Talk:Bhakta Prahlada (1932 film)

Release Date of The film

The release date of the film is 15 september 1931 as per the following sources.

• http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0257441/
• http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2013-09-14/news-interviews/42062122_1_indian-cinema-telangana-cinema-chamber-harikrishna-mamidi
• http://www.limcabookofrecords.in/recorddetails.aspx?recid=49
• http://ibnlive.in.com/news/content-quality-a-concern-for-telugu-films/202268-8-119.html

I request to click the poster, image on the article and see where it clearly mentions 1931 .

Marchoctober (talk) 08:02, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

But this source has a statement:

“ The censor date of Bhaktha Prahlada was given in it as January 22, 1932. The Bombay Chronicle carried an advertisement on January 31, 1932 that the film would be released soon. And it was released on February 6, 1932 at Krishna Cinema on New Charlie Road, Bombay. The Times of India carried a review of the film on the same day of its release as preview show was held before its release. Subsequently, it was released in Andhra and then on April 2, 1932 at the National Picture Palace (later renamed as Broadway Talkies), Madras. All this clearly proves that Bhaktha Prahlada was released only in 1932.” ” — Dr. Rentala Jayadeva

---- Kailash29792 (talk) 08:09, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Why do you think Hindu News is a realiable source, it must be mistaken as all other sources are Contradicting it, also based on one single person's original research the article is published, I doubt the article's reliability. while there are far too many sources which say that the film released on 15-sept-1931, and this is seen on the original film poster aswell. I have multiple sources from Hindu news which say that it released on 15-september-1931, contradicting its own self. Hence I would say that the hindu news is an unreliable source. Please see here where Hindu says the release date of this film is 15-september-1931 - Clearly varying information from this news website.

• http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-features/tp-fridayreview/reliving-the-reel-and-the-real/article2271205.ece
• http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-national/tp-andhrapradesh/a-treasure-house-of-telugu-songs/article1098597.ece
• http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-national/tp-andhrapradesh/mythological-treat-for-film-goers/article2539070.ece
• http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-features/tp-fridayreview/nijam-cheppamantara-abaddham-cheppamantara/article2271444.ece

Marchoctober (talk) 08:28, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Say whatever u can about the researcher, but never call Hindu an unreliable source. it is India's national paper. ---- Kailash29792 (talk) 08:29, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Why do you say never? I have clearly shown inconsistent information being published by the Hindu news, so definitely it is unreliable.

for this I would like to give you a

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

Marchoctober (talk) 08:36, 25 November 2013 (UTC) Marchoctober (talk) 08:36, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

@Marchoctober: The reference article quoted by @Kailash29792 surpassess every other reference for supporting the release date of the movie. The reason because, it is not just another article by a reporter/journalist on a topic, but in-depth it quotes about findings of Dr. Rentala Jayadeva, a senior film journalist for over 20 years and a Nandi Award Winner. More than that he is a PhD holder and while doing his PhD research only he found out the release date of the movie at the Pune's National Film Archive of India from Gazette notification (which is not unreliable one), after being intrigued by a veteran tamil film critic. You first quoted 4 sources, of which IMDb cannot be considered as reliable source as per WP:RS/IMDB & Wikipedia:External links/Perennial websites#IMDb, the Limca records link cannot be accessed, ToI is like just another article on the topic by a journalist (Cannot be accounted IMO). In the second set of references you quoted, though almost everyone state 15 September 1931, all are published prior to this one (which focusses entirely on when the first and foremost telugu talkie released), they all can very well be superseded. If you can provide another source from "The Hindu", after 9 September 2012, then your allegations about the National daily may be acceptable. Still Dr. Rentala Jayadeva's cannot be rejected. It can be considered directly for inclusion into reference section.

Regarding film poster, it could have been printed prior to the release date predicting/expecting an early censor approval, this happens even nowadays too. A film is scheduled to be release on one date and posters published, but it releases on another date with another set of poster, so which one could be authenticated?

FYI,  Looks like a duck to me of you awarding trout, because you seem to be not getting the point thoroughly. --βα£α(ᶀᶅᶖᵵᵶ)^(Support) 21:45, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Just does not matter who it is, also in above comments User:kailash says I can say whatever about the researcher but not the source??

