Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics: Difference between revisions

This page is a notice board for things particularly relevant to Wikipedians working on articles on India.
Do you need the Indic name(s) of something or somebody? Post a request for it.
Click here to add a new section

Maratha Empire

I want someone to help me with this template on the Maratha Empire: Template:MarathaEmpire. I started creating this template and completely messed it up. --

Rustam

14:54, 11 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 • ^Talk2me 18:00, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I went though the reviews listed in Talk:Preity_Zinta#Reviews. 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 • ^Talk2me 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. --Bollywood 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 • ^Talk2me 08:41, 1 December 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-

• 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 • ^Talk2me 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 • ^Talk2me 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 • ^Talk2me 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)

A number of articles which could use a look

Hello,

As I've posted on this talk page before, I spend some time helping out with the dead-end pages project, and it appears that there are a number of pages on India-related topics listed there which could use the attention of some editors more familiar with that country/culture/etc. Some of these may need cleanup and improvement, others may merit deletion. I'll start with the C's, and continue later with other letters of the alphabet:

• Chakravakam
• Chalunka
• Chanakya (TV series)
• Chandi MandirdonexC | ☎ 08:01, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
• Chandrakant S. Pandavinitial cleanup. on my worklist now.xC | ☎ 08:08, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
• Chandralekha Perera
• Chauke
• Chembakur
• Chennai Business School
• Chennithala
• Choora
• Chouhan
• Cuisine of Pune

As a preview of the D's, Devrukhe and all of its linked articles (Devrukhe Brahmins - Kuladaiwatas, Devrukhe Brahmins - Original 98 Villages, Devrukhe Brahmins - List of Surnames and Gotras, and Devrukhe Brahmins - List of Institutions founded by Devrukhes) could really use a look as well.

Thanks, JavaTenor 19:27, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Religion of the people who have raised a celebrity

I would like to draw attention to a particular line in Shahrukh Khan. It reads, "Khan's family is Muslim, and he was raised by Hindus for most of his life.[3]" The reference given is this, which is an interview and indeed SRK says that he was raised by Hindus for most of his life.

My question is this - why do we need to know the religion of the people who raised him? Khan was a Hindu, but was raised by Hindus for most of his life. How is that information necessary in a biography? Its like stating "Eminem is a white rapper, and most of his colleagues are black." in an article about Eminem. Or like stating "Rakesh Roshan is bald, and most of his colleagues have hair." How is it relevant? Why do we need to have the religion of the people who have raised him in the article?

I propose dropping that part and leaving it to the relevant portion,"Khan was born into a Muslim family."

xC | ☎ 07:43, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Religion is a major identifying characteristic of groups of people, unlike baldness. There are no "bald samaj"'s running around in the country. The false analogies provided do nothing do answer the fact that religion is a defining factor of a person, in fact possibly the defining factor.Bakaman 23:50, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Ganeshbot article merge is complete

I have some good news to report. All of the articles on the Ganeshbot/Not created page have been merged to the article namespace. Thanks to all who volunteered with the project. Regards, Ganeshk (talk) 05:56, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Congrats to everyone who worked to get this done...!! The Silent Contributor (talk) 10:23, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Central Travancore

Please have a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Central Travancore. I nominated it, considering past history of the creator in creating hoax or self-promotion article. However, I would encourage advice whether this article could be reformed into something useful. --Soman (talk) 10:29, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Kugur

I found this page while on WP:CLEANUP duty. I thought I'd send it over here to see if anyone in this Wikiproject has a better idea of how to clean it up. Manning (talk) 15:19, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I have cleaned up Kugur a bit. Regards, Ganeshk (talk) 01:29, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Update - I can add this page - Leva Patil to this list. Manning (talk) 01:20, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Help on two pages

I could use a bit of help with the pages Ramakkalmade and Ramakkalmedu, which I came across while working on the Dead end pages project.

Except for the name, the articles are identical. Are these two different places and an editor saved a bit of time by copying the text? Or are these two different spellings / transcriptions of the same place, meaning one article should become a redirect.

Thanks for any help! --Fabrictramp (talk) 21:21, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Ganeshk, for straightening out the articles.--Fabrictramp (talk) 23:13, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

No problem. Thanks for posting here. Regards, Ganeshk (talk) 01:30, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Redirect

The pages L Aravind, L. Aravind and User:Jivarahasya all seem to redirect to each other. I am not an Indian expert so I don't know what but what L. Aravind is but there seems to be something strange going on here! Can anyone help? Harland1 ^t/_c 17:19, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Chennai workgroup

I started a Chennai workgroup to focus on improving Chennai-related articles, suburbs, landmarks, transport etc. If interested, please join in and help out. Thanks, Ganeshk (talk) 06:49, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Naresh Sonee

Could someone please look at the article on Naresh Sonee? When I searched for references to him in English, I found self-published articles and poems on the web, but nothing else to suggest notability. His article and the one on his book, which I have put an AfD on, both make claims to notability, butthere are either no refrences or the references are not from reliable secondary sources. I am particularly concerned about this because the (English) items of his work that I have read have seemed both poorly reasoned and written. However, I really need help form someone with knowledge of India and things Indian, because of my own ignorance about such things. Anarchia (talk) 04:26, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Sachin Tendulkar

I just decided Sachin Tendulkar should be an FA. I've done quite a bit of work on the article recently, but I was hoping someone with experience in writing an FA could help me because the article's loaded with unnecessary information and personal views and referring to people by first names etc. Thnaks. Darrowen (talk) 05:40, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Kamboja

Please see here for an outline of "Wikipedia's Kamboja problem". Anyone wishing to tackle this is most welcome to it... dab (𒁳) 17:02, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

British Indians, pre-1947 Pakistanis, ancient Bangladesh...

Debate reemerges at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 December 13#Category:Pakistani people of World War II. Please contribute to the discussion. As noted on this talk page before, I oppose driving an iron wedge between pre-1947 and post-1947 India. --Soman (talk) 17:20, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Anuradha Sriram

Friends, there have repeatedly been attempts to delete Indian playback singer Anuradha Sriram. I dont understand this bias amongst the editors towards India-specific articles. I've alread provided the references and this article is quite good. I want your help in contesting the delete.Thanks --

Rustam

07:27, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

fork?

Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_December_15#Anti-Christian_violence_in_India. Please help the discussion as to whether this kind of religious forking should be present.Bakaman 23:49, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Important missing articles

• Great Eastern Hotel - [1]

Billiards players

• Ashok Shandilya - [2]
• Michael Ferreira -
• T. A. Selvaraj
• Subhash Aggarwal

Noticed some important sports people without an article. If anyone has the time, please could this be populated? Regards, =Nichalp «Talk»= 03:55, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

portal link in template?

Template_talk:WP_India#Portal link. —Random832 17:42, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

New list articles

The following new articles have been created:

• List of Indian states ranked by population density
• List of Indian states ranked by fertility rate
• List of Indian states ranked by literacy rate
• List of Indian states ranked by households having electricity
• List of Indian states ranked by household size
• List of Indian states ranked by vaccination coverage
• List of Indian states ranked in order of television ownership
• List of Indian states ranked by media exposure

These pages seem to stray into the "NOT a collection of indiscriminate lists" category. Perhaps the more notable ones could be placed on one page, but even then I think it would be a stretch. I have not AFD these pages as yet, tho I am seriously considering it. - BillCJ (talk) 19:47, 17 December 2007 (UTC)