Talk:Anu Malik/Archive 1

Archive 1

Untitled

The song "Kaali kaali ankhen" in 'Baazigar' was sung by Kumar Sanu, and not by Anu Malik. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.17.217.139 (talk) 05:57, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

The song was sung by Kumar Sanu, but the Rap part was done by Anu Malik, which is what is mentioned in the article.

AJ-India (talk) 09:14, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

TALK: Inspiration from western music

Munci, There is no RS available that serves the purpose but readers can self-identify the similarities between the tunes mentioned on both sides of the table.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.111.115.229 (talk • contribs) 19:05, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

If there is no RS available, then it is WP:Original Research. This would be selective adding anyway; this is not normal content for musician articles. The article for Avril Lavigne doesn't have a big list about The Rubinoos and others despite the fact that even got into a Lawsuit. Munci (talk) 19:46, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

File:Anu Malik.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Anu Malik.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status as of 15 November 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 13:59, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Plagiarism Allegations section

An IP has been adding (and reverting) a large table containing works claimed to be plagiarized by the subject. I find it problematic. First, let's look at the sources:

1. ibnlive: Seemingly a reliable source that mentions one song that has resulted in a "legal notice". Strangely I don't see this one even mentioned in the table. I misread the copy. The article only mentions in passing in an article about someone else that the subject is known for plagiarizing and offers up no proof or evidence. It's even less useful of a source than I originally thought.

2. Youtube: Not only is this possibly a copyright violation, the video was not created by a reliable source and it calls for viewers to listen to the songs and make up their own minds. This is not an appropriate source for Wikipedia (asking users to perform original research WP:OR is no different than original research.)

3. itwofs.com: Makes specific claims but does not appear to be a reliable source. I think the big thing missing here are actual court cases that confirm that the subject plagiarized or some reliable sources putting together a well-crafted investigation into the issue with expert testimony and so on. This isn't happening here.

4. angelfire.com: Some random person's blog. Very much not a reliable source.

This is an issue for WP:BLP. We cannot put claims into an article about a living person that they've plagiarized without rock-solid evidence presented by reliable sources. The IP has failed to meet this standard and this section should be removed at once. SQGibbon (talk) 21:04, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

The IP has added more sources, first the sources and the overall edit:

1. scoopwhoop.com: The article makes the same claim as the others without evidence and links (dead link) to an MTV video demonstrating the alleged plagiarism. Not a useful source as it's just making claims without proper evidence.

2. newindianexpress.com: This article about Tamil music quotes one person claiming that the subject has plagiarized. Again, no evidence just hearsay.

3. MTV artists bio: From the article "Anu Malik (aka Anwar Malik) never denied plagiarism; he never discounted plagiarism, either. Despite continuous criticism for picking tunes from illustrious as well as obscure sources," has Malik been accused of plagiarizing? This seems clear. Have these accusations been proven true? Not in this bio.

4. Huffington Post India: Again reports the accusation but no evidence. And then even mentions that the subject denies the accusations -- a point which the article does not currently address.

5. Quora: Not a reliable source for this information and once again relies upon the original research of the viewer.

6. desimartini: Reference to the MTV video mentioned in #1 above. As above, makes the claim, shows "examples" which requires the viewer to draw their own conclusions. Not appropriate for Wikipedia.

7. Radioandmusic.com: Is not an example of plagiarism or anything controversial. Malik was hired by EMI Records India to remake a song by Coldplay with new lyrics.

So yet again we are left with irrelevant or entirely problematic sources. Additionally, since the table does not allow for any nuances (no distinction between alleged plagiarism and actual proof (like court cases)) then at least the table needs a reference for each claim and a further explanation with proof in order for us to even consider its appropriateness for the article.

The situation remains basically as before and the IP is not participating in the discussion but is edit warring. SQGibbon (talk) 20:41, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Anu Malik. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120911181609/http://www.indiawest.com:80/news/5937-anu-malik-s-sentimental-moment-for-anand-bakshi.html to http://indiawest.com/news/5937-anu-malik-s-sentimental-moment-for-anand-bakshi.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:59, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Spelling mistake

The word “Pedophile” has been misspelled as “Peodophile” in section “Controversy”. I corrected it but my edit was undone. BhuvaneshwarBam (talk) 17:15, 26 October 2018 (UTC)