Talk:Preity Zinta/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Sources

As the article sees the improvement, we will need to figure out which sources should be used. User:Shshshsh had asked me this question in my talk page, whether Askmen.com is non-RS. Yes it is. We should not be using that. IMO, Rediff.com, Times of India, The Hindu and other major newspapers/magazines could be used. Thanks, - KNM ^Talk 18:32, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok, we'll take up rediff, toi, hindu as RS.

what constitutes major newspapers/magazines? any clear standards/parameters we could make sure of?

thanks,xC | ☎ 16:17, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

would indiatimes.com qualify as RS?xC | ☎ 16:18, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, IndiaTimes.com is from Times of India, and should qualify as RS in general. - KNM ^Talk 16:29, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Plus, just to note, indiaFM is also a realiable source. Shahid • ^Talk2me 16:30, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

While sources like apunkachoice, planetbollywood are debatable, Indiafm is ok as reliable source.--Dwaipayan (talk) 16:42, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

http://www.bollyvista.com is a non-RS. Are we all on same page here? - KNM ^Talk 17:06, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Bollyvista appears in a featured article - Lage Raho Munnabhai. Shahid • ^Talk2me 17:12, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

There was only one reference of bollyvista in that article, and I have removed it now. Also, if something is wrong in a featured article, that does not give us a chance to do repeat the same in other articles. For example, that article has several {{fact}} tags spreaded all over the article, and that does not mean, this article can too have such tags unattended. Thanks, - KNM ^Talk 17:22, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

It is because of this user. Classicfilms hasn't yet seen that. Shahid • ^Talk2me 17:29, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

In short, WP:OTHERSTUFF. Girolamo Savonarola 20:12, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment - A site is a 'fansite' as long as it is not run by experts. Whether they're operating out of rented commercial space or from someone's garage is immaterial. The only thing that matters is the credentials of those who run the site and those who write those columns. Silly as it may seem to some, the first questions that should arise when we look at a source are 1) are the authors of the articles really who the site claims they are 2) if so, do those authors have the expertise and the credentials to go with what they write. The answer to question 1 really hinges on the site's notability and reputation. For example, if the The Hindu carries a op-ed by say, Arun Shourie, I will take their word for it that Shourie really wrote that article. This is because The Hindu has earned a level of trustworthiness and repute and can be taken at face value. The same cannot be said of these 'fansites' and their non-notable, self-styled experts. Reliable third party referencing of these sites and their columns is either non-existant or trivial. Little or nothing is known about those who run it and their columnists. In short, they're just not 'reliable' and we cannot take their words at face value. Sarvagnya 20:37, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Article updates

Hi all! Seems we are working towards good improvement of the article. Cheers to all!

Besides copyediting, a major point is deciding on the reliable source. IMO, all newspapers, indiafm, rediff are RS. bollyvista, planetbollywood, apunkachoice etc are debatable. So establishing their reliability is a major concern. I propose to make those references invisible (viewable only in the edit mode). And will check the "about us", "disclaimers" etc of those websites. Best is to replace those citations by reliable source citations.--Dwaipayan (talk) 17:21, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Indeed we are making a good progress. Thanks - KNM ^Talk 17:23, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Could you please check the planetbollywood.com reliability? Very important. Shahid • ^Talk2me 17:31, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Bollyvista

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

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

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

Planetbollywood.com

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

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

So, my question is, can we use review from these site? It is an active site and every new released film receives a review there (not from this Avid, by different writers. Shahid • ^Talk2me 18:55, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

Apunkachoice

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

indiantelevision.com

Can someone check the reliability of this site? Gnanapiti 22:40, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

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

www.fullhyderabad.com

It seems to be RS. Is it? Shahid • ^Talk2me 19:23, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

ibosnetwork.com

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

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

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

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

boxofficeindia is also not a fansite, and its disclaimer is almost identical to ibos' one. Shahid • ^Talk2me 21:02, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

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

No. Of course not in a single day. But if your website continue to provide reliable information for some time (and your material is used in other reliable places like websites and newspapers) then your reliability would increase. The problem with several website (especially Indian ones) are that they are much less used than many similar foreign sites.

For example, indiafm.com is definitely a reliable site. But it does not have a wikipedia article, while many less traffick websites/ blogs do have.

So, that is what I am asking. How to evaluate the "credibility of the author and the publication, along with consideration of the context"? I thought their disclaimers, transparency of working, physical presence of the publisher etc may be taken into account. Do you suggest anything more so that reliability of these sites can be checked?