Anyways talking of his Phd. ? If he is doing this research where has he published his research findings ? Where is the white paper publication that he has done ? Could you please provide sources which state that he is pursuing a Phd. ? And also the publication stating the details of his research findings ? Has he failed to publish his research findings because he was proven wrong ? If he was right I am sure he would publish his research findings, if he has not then that information is wrong and unreliable. Also I found no sources stating that he is doing a Phd. and Nandi award cannot be his qualification to undertake such a research, he is too less qualified to undertake a research, even if he undertook such a research it will should mostly be considered unreliable. Anyways my argument is that the articles are all based on one man's research, and it is widely believed and published that the film was released in 1931, except for this one single man's research, hence based on one single man's research this article cannot be changed, but the same information may be present on the article saying there is a version which states that the film released in 1932, but it cannot be stated that the film actually released in 1932, it may be stated that the film released in 1931 but there is a version wherein it is believed to be released in 1932. Also please see the original poster of the film which states the year 1931 and please see the above present sources which also state that it released in 1931, by the way the Trout was given not because I did not understand the point, but was given that User:Kailash was not understanding that the source "the hindu.com" was inconsistent stating both that the film released in 1931 as well as it released in 1932, seems like you did not understand that and you also require a trout is you fail to understand this explanation. Marchoctober (talk) 21:58, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

By the way why are you avoiding other sources and only pointing out IMDB ? You only chose the weaker source ? And did not mention the other sources, does that mean you are in approval of the other sources ? Marchoctober (talk) 22:02, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Providing more sources:

• History and culture of the Andhras -- Page 390

Modali Nāgabhūṣaṇaśarma, Mudigonda Veerabhadra Sastry, Cīmakurti Śēṣagirirāvu, Telugu University (Hyderabad, India). Komarraju Venkata Lakshmana Rau Vijnana Sarvaswa Sakha Komarraju Venkata Lakshmana Rau Vijnana Sarvaswa Sakha, Telugu University, 1995 - History - 502 pages

• The Oxford companion to Indian theatre -- Page 457

Ananda Lal Oxford University Press, Sep 20, 2004 - Performing Arts - 563 pages

Marchoctober (talk) 22:13, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

The reference provided by @Kailash29792, addresses him as Dr.Rentala Jayadeva; Indiaglitz mentions his qualification as Ph.D, which by far considering his profession not an M.B.B.S doctor but a doctor by research. Means that he has completed his Ph.D., and not pursuing Ph.D per your statement. To educate you, in a Ph.D or a research lingo publishing the findings means "publishing the findings during the period of research degree in the form of thesis". No major state universities allows its candidates to publishes the finding before the publishing their thesis, even to reputed professional journals.

Read these too:

1. "R.Jayadeva -Rentala Kavitvam-Samajika Drikpatham 19.07.2010 at Page-8" (PDF). University of Madras. Retrieved 26 March 2014.
2. Journalist cum writer Rentala Jayadev receives doctorate : 9 March 2011
3. Film critic Rentala Jayadeva wins Nandi
4. Telugu Cinema turns a grand 82!
5. Governor of TN honouring R.Jayadeva

Also except yourself, no sources or nobody's statements mentions that "Nandi award cannot be his qualification to undertake such a research". Sorry, not even a new or deemed or cash-rich institutions would prove your statements right.

"he is too less qualified to undertake a research, even if he undertook such a research it will should mostly be considered unreliable" : On what capacity you judge and deliver this statement? R.Jayadeva is son of popular poet per source no.2, he's into 9-years of his Ph.D., research and 20 yrs of professional critic, per source no.1 & 2. After all these only he was conferred Nandi Award (which is considered as highest honour in the field of Telugu cinema by Government of Andhra Pradesh), per source no.3 and honoured by Governor of Tamil Nadu (which an ordinary person wont get), per source no.5. He seems much notable.

BTW, only single man's research leads to doctorate; if it is multiple persons research it is called project. An information can be changed or improved by only on the basis of relevancy and closeness to the subject and not determined on the basis of work of one person or many person.

And except everybody only you arguing that the film released in 1931 clinging to old sources and the poster. If the poster says the release year is 1931, then only persons who can read telugu only believe, what you argue sub-standardly. And to remind you, this is English WP. This has visitors who don't know telugu or any indian language scripts.

