version - http://ta.wikipedia.org/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aasisvinayak (talk • contribs) 16:03, 26 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I want to search following 51 words in google at one go how do I do it ?Mahitgar (talk) 17:30, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Terms I want to serch at one go at google:विकिपेडीआ OR विकिपेडिआ OR विकिपेडीया OR विकिपेडिया OR विकीपेडीआ OR विकीपेडिआ OR विकीपेडीया OR वीकीपेडिया OR वीकीपेडीआ OR वीकीपेडिआ OR वीकीपेडीया OR वीकीपेडिया OR वीकीपेडिया OR वीकिपेडीआ OR वीकिपेडिआ OR वीकिपेडीया OR वीकिपेडिया OR विकिपीडीआ OR विकिपीडिआ OR विकिपीडीया OR विकिपीडिया OR विकीपीडीआ OR विकीपीडिआ OR विकीपीडीया OR वीकीपीडिया OR वीकीपीडीआ OR वीकीपीडिआ OR वीकीपीडीया OR वीकीपीडिया OR वीकीपीडिया OR वीकिपीडीआ OR वीकिपीडिआ OR वीकिपीडीया OR वीकिपीडिया OR विकिपिडीआ OR विकिपिडिआ OR विकिपिडीया OR विकिपिडिया OR विकीपिडीआ OR विकीपिडिआ OR विकीपिडीया OR वीकीपिडिया OR वीकीपिडीआ OR वीकीपिडिआ OR वीकीपिडीया OR वीकीपिडिया OR वीकीपिडिया OR वीकिपिडीआ OR वीकिपिडिआ OR वीकिपिडीया OR वीकिपिडिया

You can try mine... !!! But please see the notes before the search —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aasisvinayak (talk • contribs) 17:40, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Route map for Indian trains
I was going through the articles Coast_Starlight and Amtrak_Cascades, where you can see the route of the trains on the right. Somehow I like this, since it explains visually all stoppages, distances, train changeover points, bridge crossings (you can see this for Cascades, where they have mentioned the Steel Bridge crossing on the map), alternate routes and state border crossings.

I was just thinking why we cannot have such a map for Indian trains like Golden Temple Mail. Most of our train articles just list the origin/destination stations, and stoppages along the route. They also list which loco pulls the train. Adding these would make the article much more readable.

Some ideas/problems I could find:
 * Some stations have stoppages only on certain days. Eg: Divine Nagar Halt in Kerala. I am a railfan myself, and have noticed from the timetable that most trains seem to stop only on certain days. I don't have statistics to back me up on how much trains do so, but I can get you those if you want. How do we represent these?
 * Do we need to show times of arrival/departure? The Amtrak articles don't have these.
 * One problem here is that times can often change. If we have them, then we need to constantly update them (or) we can have a disclaimer at the top.
 * Timings on the Konkan railway are different when the monsoon is on in those areas. How do we represent these?
 * Some trains take entirely different routes on different days. Also, some trains have totally different destinations. But I guess, we can handle these like what has been done for Coast_Starlight. Anyway, some thought will have to go into this.

Any others? —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Silent Contributor (talk • contribs) 06:13, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * IR follows the policy of maintaining two kinds of distances: chargeable distances and actual distances (Am not sure if those are the exact names used). Which do we show? The Silent Contributor (talk) 06:18, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Comments needed on Religious violence in India article
Hi,

I felt the article Religious violence in India draws a bad picture of india and needs re-writing.. please comment..