Regarding popular culture articles, WP:RS says, "With regard to popular culture articles, they may be the best or only source but should still be treated with care, especially with regard to assessing a neutral point of view". The data for which ibos or boxofficeindia are being used, is usually the verdict in box office. In most cases, verdicts are not really very debatable (except borderline cases). For accuracy of data, we can double check with available data in IMDb, which has gained a stature of reliable source now. Any comments? --Dwaipayan (talk) 22:05, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I beg to differ. I have not seen evidence yet of any prolific use of these sites by RS sources. Also, if the site is being run by amateurs/fans, no amount of citations in RS sources would suffice except in the most exceptional circumstances. A good example is wikipedia itself. This is an encyclopedia written and run by amateur volunteers and that is precisely why it is not RS, notwithstanding the fact that wikipedia is sourced, even plagiarised all the time by RS sources. If wikipedia cannot be RS.. then I dont see how random sites like these listed here can qualify. At the very very very least, we should know who run these sites and what their credentials are. Having said that, I agree that ibosnetwork looks somewhat borderline-RS.. and that is why I had not removed it(if i remember correctly) when I replaced several non-RS sources with {fact}} tags. I will take another look at it and give my view. But, even if it is borderline-RS(as it may well be), we shouldnt be using it to cite 'exceptional claims' like facts and figures... because "exceptional claims require exceptional sources". same with indiafm, I have not taken a very close look but would like to be convinced that it is really RS. Sarvagnya 06:44, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Sarvagnya apparently thinks that he is the one who has the authority to decide what RSes are and what they are not. indiaFM? Shahid • ^Talk2me 15:36, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

boxofficeindia.com

I've already proved its reliability. I followed the instruction of some editors, to get an evidence to this or another site being reliable, and looked for it in different RSes. And I've found it! See please Indiatimes and ToI mentioned it on several occasions, writing "According to boxofficeindia.com..." - [1][2]. 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 15:44, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Concerns

That's my new rewrite.

"She was soon recognized for her versatility as an actress, regarded for enacting diverse roles, and credited with bringing a new image for a leading actress in Bollywood."

"a leading actress in Bollywood." = "Hindi film heroine"

What do you say? Shahid • ^Talk2me 19:47, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

"Zinta thus established herself a prominent leading actress of contemporary Hindi."

What's the problem with this statement? Shahid • ^Talk2me 19:52, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

The sentence in its current form, after you made the changes as of this version, reads better. Thanks - KNM ^Talk 19:57, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, what about the second one? Shahid • ^Talk2me 19:58, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

It appears to be your POV. If not, please provide a reliable source. Thanks. - KNM ^Talk 20:02, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

No it's not. She is prominent. Could you please explain yourself. Box office figures show you that. Have you looked at the source? Shahid • ^Talk2me 20:17, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

If you are relying on Box office figures, then just say those facts, and leave reader to decide whether "Zinta thus established herself a prominent leading actress of contemporary Hindi". If you have a reliable source which explicitly mentions this sentence, then please go ahead and add it to the article, along with the reference. I hope I have made it clear, and I'm off from this thread. - KNM ^Talk 20:32, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

You have 3 references (5 sources) now. Go and check, if you want. I know that you're right, but if I have to go staraight, I have the feeling that you have something against me. Very difficult to work like this. In fact, I'm the one who started this discussion here. We have to discuss every arguable thing. Shahid • ^Talk2me 20:38, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Shahid, you need to understand the difference between a fan site and an encyclopedic article before continuing with editing this article. You can't just write all rosy and colored stuff about a person and expect other people to just nod it to an FA. You need to learn how to cut down POVs in the article and make it look neutral. Nobody has anything against you, there is no reason to. Of course, we need to discuss every arguable things, duh! FAs don't come very easily. You have to work a lot and you should be glad that we have so many experienced editors working on the article at this time. Instead you are blaming them as if they have an axe to grind with you. So please work as a team and stop blame games. Gnanapiti 20:59, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, Shahid • ^Talk2me 21:19, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

American or British?

Guys, we need the spelling to be consistent. So what do you say? American English or British one? I think we need to take on British, as it is an Indian related article. Shahid • ^Talk2me 21:23, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

You mean American or British? Gnanapiti 21:39, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

My bad, that's what I mean yes (LOL), I've corrected. Shahid • ^Talk2me 21:49, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

All India-related articles use British English.--Dwaipayan (talk) 23:30, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

 Done - turned to British. Shahid • ^Talk2me 02:58, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Article removed from GA list per good article reassessment discussion

There was a notice on this page, but looking at the date of the last archive, it appears it was archived. As a result of a lengthy discussion at good article reassessment, there was a clear consensus to remove this article from the GA list at this time, as the article does not currently meet good article standards. Some concerns were raised over POV and other stylistic issues with the article. One editor, who wished to keep this article on the GA list, noted that it had met A-class status. It should be noted that while the overall scheme of Wikipedia grading does rank "A-class" above "GA", the two are not assessed in the same manner and along the same set of standards. A-class evaluation is done by individual projects, and GA assessment is done by comparing to the WP:WIAGA standards. There is nothing incongrous with this result. It is entirely possible for an article to meet A-class standards, and not GA standards, since they don't necessarily measure the same thing. An archive of this discussion can be found at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Archive 32. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 17:27, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Merge discussion of Background and personal life of Preity Zinta

I strongly feel the persons "background and personal life" belongs to this very article. That is the very point of bio articles. This would probably lead to a GA or featured status. -- Cat ^chi? 15:53, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

The Background and personal life of Preity Zinta was created as a daughter article of the article Preity Zinta. The purpose was to mention in detail what mentioned in short in the main article (the reason behind almost all the daughter articles). If the community thinks the daughter article is not really serving its purpose (that is, not addding something considerably substantial), then of course it can be merged.--Dwaipayan (talk) 16:00, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

That was my really serious problem. The daughter page has not so much of additional info to give. It has only five-six KBs of additional length (most of which is because of references). In general, daughter pages give different info, which is not necessarily needed or notable or relevant in the original article. IMO, everything in that daughter page is necesaary in the original article. But we can wait for now. Who knows, maybe we'll find some info which can be found as insignificant or irrelevant, so we'll add it to the daughter page. I'm quite neutral at the moment. Shahid • ^Talk2me 16:30, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Likewise, even child articles have to be notable. Is her personal life something notable in itself, and does it have a notability that is distinct from her notability? If it's not worth mentioning in the main article, I suspect it isn't worth mentioning simply because one puts it in a child article. Likewise, if it is worth saying in the child article it is probably worth knowing in her main article. If the article gets too long or hard to read, it may be better to prune it or even find a different way to spin off daughter articles. For example, I think it would be far more logical to spin off a list of her films because her film career is a distinct subject. Also, perhaps, reduce the detail of description of each film because that is already covered in the articles about the films themselves.Wikidemo 23:25, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

This child article is temporal. I'm waiting for Dwaipayan now. I generally think that it's not needed here, but I don't think that child articles are unneeded in general. They must be notable of course; the main problem is length. But its length is OK now. It was Dwaipayan's main concern.

For example, if there are some controversies which Zinta was involved in, we can't include them all in the main article with the full story and details, so child articles are the perfect solution in such cases. And here it's a case of length, not notability. Even though it sounds like a notability concern, what notable and what not, it is actually not right; the big question is what more notable and what less notable, when the main concern is length.

Re your note about films, we have to introduce every film of her with general description about the films, co-stars, awards etc. This is done like this in all FAs. Additionally, the most important thing to do in an actor's article, is to highlight his acting-career section.

Best regards, Shahid • ^Talk2me 05:11, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I just want to say to all the editors working on Background and personal life of Preity Zinta - brilliant! Almost every sentence is referenced too. The text might need a check for NPOV as well as notability for some of the stuff there mentioned. But overall, its excellent that so much content has been added that can be further worked with for her bio.

My only concern is why we have nine paragraphs dealing with her personal life and media related info when all of that is on a seperate page as well. One, two, three, maybe a few more... nine?! Seems a bit unneccessary to me; especially when all of it, all, is on another page as well. Perhaps the two repetitive sections on this page could be pruned a bit?

I'd just like to point out that theres nothing wrong with the film section, shes done a lot of films, out of which the few that deserve have been mentioned. It might be appropriate to have a spin-off article for that too, with only a brief overview in the main article. xC | ☎ 08:01, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

As commented above, this daughter page is unnecessary right now. As you see, the sections are very similar on both the pages. Dwai's purpose was to mention in detail what mentioned in short in the main article (and it's short in its current version), because of length problems (the article was very long), but as said by this guy who started this discussion, all this info is notable and belongs to this very article. That is the point of bio articles.

I personally think that it's silly to shift notable things into daughter pages when they deserve a mention on the original page. The career section is OK, and it actually has to be highlighted more than every other section. A daughter page for a career section is an exaggeration. Re other sections, there's no reason to cut down and shift important information to daughter pages. Every thing which is mentioned on the article is notable enough to stay there. Every paragraph you see on the original article is the minimal info that should actually be mentioned. The daughter article is the one that should be expanded, not the article to be cut down.

Daughter pages are usually used when length is a concern, but here it's not. The article is only 59 KBs long. All her controversies, media appearances, general activities, boyfriends (what you see there now) belong to the article "Preity Zinta". If we wanted to add some info to the daughter page, or show her controversies in details (which the daughter article doesn't do), it would be useful. However, the daughter page is not really more detailed than the original page so it's unnecessary. It was a temporal problem and I think it should be removed, unless it is expanded.

So in general, my opinion is: I have no problems with the daughter article. The original article should not be cut, the daughter article should be expanded.

Best regards, Shahid • ^Talk2me 08:59, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

That's it. The daughter article has gone. It's very similar to the original page, and gives no additional info (except some things which are non-notable). All the info on the original article is notable and there is no reaon to shift it to the daughter page because it belongs to this very article. All the info on the daughter page was checked. If that was notable, it has been merged into the article as requested. Now this daughter page is useless and unnecessary at all. Again, the daughter article was very similar to the original page, only that it had some additional and non-notable info (which had to vbe removed anyway, from both the article and the daughter). The purpose was to mention in detail on the daughter article, what mentioned in short in the main article, but A) As said by this guy who proposed the merging, all this info is notable and belongs to this article B) The DA didn't mention info in details. So it's now well balanced between the two. Plus, info should not be mentioned in short, but also in details (although much of it is cut now, and that's another reason to merge the pages.) That is the point of bio articles.

Regards, Shahid • ^Talk2me 13:35, 29 November 2007 (UTC)