Except this one everyother sources quoted 1931 are old one. Can you provide any source published after 9 September 2012 claiming that the film released in 1931? No you can't.

The Hindu wasn't inconsistent until what User:Kailash29792 quoted (brought) here. Till then it quoted 1931, after Jayadeva's revelations it mentioned 1932. If it is inconsistent per your statement it should have published the released date of the film as 1931 after 9 September 2012, could you prove your statement of "inconsistency"?

The Hindu is unreliable; Ph.D doesn't matter for you and Nandi award not enough awarded to notable : Wondering, whats your point, where your edits leads to in other places of Wikipedia and its veracity - Still  Looks like a duck to me of your observation, understanding capability and inference made over. --βα£α(ᶀᶅᶖᵵᵶ)^(Support) 11:49, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

It was a good effort but the sources you provided are unacceptable, for proving your point. None of the acceptable sources say that he attained the Phd. and the ones which speak of his PhD. are those of Ragalahari, indiaglitz and his own bloodspot, which cannot be accepted as proper sourcesMarchoctober (talk) 19:07, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Yeah it was a good effort indeed, which you didn't went through properly. In your same statement you admit that the "..acceptable sources..", of which University of Madras link and Raagalahari deals about his PhD., which you failed to notice. The other sources mention were in connection to his long-standing contribution to telugu literature and telugu cinema. BTW, its not bloodspot, its blogspot, which are acceptable. As per statements here, how come "acceptable sources" become "cannot be accepted as proper sources" in the gap of one line? Amazing. The problem is you keep hovering in a limited area, where you're not getting the point and results in tendentious editing. Competence is required while editing. --βα£α(ᶀᶅᶖᵵᵶ)^(Support) 20:29, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

None of your sources say that it has been a controversy for decades, leave alone decades they not even mention the term 'controversy' , by the the link you provided says self published blogspots cannot be considered as acceptable sources, please read again. Also you are not understanding that the same information has been put on the article in neutral terms, which you are refusing to accept and using peacock terms like 'controversy' violating WP:NPOV Marchoctober (talk) 18:55, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Well... Well... "for decades" means since the release of the movie till now, which is approx. 80+ years which can summarized/concised into "decades" and "controversy" here refers the issues in release date of the movie. It is not must or mandatory for words mentioned on WP articles need not be present in sources, which some time may spiral to copyvio issues, hence they were close paraphrased. And these are nothing to do with violating WP:NPOV.

Read this too:

“ Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. ” — WP:BLOGS

Also whatever the guidelines you read, read it fully/thoroughly and understand before editing. Do not remove any kind of maintenance templates, in future, as you did for |release parameter in infobox by fully removing it or removing the same for Limca Book of Records link, which is not working properly. I tired my best in providing explanations and advice, but it all went in vain. Hence am quitting this discussion in all means, cos this is not the only place i work, a lot. And i wish to spend my little time usefully and constructively. I may never look back here. BTW, have fun with your editing.  Thank you very much! --βα£α(ᶀᶅᶖᵵᵶ)^(Support) 03:53, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Relax and chill buddy there is nothing personal here, we should be able to agree to disagree, I disapprove your ideas hence I put forth my reasons here and not to offend you in any way, I do not know you personally or to have anything to do with you. Marchoctober (talk) 20:09, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:27, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

---

Bhakta Prahlada (1931 film) → Bhakta Prahlada (1932 film) – These two reliable news articles ([1] and [2]) clearly prove that the film was released in 1932, and that people wrongly believed 1931 to be the release year for so long. Kailash29792 (talk) 08:02, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Oppose there are far too many strong sources which say the film released in 1931, please see the article also why does the original poster say 1931 ? .

• http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0257441/
• http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2013-09-14/news-interviews/42062122_1_indian-cinema-telangana-cinema-chamber-harikrishna-mamidi
• http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2013-09-14/news-interviews/42062122_1_indian-cinema-telangana-cinema-chamber-harikrishna-mamidi
• http://ibnlive.in.com/news/content-quality-a-concern-for-telugu-films/202268-8-119.html