DhananSekhar (talk) 18:46, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

National Institute of Oceanography image database
I came across their website recently and notice that they have an image database available for viewing. The image is displayed with the notice "Information presented on this page is open for copying and reproduction. Use of appropriate byline/photo/image credits to NIOImage Library is requested.". Is that compliant with cc-by-sa? Can we upload pics to wikipedia/commons directly from this site without worrying about permission/licensing? - Aksi_great (talk) 09:29, 26 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Does it limit the "copying" to non-commercial? Also, without it explicitly saying so, can we assume it to be usable under CC-by-sa? --Ragib (talk) 10:25, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The answer is NO. We cannot assume anything. We need explicit correspondence from NIO which should be logged in ORTS. =Nichalp   «Talk»=  17:11, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok. I'll write to them. Problem is that their contact us form isn't working. I'll keep on trying. - Aksi_great (talk) 05:13, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Update - At my suggestion, the NIO has changed their license. But instead of a cc-by-sa license they preferred a restricted CC license. At least we tried. - Aksi_great (talk) 05:00, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Regarding Portal India
It is seen that many of the new featured articles are not been dislayed in the Portal:India. Pls. add those articles in the portal. Amartyabag  TALK2ME  11:40, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Ambuj isnt on Wiki much these days to manage the portal. Can you please list the articles that need to be added to the portal (either here or on my talk page)? I'll try to update it myself. Ideally, they should be listed at WP:PINSAC, but since they are already featured, that would be a pretty pointless exercise.--thunderboltz(TALK) 14:17, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, here are some of the articles which are not listed:

There can be few more left. Amartyabag  TALK2ME  14:43, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Kaziranga National Park
 * Kingdom of Mysore

