This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
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#Yuvraj_of_Patiala_.3E_Maharaja_Yadavindra_Singh Tintin 15:12, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
There may be cross-cultural issues of perception here [1] [2] 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)
In view of the Malayalam language article, Wikipedia: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)
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.
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)
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)
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)
Can someone check the reliability of this site? Gnanapiti 22:40, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
It seems to be RS. Is it? Shahid • Talk2me 19:23, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
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)
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..." - [3] [4]. 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 • Talk2me 15:42, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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
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)
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)
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)
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:
Any others? —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Silent Contributor ( talk • contribs) 06:13, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
There can be few more left. Amartyabag TALK2ME 14:43, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
Shahid • Talk2me 16:21, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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#Gandhian POV and Talk:Mohandas Gandhi#Anti-Gandhian POV if you're interested. Thanks, – priyanath talk 02:58, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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):
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 • Talk2me 18:00, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
STARTED WORKING ON THE ARTICLE GUYS :) I'm taking a few FAs as role models. Shahid • Talk2me 10:32, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure I understand everything being suggested, so let me try to summarize-
(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)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
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#Yuvraj_of_Patiala_.3E_Maharaja_Yadavindra_Singh Tintin 15:12, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
There may be cross-cultural issues of perception here [1] [2] 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)
In view of the Malayalam language article, Wikipedia: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)
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.
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)
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)
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)
Can someone check the reliability of this site? Gnanapiti 22:40, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
It seems to be RS. Is it? Shahid • Talk2me 19:23, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
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)
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..." - [3] [4]. 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 • Talk2me 15:42, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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
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)
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)
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)
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:
Any others? —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Silent Contributor ( talk • contribs) 06:13, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
There can be few more left. Amartyabag TALK2ME 14:43, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
Shahid • Talk2me 16:21, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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#Gandhian POV and Talk:Mohandas Gandhi#Anti-Gandhian POV if you're interested. Thanks, – priyanath talk 02:58, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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):
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 • Talk2me 18:00, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
STARTED WORKING ON THE ARTICLE GUYS :) I'm taking a few FAs as role models. Shahid • Talk2me 10:32, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure I understand everything being suggested, so let me try to summarize-
(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)