Marchoctober (talk) 17:42, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Comment: That is the point. The sources I provided prove that the Indian audience have been on the wrong belief of the film's release for so long. Kailash29792 (talk) 02:24, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Comment: IMDb is not a reliable source. The "IBNLive" source you mentioned cannot be taken into consideration since it was published before two years and the same website now claims that the film was released in 1932. The TOI source too is very vague in it's representation of the fact and describes only about the anniversary of Telugu cinema being marked with respect to the film's release. However, the Hindu, provided by Kailash, gives some insights about the film's release in a more precise way. —Vensatry _(Ping) 08:06, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Comment: As Vensatry says, IMDb is not a reliable source. Even in several books, they mentioned 1931 and not 1932. Only two sources contradict this : the Hindu and ibnlive. Only the Hindu detailled it as much as possible, especially with the fact that : The censor date of Bhaktha Prahlada was given in it as January 22, 1932. I think we still need additional sources to prove it. Terminator92 ^(talk) 17:38, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

• "The film was released in 19321931" - This is a factoid which has been floating around in the media all these years. There are quite a few sources which say that the film was released in 1932. M. L. Narasimham, the man who wrote the Hindu article looks like a Telugu film critic. Here is a pro-Telugu news article (though reliability might be questioned) which states that the film was released in 1932 and not the previous year. @Marchoctober: would you be convinced after reading this article published by Sakshi, a Telugu daily, which happens to report the same? —Vensatry _(Ping) 04:08, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Support – based on the above statement —Vensatry _(Ping) 04:53, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Oppose @Vensatry Sakhiya is not same as Sakshi Please do not try to misguide people saying Sakhiya is Sakshi and it is not a reliable source - it is not a Telugu Daily as you mentioned.

Also sources provided cannot be trusted as the research done is only based on one single person's research, hence this information may be mentioned in article thats all and since it is strongly sourced as to have been released in 1931, the name should not be changed, only the information saying that there are sources which mention it it released in 1932 must be included in the article. Marchoctober (talk) 06:58, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

The link "Sakhiya" actually has a newspaper clipping of Sakshi. Please go through that before commenting here. Besides, the fact has not been reported by a single person; many Telugu film critics have made research and published the same. Grow up man! —Vensatry _(Ping) 08:22, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Comment: At the official blog of the Telugu film historian Rentala Jayadeva, I found this article (originally published in The Hans India) which should serve as another solid evidence of the film's release year. Kailash29792 (talk) 07:37, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

@KAilash Blogspots can not be accepted as sources.
@Vensatry Why do you provide a source called sakhiya which has claimed that it was copied from Sakshi ? Why dont you provide sakshi itself as a source ? Sakhiya is not a source that can be acceptable. Marchoctober (talk) 19:00, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

The blog belongs to Rentala Jayadeva, a winner of Nandi Award for Best Film Critic. His blog qualifies as a reliable source, as blogs are accepatble as long as the writers are professional journalists/professionals in a particular field. Now coming to Sakhiya, I'm not saying that it's a reliable source. But it does have a screenshot of the article from Saakshi, which is not available online. Don't make arguments just for the sake of winning over others. —Vensatry _(Ping) 05:14, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Buddy I am concerned only whether or not a source is acceptable, No blog be it Rentala Jayadeva or someone else is acceptable especially because the blog contains his own research. Marchoctober (talk) 21:12, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Hmmm, you could start framing your own guidelines for others to follow! —Vensatry _(Ping) 05:54, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

@Marchoctober we can consider those to be reliable as the facts given in Rentala Jayadeva are originally published in The Hans India. Why would a newspaper publish an article relating to the entire Telugu cinema regarding its tenure of 82 years if it is not reliable? Web Media can be held for non reliability sometimes and they can be deleted by their admins. But a newspaper editor definitely opts for reliability. So finally, with The Hindu, Sakshi and IBN Live confirming the same, Bhakta Prahlada is a 1932 film and it needs to be moved to the recommended page. One more thing, as quoted by the Hindu, the censor date is in the year 1932 and hence we follow 1932. For example, Even if Kamal Haasan's Marudhanayagam releases in 2015 (suppose), it is considered as a 2015 film irrespective of the fact that it has been shot long ago. Regards, Pavanjandhyala (talk) 06:24, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Strong Support: I strongly Support for moving the Article name to, what it was posted above here, by Kailash29792 because those are Newspaper sites and we can Consider them as one of the Reliable Sources and are Enough to Move the Article name. I thank other users for Leaving their Opinions / Replies :D Raghusri (talk) 10:17, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Oppose It is not totally proved that the film was released in 1932, it is only a claim, it is strongly considered to be released in 1931 and is still considered as the first South Talkie indian film, the sources which say it released in 1932 are all based on one single person's research, which I am not sure how credible it might be ? So I suggest the name should not be changed and only the information saying that there are claims that this film released in 1932 should be mentioned. Marchoctober (talk) 20:28, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Finally moved the page