Critics' opinion in Bollywood related articles
Hi,

This is a question that came to me when I entered into a discussion with another editor related to the Preity Zinta article. As I see, there are many articles like Preity Zinta and others on Bollywood that quote the opinion of so-called notable critic's, verbatim. The critic in question may or may not have been making an objective assessment of the film or the actor/actress in question. He may be biased in his opinion as well. Moreover, nowadays I see that the reviews are flashed on web pages like IndiaFm (which are used as RS in articles) within a day or two after the film's release, and I have to question whether sufficient research has been undertaken before publishing that review. Coming to the point, the opinion of the critic, may not be the majority opinion. I want to question whether we should be mentioning critic's opinions in any Bollywood article, at all. The Wikipedia goal as I see, is to publish a factual account and a majority opinion in the articles. Are we doing the right thing, by mentioning a critic's opinion, which might just be his POV. I want to throw open the question: Is it good or bad to mention a critic's opinion in a Bollywood article?. Thanks -- ¿Amar៛ Talk to me / My edits 12:17, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Why specifically Bollywood articles? There is no difference between Bollywood and Hollywood. We are talking about actors in general. All the FAs on Wikipedia about actors cite reviews. We are not an exception, so my opinion is that it's good. Regards, Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  12:23, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I mentioned Bollywood since this is a forum related to India. About Hollywood and other FAs citing critics, see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Criticism on Bollywood-related articles from notable critics is still a far way off to be objective and to be considered at face value. That's my opinion -- ¿Amar៛ Talk to me / My edits 12:31, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I know what this policy means. I'm talking about high-profile FAs, and yes, they are taken into account and should use a role model for every possible article on Wikipedia, when the decision to remove all the reviews from these FAs, we'll remove it collectively. On the other hand, there is definitely no policy against using reviews. Thanks, Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  12:38, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * But just to note, I respect your opinion.:) Critics' reviews is a better way to state facts. I think, it's better to say, "one critic wrote, '...'" rather than, "she was terrific"... And again, I can't see a difference between Hollywood and Bollywood in this case. It's a very well known and recognised way to write BLP articles on actors. Regards,  Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  12:46, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Critics views do offer an insight into professional opinion of the films and are very useful in identifying response to somebody's acting and perceptions of it. However even with the most professional of critics any review is likely to be subjective so I think too much reliance on critic views should be avoided. The thing is the article needs to not only examine the actors career but look at how they are perceived professionally and citing critics is the best way to do this. I agree though that if you are citing a critic he must have some claim of notability. E.g Fred Davis of the New York Times, or film critic Rahul Gupta of the Times of India etc. You need to be careful with who you cite and whether this can be universally accpeted as a valid argument. The problem over many of the Bollywood articles such as Preity Zinta lies with different perceptions of what is a reliable source and what a reliable critic is. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦     "Talk"? 13:55, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Right. Just to note, Preity Zinta's article was completely cleaned up and improved in terms of neutrality and reliable sources. The reviews come from reliability of sources. All of them. Plus, in this particular article there is no much reliance on critic views, as many films are not mentioned at all. Only the notable films are mentioned there, and only a selective group of films (out of these notable films) are accompanied by critics' commentaries. Regards, Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  14:32, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Let's take a simple example, that will prove what I am trying to say.
 * This is what the Preity Zinta Wiki article says about her role in Mission Kashmir: Zinta played the role of Sufiya Parvez, a TV reporter and Aaltaf's childhood love; her performance was well received. The Hindu wrote, "Preity Zinta is her usual cherubic self and lends colour to the otherwise serious proceedings."
 * Whereas, the article in Rediff is more sober and indicates that she hardly had a major to play.
 * Both Rediff and Hindu are introduced as RS in the article. Which of the reviews should you include and which you shouldn't? Or only glorifying reviews should get an inclusion in the article? I would like to have an answer to this. This is just an example. There would be other similar examples as well. Will try to find them. -- ¿Amar៛ Talk to me / My edits 15:24, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Here's another one. This is regarding PZ's role in Chori Chori Chuke Chupke:
 * Taran Adarsh in Indiafm: Between Rani and Preity, it is difficult to choose who's the better performer. Both have been given equal footage (length-wise) and importance. Both are incredibly competent in the respective roles, although Preity does go overboard in the initial portions
 * Rediff review which is included in the Preity Zinta article: Preity Zinta, who clearly has the meatiest part of all, makes the best of it. Her transformation from the cocky and unabashed prostitute to a sensitive and warm person is amazingly believable.
 * Again, both Rediff and Indiafm are used as RS in the article, and they give contradicting reviews like the above. Again, which to include and which not. From the above two examples, it is not difficult to see why a particular review was chosen over the other and included in the article. I will have to question the neutrality of the Preity Zinta article -- ¿Amar៛ Talk to me / My edits 15:42, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * You want more, here's more: On her role in Armaan:
 * Rediff: Preity's flair for spontaneity is missing in this act.
 * Taran Adarsh at IndiaFM which makes its presence in the article: Preity Zinta comes up with another superb performance, essaying her part with utmost sincerity. -- ¿Amar៛ Talk to me / My edits 16:09, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Those were very good example by amar. Per wp:npov, "...where multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic each should be presented fairly." So, in this particular instance, both reviews should be cited. Indeed, in this case, the quotation can be removed, and written in a prose form, such as, "Zinta played....her performance, although not much meaty, was well-received", or, something like that. This should be followed by the citations of both teh reviews.
 * So, for all the other quotations of critics used, let's try to find out if there does exist any conflicting review. If there are conflicting notable reviews (not blogs etc), that can be incorporated. So, effectively, this would necessitate finding out reviews of those films in ToI, Hindu, Rediff, IndiaFM, Tribune, telegraph, HT etc.
 * However, if the tone of the most of the review are similar, there is no need to cite all the reviews (though citing several reviews won't do any bad!)--Dwaipayan (talk) 15:44, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I wish I knew more about the subject to say which is the more "standard" review, but I don't. Personally, I think the review which best reflects the consensus of critics is probably the better one to include, if there is a clear, definite consensus. If there isn't, then it might be best in terms of NPOV to give the most widely reported/respected view, which would probably be that of the "biggest name" critic. If that critic said, "great face, great bod, no talent", fine, include it, even if it were that critical. Otherwise, I would guess, if there is a "most prominent" critic out there, that person's review, positive or negative, would probably be the best one to include. John Carter 15:50, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Regarding Mission Kashmir, Both the reviews praise her, and yes, we chose the one which indicates it better.
 * As for CCCC. Again, both the reviews are OK and say that she was great. Many reviews, like Apunkachoice and Planet Bollywood are very praising. Unfortunately, they areconsidered as non-RSes. Apart from that, Zinta was nominated for her role. If you see the user reviews on IMDb (and don't tell me "what?" that just to note), you will get that she was described by many as the show stealer of the film. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  16:01, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Will the lead editors, be kind enough to explain, how come they ignored one review over the other (the ones I have shown above)? Huh, so much for the brouhaha they created when the article failed the FAR. Does the RS become an RS in some cases and a non-RS in others. I am tempted to add a neutrality tag on the article now. If I replace the current critic reviews in the article with the alternate ones I have shown above, lo and behold, Miss PZ after all, is not as much as a good actress as the article now claims her to be. How easy it is to choose the right sources to push one's POV.. -- ¿Amar៛ Talk to me / My edits 16:13, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * One moment, you can't show us two reviews with diffrences. Armaan


 * What about Armaan on BBC? Look: "Gracy Singh gives a pleasant performance but somewhat gets over shadowed by the superb acting of Priety Zinta." I didn't add it initially because it's unfair to Gracy. mm and she also received several nominations for her performance, so shouldn't we introduce that in a good light? One moment. I have more.
 * What about Variety.com? "Most colorful perf, however, is from Zinta who, though playing an archetypal bad sort, manages to make the self-obsessed Soniya an almost sympathetic character through the sheer vivaciousness of her part-child, part-vamp playing."

Shahid •  Talk 2 me  16:21, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I am loving this. This is hilarious. PZ's role in Kabhi Alvida Na Kehna:
 * Rediff here: Preity who? Zinta has barely a walk-on part in the film, her appearances pretty much restricted to the loud and showy songs
 * The same Rediff on the same film here: Preity looks glamorous and in a couple of scenes, manages to overshadow King Khan too.
 * This is included in the article. And who wrote it. Some bloke called Arun Ganesh. And who is this Arun Ganesh? Arun Ganesh, 25, is currently based in Gurgaon, and works in the India branch of a telecommunications multinational company. And why was his review was published in Rediff. Because he sent it and Rediff published it. What are his credentials? No idea...
 * And rediff.com is considered as RS. One big joke... LOL -- ¿Amar៛ Talk to me / My edits 16:34, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Amarrg, it's obvious that you're trying to find criticisms, but one moment, you can't show us two reviews with diffrences. Initially, when I was adding reviews, I was going through all of them and making conclusions. One moment. You have one ciriticism for KANK, while the other Rediff and indiaFM praise her. And she was nominated, which again means that we should write that she was well received. When an actor is nominated, it's obvious that we will write that his performance was well recieved. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  16:38, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * KANK? SEE THIS - "Preity Zinta too gives her best. Watching her in the scene where she confronts Rani during the wedding reception makes you realise how excellent she is as an actress." Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  16:40, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * You may say whatever you want. From my examples, it is very clear that only reviews that praised her got a place in the article. Four examples are sufficient. Apart from that, the examples also raise a big question on the reliability of these reviews. -- ¿Amar៛ Talk to me / My edits 16:42, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh no!! What about my reviews. Two reviews for Armaan saying that she is brilliant. Another one From BBC on KANK saying that she gived her best. Plus she was nominated for these particular films... Response??? Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  16:47, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I rest my case. I have said enough. If you understand what I have mentioned above, you would know that the article needs drastic changes. If you do not understand, I am helpless.. Thanks -- ¿Amar៛ Talk to me / My edits 16:53, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Amarrg, what are you trying to prove here? It's ovious that you were working very hard to find negative reviews. Her performances earned her many nominations and awards, so what exctaly are you trying to say? See Armaan, you gave me one review which criticises her, but why don'y you look with more observation? I gave you two reviews for this film from reputable sources (BBC and Variety), which clearly state that she is superb. She was nominated for this role. So what do you want? It's obvious that there will always be someone who'll be keen to criticise her. She is not perfect. But, now, particularly Armaan, we have THREE positive reviews and one negative, so what can you say? Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  17:05, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The article has criticisms for Zinta: Lakshya, JBJ, Jaanemann, KKPK. I did a strong check on the net, and other films with positive reviews are strongly positive everywhere in other RSes. As for the ones you have mentioned, see next section. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  23:14, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Beedi needs general cleanup
The article Beedi could  use  some general cleanup. It has some cites, but could use more. -- 201.37.229.117 21:14, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Devasahayam Pillai
This is one of the most bigoted articles I've come across in Wikipedia. I dont think it was even worthy of being here (due to blatant communalism,anti-Hindu rhetoric,etc) until I modified it to make it look readable on November 30, 2007. Still, I dunno who the hell could give such an article a 'B' rating and that too to an article which was unreferenced (the references were added later and are not more than 3 days old). I guess the article needs to be re-evaluated and re-written.Thanx -Ravichandar84 07:20, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I've re-evaluated the article and gave a 'Start' class rating which I feel is the most appropriate :-) -Ravichandar84 07:55, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

"Mahatma Gandhi" or "Mohandas Gandhi"
An editor recently changed the article title from Mahatma Gandhi to Mohandas Gandhi, after little discussion. I believe "Mahatma Gandhi" was correct, since it's the most widely used. The admin who changed the article title thinks other policies apply. I'm willing to be proven wrong, but since most of the editors there (four) don't seem to have much experience with India-related articles, it would be helpful to hear from some with experience. Go to Talk:Mohandas Gandhi and Talk:Mohandas Gandhi if you're interested. Thanks, –priyanath talk 02:58, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The page name has now been changed to Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi. (See my post: Talk:Mohandas_Karamchand_Gandhi.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  17:03, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Kottakkal (desperately) needs your help
Kottakkal needs some serious cleanup. It is currently tagged with This article or section needs to be wikified to meet Wikipedia's quality standards, '''This article does not cite any references or sources. (January 2007), and This article or section is written like a personal reflection or essay and may require cleanup.''' Thanks. -- Writtenonsand 18:26, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Shahid Pratap Singh of Punja Sahib needs your help
The article Shahid Pratap Singh of Punja Sahib is written like a personal reflection or essay and does not cite any references or sources. There is no evidence that this topic is notable. If we can't add some good cites to this article, IMHO it should be deleted. -- Writtenonsand 19:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

So lastly, read it with observation
Amarrg made his work very easy. He looked for only one negative review for each film (where it was accessible) and left the thread. But as he says, we're here to present the majority opinion. And the majority opinion is presented below. In fact, there are no policies against reviews. For the opposite, it is very well recommended in order to keep neutrality. Yes! Because presenting opinion of critics is better than saying that the actor was brilliant in this or another film. Amarrg's problem was the majority opinion, and I absolutely agree that a critic comment must represent the majority opinion. The result is that the majority opinion (the general reception) is clear in each of these examples of his, so there is no problem presenting positive reviews. As said, see below.

So basically, there was only an honest attempt of one editor to find the worst reviews for the mentioned roles, and try to portray the article as not neutral. Because, overall, all the reviews express exactly what the article states. Amarrg, I really respect you and your views, but these examples simply do not support your claims. Plus, I gave you more reviews than you did. For each film, you found one negative review to disprove that she was well recieved. On the other hand, I gave you more than one review and even explanations to back the claim that she was well received. So lastly, the following explanations prove that every critic's opinion is the majority opinion. See my explanations (for the complete list, see this):


 * Mission Kashmir:
 * Rediff: Preity Zinta has her moments, and thankfully she is NOT reduced to a prop.
 * The Hindu: "Preity Zinta is her usual cherubic self and lends colour to the otherwise serious proceedings."
 * Both reviews say she was good. Reviews are not so distinct from each other. Nobody says that she has a big role.
 * Chori Chori Chupke Chupke:
 * The refs do NOT give contradicting reviews. Preity Zinta is described as the actress with the meatiest role. And indiaFM only supports the claim by saying "Between Rani and Preity, it is difficult to choose who's the better performer". Rani was the leading and Preity is described as equally good, while she is the supporting.
 * I dunno if Planet Bollywood is concedered to be reliable, but to show that it is the majority opinion, see what it writes "she performs the gradual transformation from greedy slut to maternal human being very, very well."
 * I have different sources which state that she was praised for her performance in the film, like MSN, saying that it was one of her milestones. I'll show later.
 * Plus, Zinta recieved nominations for her performances, so she obviousle was praised.
 * Kabhi Alvida Naa Kehna:
 * There are four reviews. One review says that she has a little role. The other three praise her very much. BBC says that she's given her best; indiaFM says that she is terrific; Rediff says that she overshadows SRK (!!!)
 * Plus, she was nominated for her performance in the film at various award ceremonies. Wasn't she well recieved?
 * Armaan:
 * Rediff criticise her.
 * indiaFM, BBC and Variety state that she's superb and the most notable in this film.
 * Was nominated for ''Best Villains at various award ceremonies. Wasn't she praised.

So, she was definitely well received for her performances in all these films. Every actor faces criticism. You can do nothing with that. But majority of the reviews for each film are favourable, and some of them were just misinterpreted. Regards, Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  18:00, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I went though the reviews listed in Talk:Preity_Zinta. I did not see the status of teh article right now. My opinion, it will bloat the readable article size if we go on to incorporate all the quotations. Rather, you can say the result (as listed in teh talk page of Prity Zinta), followed by citations of all the reviews. Also, at one or two instances, use a quotation (that will bring variety in the prose). And preferably, the quotation should be from a more redily recognizable source such as BBC. One more point to add variety, quote one positive and one negative quotes. Say, for example, in film A, she was praised as, "...[quote]...". However, XYZ reviewed her next film B as, '...[negative quote]..."
 * Amar is telling that only positive quotes have been used. This is not uncommon provided the lead editors and I (a mere copyeditor) may have had some subconcious bias. I suffered from a similar bias when improving Lage Raho Munna Bhai. So, shahid, my suggestion would be to decrease the number of quotes, providing citation links to as many reviews as possible, and incorporate some negative quotes just after a positive quote (this technique will go on to show an apparent balance).
 * In general, Preity Zinta has got more positive reviews than negative (this I am telling not from a biased view, but from the weak memories of several reviews that I read over the years). So, it is likely that the general tone of the article will automatically be more tilted towards positive reviews. To balance it, negative quotes are needed.--Dwaipayan (talk) 19:08, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Exactly. She's had more positive reviews during her career. The results here are not cited in order to add all the reviews. They are cited in order to show that the reviews on the page represent the majority opinion, the general reception for her performance for these particular roles. Meaning, that we don't show only one side of the reception, but the general reception, I repeat, the majority opinion. If the result indicates that she was generally praised, so the reviews which you see on the article are valid and they represent the general reception. Therefore, they can definitely remain there how they are right now. I mean, if the result is that she's praised and it's the majority opinion, we had full right adding these positive reviews.
 * For example, Amarrg presented one negative review for KANK, but most of the reviews for her performance in KANK have been positive (only one was negative, and that's too says only that she had a little role, nothing is mentioned regarding her acting performance). Therefore, the reviews for KANK on the page are definitely valid, and the current status of the KANK paragraph is unbiased, because she was praised by most critics, so it represents the general reception.
 * What I tried to explain with the above analysis (which is more detailed on the talk page) is that the reviews on the article don't show only one side of the reception, but they represent the general reception (the majority opinion, as says Amarrg) for these particular roles. Meaning, the opinion of every critic cited on the page is the majority opinion, so we are not being biased by adding a positive review. If someone questions its neutrality in the future, we'll refer him to the talk page. Regards, Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  20:06, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Amarrg & Shahid, both bring up very strong points regarding the reviews. Both the users are right in their own way. However, I agree with what User Dwaipayan has to say. I feel that for films where the actor has received good and bad reviews from critics, we should include both of them to balance the article and not question its neutrality. If the actor recieved all positive reviews or all negative reviews than we just include only 1 of them. Not all the reviews should be mentioned, as there are tonnes of them, but as what Dwaipayan said, add a negative quote after a positive one to strike a balance. --Bolly wood Dreamz  Talk 04:20, 1 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I definitely agree with you if reviews are notably mixed, but if the general reception/majority opinion is positive so there's no problem with adding a positive review. In other words, the page is very well written and there is no problem with its current career section. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  08:41, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

STARTED WORKING ON THE ARTICLE GUYS :) I'm taking a few FAs as role models. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  10:32, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand everything being suggested, so let me try to summarize-


 * For every film where she was praised by the majority of (only RS noted) sources, we include a negative cite as well. For every film which was not recieved very well we include a positive review as well. So every film will have positive and negative reviews of the same film.


 * I don't remember which editor(s) suggested this. Do you realize the size implications if we do this for the article?


 * Or, we cite alternate negative-postive reviews to force the article to be balanced. Even if we ignore the fact that the recent few movies have had a more or less positive response, the article as a whole will have her film reviews like zebra stripes, one positive one negative.


 * Does this seem like such a good idea? Ignoring the majority view in an odd attempt to impose WP:NPOV? Its pretty obvious her career is on an upward swing with a majority of positive reviews.

(Unfortunately) she has had more positive reviews in her career than bad ones, so an unbiased review/weighted average of her reviews give the same end result. A zebra stripe method (taking the second option to its logical extreme) simply messes up what were her actual results.

The problem as I see it is that shes had a very successful run from 2003-2006, which means the majority reviews reflect that, giving it a biased look. So how about leaving those in to reflect the majority opinion? Its the truth so we can't really do anything about it.

The earlier films can have the double review/zebra review, for those we can put in whatever is suggested above. Apologies if I've interpreted the suggestions wrong, I really couldn't figure out exactly what was meant, so I've written what I got from it. Thanks, xC | ☎ 18:50, 2 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you so much for the comments. No that's not about that xC. By saying "majority opinion" we don't mean all the reviews on this article, but all the reviews for every single performance. You're right in the matter that we don't have to include both good and bad reviews for every film. That's why we have to make a good research and check the majority opinion, and then it will be clear what kind of review (positive/negative) we have to present. Right?
 * The case is, if there is a majority opinion (positive/negative), there is no violation of WP:NPOV in adding the majority opinion. Right? Anybody disagrees? I don't think.
 * What I try to explain is that if there are for example only five reviews for an actor's performance in a particular film, with four of them being positive reviews and one being negative, so the majority opinion is obviously and definitely positive. Therefore, we have to add one of the positive reviews and that's the end of the story. On the other hand, if we have three positive reviews and three negative reviews so there is no majority opinion at all and we must add that the reviews are mixed, introducing both parts. The same implies if the majority opinion is negative.
 * The case is that there will always be some exceptional critic who'll disagree with the rest critics. Meaning, if all critics think that an actor is excellent, and only one thinks that he is dreadful, so we don't have to include his opinion, because the majority opinion is positive. The majority opinion - that's what matters.
 * The case is that Amarrg questioned the neutrality of the article (and he has full right to do so), meaning, if every review for every single performance of Zinta represents the majority opinion (general reception). For example, The KANK paragraph on the article states that her performance was well received, with a positive review attached to it. Amarrg had shown us one "negative" review for KANK (which says that she has a small role LOL), claiming that the article misrepresents the majority opinion, and she was actually not praised. In demand, I presented him 5 additional reviews, each of which are... positive! Which clearly shows that the majority opinion is positive, and the review represents the general reception fairly so there's no bias. That's what Amarrg was skeptical about, if every review represents the majority opinion. That's why I made the reseach. Thanks again friend, your comments are always valuable. Regards,  Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  23:42, 2 December 2007 (UTC)


 * How do we find out majority opinion? Make a votes tally? because if we don't, there will always be some editor or the other who can find a source saying something contrary to the majority opinion. So what do we do here? Make a list of 15(5?10?) reviews and then write "Good/Bad/Neutral" next to each and total them? I don't see any other transparent way of doing this.
 * How we do we know which critics are worth listening to? I mean, its not like we can sit and count votes of every random critic on every random blog. So then we need to have a list of critics whose past work qualifies them as "reliable critics". (WP:RC lol) We can't just count anyone.
 * Lastly, how do we indicate our research about her reviews in the article? Let me explain what I mean. If we have ten reviews, and three were negative, that makes our majority review positive. Two months later some bright spark comes along who disagrees with having a positive review. We starting kicking screaming and fighting in true Wikipedia style, and it takes six months to resolve the problem. Instead, how about we attach those five(?) reviews as cites after the film, wherever we are saying it is a positive majority opinion. So that every reader and editor can see clearly that it was the majority opinion we have written.
 * xC | ☎ 07:56, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not concerned by people who will come and complain. I have already done a good analysis of films Amarrg was skeptical about. Amarrg had presented us only ONE negative review (and believe me there is only one for each), and I gave him five in demand. Plus, she was nominated for some of the films, which supports the fact that the majority opinion is positive. You say: "So what do we do here? Make a list of 15(5?10?) reviews and then write "Good/Bad/Neutral" next to each and total them?" - yes xC, to shut some mouths and prevent them from talking to much, that's what I did.
 * Critic is reliable if the site is reliable. The critic represents the site and the site represents the critic. I'm now taking reviews only from newspapers (The Hindu, ToI, The Tribune, Express India), BBC, Rediff, indiaFM, IBNlive - RSes.
 * As for your question. I dunno what's the problem. If we have a majority opinion, so we have. We are not writing in the article, "the majority opinion was..."; we are writing, "the actor was praised. One critic wrote:'...'" or something like this. But it also depends on what kind of reviews we have. Amarrg gave me only one negative review for KANK which criticised her for having a little role (...??), while I gave him some reviews that say that she gives her best. Plus, she was nominated for her performance. If an actor receives a nomination, so the majority opinion is definitely positive without even looking at the reviews, and it will be stupid to give a negative review for a role she was was nominated for. Because, there will always be some critic who'll criticise her, but the majority opinion is the only thing that matters, and this nomination perfectly reflects the majority opinion/the general reception. I didn't understand what you mean by that, "Instead, how about we attach those five(?) reviews as cites after the film". First of all, in our current status, we have unfortunately no more than 6-7 reviews for each film, cause we use only newspapers. I have a good analysis, and if someone questions the neutrality of the article, we can refer him to that. It is yet to be completed.
 * And lastly, I think it's becoming tiresome that everybody makes such a big deal for these reviews. There is no policy against that. All the FAs use reviews. And this big deal comes for the first time here. That's just annoying. If we go through my favorite actress Bette Daviss article, "The Saturday Evening Post wrote, 'she is not only beautiful, but she bubbles with charm', and compared her to Constance Bennett and Olive Borden." - it is taken from some book of Davis. Now, How can we know that this review represents the majority opinion? America of the 30s was full of newspapers. Even every review on Jolie's page appears to be isolated. No one can know if it's really the majority opinion, and nobody cares. Only here, people find the best way. One editor tried so hard to find negative reviews to invalidate the reviews on the page. Now, after I gave him five positive for each, he doesn't even think to come here and reply. And I'm sure he saw this, but he doesn't care. Wouldn't you be offended in such situation? I'm generally happy with this discussion, because all the possible concerns re reviews are raised here, and we can shut anybody's mouth in the future. Now I think there is nothing else to add; this discussion was a tiring thing. I'll let you know when the analysis is completed. Thanks xC. Regards,
 * Shahid •  Talk 2 me  10:55, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


 * You've taken care of all my concerns. Fantastic work, must say. :)
 * So we will take 5 to 10 reviews per film and note good/bad/neutral on the talk page. That gives us the majority view, which we will use in the article. To make it clear that we have used the majority, we put it something like "and she recieved a positive review from the critics overall[1][2][3][4][5]" where [x]:x=review of some critic. So it'll be clear what the majority opinion was (and how it was decided) by looking at the cites.
 * Lastly, you're right, on the Bollywood pages, people are more concerned with breaking down rather than building up. Thats why only Satyajit Ray gets a FA class article. Sad...
 * Anyway, keep at it. Happy editing, xC | ☎ 16:13, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks xC, your help, suggetions and support are much appreciated.
 * As for the "[1][2][3][4][5]", I think it's a big trouble adding 5 references after each claim, it takes a lot of place. I'll think of some idea citing that. Or better, in an article, when there is a review, it oviously represents the majority critics' opinion, so my suggestion is to leave it with the review+ref, and if someone questions its neutrality, we'll refer him to the analysis page. What do you think? Thanks again and best regards, Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  00:25, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I had suggested "[1][2][3][4][5]" so that people (esp. people who criticise the neutrality) can see that it is the majority view we are giving. Somehow I don't think that we should have a seperate analysis page. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, we aren't a box office analysis database.
 * On the other hand, if having a seperate analysis page can stop these discussions about how her performances were, then I'm all for it.
 * Summary - Either way is fine by me. Lets start, xC | ☎ 09:35, 8 December 2007 (UTC)