Because Marchoctober seems to have retired (he has not been active for the past month!) and he alone opposed the moving of this page, I have moved this page to the appropriate title based on credible sources. Everyone except him agreed with the sources, so this move should not be controversial. Kailash29792 (talk) 15:30, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

 Good move buddy. --βα£α(ᶀᶅᶖᵵᵶ) 20:10, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Bhakta Prahlada (1932 film)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: MSG17 (talk · contribs) 02:46, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Hello! I will be reviewing this GA. Since it is rather short, I hope I can get it done by the end of the weekend (give or take), although, as usual, we should try to get this completed within a week. Anyway, after your awesome work with Hindi cinema (and one Tamil film), it's great to see you improve an article for a Telugu film. And what more fitting than the first Telugu "talkie"! MSG17 (talk) 02:46, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Old films tend to get little media coverage or most published sources about them have lost. Maybe, I will expand Ayodhyecha Raja, the first Marathi talkie and the first bilingual talkie, if I am not mistaken, but this one will not be easy because the film is not lost so I need to watch the entire film to expand the plot section. —Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 03:11, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Prose and MOS

Mostly good, just needs some copyediting.

• The film is about the Hindu religious leader Prahlada. I think it would be more appropriate to describe him as a "Hindu legendary figure".

Done. —Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 02:06, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

• The same cast, all were Telugus, from it was also used for the film adaptation. "The same cast, all Telugus, was used..."

Done. —Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 02:06, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

• was considered the first protagonist don't think "considered" is needed here, since it is established this is the first Telugu sound film

Done. —Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 02:06, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

• L. V. Prasad, who worked as an assistant director and appeared as the comical cameo of Prahlada's classmate, became the first comedian in the history of Telugu sound films. - might be better to word it like this: "...assistant director, played the first comedic role in Telugu sound cinema in a cameo appearance as Prahlada's classmate." (L. V. Prasad is not considered a "comedian" in the Telugu film industry, which has a very specific/typescripted idea of a "comedian" actor playing humorous characters for their entire career, often with similar personalities in each role, e.g. Brahmanandam.)

Done. —Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 02:06, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

• with orchestra located far from the camera. "an orchestra"

Done. —Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 02:06, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

• The film's duration ran for 108 minutes. "ran for" -> "was"/"lasted"

Done. —Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 02:06, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

• 22 January 1932 censorship "censorship" is ungrammatical, maybe "censor [certificate] date" or "censorship date"?

Done. —Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 02:06, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

• the picture's unclarity unclarity is wrong here, better to say "low clarity" or "low quality"

Done. —Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 02:06, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

• but praise the sound and songs "praised", past tense

Done. —Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 02:06, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

• using the cellulose acetate film no "the"

Done. —Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 02:06, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

• more uninflammable "uninflammable" is technically correct (due to some funny aspects of English), but is quite a mouthful; maybe "fire-resistant"

Done. —Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 02:06, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Great. Did some minor copyediting of things I didn't see the first time around and added the year to the currency templates (thought there was some MOS stuff about issues with historical currency conversions, but I didn't catch anything). With that I think the article has passed the criteria and deem it a GA! Congrats! MSG17 (talk) 03:25, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

References

Looks pretty good here. Don't see any issues with reliability, plagarism/copyvio or original research. Only one thing:

• Can you add a page number for ref 3?

Done. —Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 03:05, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Scope, neutrality, stability

Looks pretty good on all these fronts. Scope is good, it could be expanded but given the lack of materials for this film it is understandable that coverage is limited. No bias that I see. Not many changes in the past weeks. If there is a better synopsis of the film available, though, I'd recommend you include or expand from it.

I have done considerable research before expanding this article, and found no surviving synopsis or contemporary reviews online. This is what I have for now. —Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 02:08, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

I commend you for making the material you had go this far. MSG17 (talk) 03:25, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Images

• Poster + still, all PD, all placed appropriately. Passed.

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed