Talk:Shudra: The Rising

Problems

Released from Articles for Creation because this film has clearly had a lot of attention in the press, partly because its clash with an election and subsequent delay of release. However, the English used is of a poor standard and it needs to be re-written in several places. The lede paragraph is probably too long and doesn't summarise the subject succinctly. The article needs general wikifying.
Several of the source articles are in Hindi, not necessarily a problem, but it means I haven't checked them all to confirm they verify the facts. Sionk (talk) 00:14, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Lead

The lead should be about the movie, nothing else; because the article is about the movie. The wiki contributor should not attempt to synthesize claims on caste, new definitions for whether shudra and untouchables are same or different layers of caste system hierarchy, or attempt to synthesize a commentary on caste issues.

Please skip vague allegations about assembly elections, since the elections are already over, and such unverifiable speculations do not belong in wiki. Also skip unsupported and unverifiable claims on 250 million shudras - since neither Ambedkar websites, nor Govt of India, nor affirmative action reservation list by the Ministry of GOI responsible for protecting Scheduled Castes, nor United Nations Human Rights Commission agrees that the number is any more than 16-17% of India's population. The primary source, that is film website suggests Red Indians, Black people are like Shudras too - but then, the total number of such discriminated people is well over a billion in our world (check Africa's population and Red Indians population).

The movie is not yet released. No secondary source reviews are available. Only primary sources are available (the TOI and other citations I checked are not reviews, rather just re-print of the synopsis provided on the film's web site). So, extreme care must be taken in summarizing from primary sources. See WP:PRIMARY and WP:RS for more guidelines. Citing another source that simply cuts and paste advertisement from a film's web site, does not qualify that source as secondary or reliable.

The wiki contributor is urged to read and follow WP:LEAD and wiki's general guidelines to improve the quality of this article. ApostleVonColorado (talk) 22:56, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Hello ApostleVonColorado! Thanks for your comments. This article has been created by a new user Sdeepak scor (talk) and hence probably has the issues you mentioned. However, other regular film editors will soon be looking into this article and bringing it to the normal standards. Your comments are still welcome. But request you to be specific when helping a new user and not bombarding with huge pages of instructions like WP:PRIMARY, WP:RS and like wise. Those are more like secondary school pages. -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 12:13, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Synopsis

The section would be better with facts, and without puffery. For example, instead of "poignant tales" just write "tales". See WP:PEACOCK for more specific examples and guidelines.

I am concerned about the ultimate verifiable source of 250 million number. I find no support other than the film's web site, a primary source. If the 250 million number is based on UNICEF's estimate of discriminated people, I urge the wiki contributor to disclose that and cite UNICEF - that study is a secondary source, and clarifies that it is a worldwide estimate. It is misleading to claim in this article that there are 250 million Shudras in India - in part because, the total number of all people classified as Dalits / Scheduled Castes is much smaller, and Shudras are a sub-group of Scheduled Castes according to Govt of India. The article would be better if it clarified, with a secondary source, whether this 250 million is a historical number or the current number. If the movie is about ancient people, the 250 million number should be revised - after all, India's total population (ex-Burma and ex-Pakistan) was less than 250 million before 1900 (see Herbert Risley's census data and prolific writings on this).

In synopsis and other sections, claims and statements such as "Rather these are the ancients of India who deserve the most in the society" must be rephrased, because a phrase such as "who deserves most in the society" read like POV opinions. Please see WP:NPOV for more specific explanation and guidelines.

The author should disclose whether he is the producer or somehow involved in this movie. If he or she is personally involved, with financial or professional interest, it is urged that the contributor see WP:SPS, WP:SELFPUB, WP:SELF and WP:SOAPBOX for more specifics and guidelines. ApostleVonColorado (talk) 13:15, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

What makes you think the author is personally involved in the movie? What happened to 'assume good faith'? We're all agreed the language is not exactly encyclopedic in places, but then that is a general problem with many articles from the Indian subcontinent. It looks like the "250 million" was a typo, so easily remedied. Sionk (talk) 22:12, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

• Sionk - please see the discussion on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Sdeepak_scor; I had assumed good faith when I commented on the LEAD section above; but then I clicked through the links in Animeshkulkarni's 12:13 15 March 2012 comment above. One reply reads: "One more thing.... when I researched this subject before making this movie I found no video/film on such subject so this is one more reason I want to get this important article in everyone's reach... Kindly tell me if I have to rectify something went wrong from my end.. Deepak 17:28, 14 March 2012 (UTC)" There are two interpretations - one, Deepak is Sdeepak scor and he or she made the movie; two, Deepak researched the subject before the movie was made and he has indirect or direct affiliation with the movie (assume good faith language error). There may be other good faith interpretations. A clarification from you or Sdeepak scor (talk) would be helpful, as additional appropriate attention could be provided to this article. Thank you for clarifying that the 250 million is a typo, and will be remedied. ApostleVonColorado (talk) 23:13, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Point taken, I hadn't noticed the recent discussion. Sdeepak scor definitely says he made this movie! All the same, his intentions seem to be sincere and honest, if enthusiastic. We simply need to keep an eye on any unwarranted, unsubstantiated self-promotion (which you already seem to be addressing). All the best! Sionk (talk) 00:05, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

• Ok. So, both you and I concur that the author of this article may be the producer of this movie, with the potential of self-promotion issues. I agree that he or she is enthusiastic and the article could be made interesting. Currently, the author and the article have WP:COI issues. I have therefore tagged this article - to warn and encourage resolution of issues in this article. My concern is that the article is light on facts, has no details about the plot or story, and currently reads like a generic lecture and advertisement. The author would improve the quality of this article by summarizing the plot, include facts that can be verified, and skipping vague puffery. I urge the author or authors to read Schindler's List article on wikipedia - a classic movie on discrimination, ostracism, hatred, slave labor, concentration camps, torture, and ultimately the triumph of human spirit through Schindler Jews. That article can be a helpful guide, each section in Schindler's List article can provide specific illustrations on how to improve this article. ApostleVonColorado (talk) 05:09, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I am really very sorry to miss this important discussion. Had I got an idea earlier I would have replied then itself. It was just a coincidence I clicked this link. Anyway...

Sionk & Animesh how would I pay thanks to you guys & all other good souls who helped me writing a small article "in wiki conditions" here. ApostleVonColorado do you know?? Recently I have learned the use of ' : ' from Sitush & am gradually learning more about the syntax & tools just by "doing & being rectified" by elite editors. Everybody has its own style of writing & my style has been accoladed at various forums & even media portals, so poor english, peacock terms, puffery or whatever adjective my style of writing has been given it's another feedback for me & I am very positive to take it & improve myself here. This is because it's first time I am writing or chatting on a forum which is globally renowned for its contents & knowledge base.

ApostleVonColorado I can therefore buy your point that there are some elementary mistakes done by me but when you say I am deliberately writing this article with a 'specific' tone in order to promote my film on wiki, my dear friend, this is ridiculous as far as film industry marketing is concerned. There are hundreds of movie articles on wiki, are all of them went hit??? You should take it from a different point of view like a movie "Agent Vinod" (have no hard intentions... I love this movie) purely a commercial film, has its presence on wiki & there are thousand pages of discussions before putting an article on a movie (shudra...) that speaks about the most poignant face of humanity, the most prevalent problem of the world??? If it's not me today there will be someone else tomorrow who will create this article with all syntax & tools you talk about & you will have no objections!!! but why not me??? a person who is individually associated with the film production since its research & investigations, is it just because I am a new comer here???? Why I cannot learn here to be an elite contributor in future. One more thing... you raised a question on 250 million... please go through the link on wiki itself http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caste. However I respect your concerns because it's people like you, sionk, sitush, animesh etc. who made this encyclopaedia a worth to be referred to. I appreciate your efforts in endeavouring hard to bring the true, crisp & noteworthy content for its readers.

ApostleVonColorado, Please be apprised I as Deepak belong to the production crew of the movie, If you want it in written from the director Sanjiv Jaiswal please mention your email id you will receive mail within no time., sdeepak_scor is my user name because deepak as user id was not available here on wiki, i was just using 3 times ' ~ ' & 4 times ' ~ ' to change my sign (just curiosity) as deepak & sdeepak_scor so I am one don't be confuse. cheers Deepak 08:56, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

• Welcome to the talk page, and welcome to wikipedia, Sdeepak scor. None of the above is meant as criticism of you; rather, all of it is meant to help improve this article and bring your attention to wikipedia guidelines. Please note that this page is not a forum or a place for a general chat; we must use this talk page only for discussion of the article. In that spirit, I now focus on the relevant part of your reply. You claim the 250 million number is from wiki link on caste - if you read through and check the cited support in that wiki article, you find that the 250 million number is UNICEF's current estimate of number of people affected by caste discrimination; and if you read the UNICEF report, you will notice that they do not claim that there are 250 million Shudras in India or the world. The wiki article on caste, you mention, also discusses castes in Yemen, Nigeria, Japan; it discusses Roma people, Latin America, Tibet etc. Nowhere in the UNICEF report does it propose the hypothesis or synthesize the claim that 250 million people were forced to keep themselves in dark for ages. The article you created does so, and its only source for such a sweeping claim is primary - the film's advertisement page. Websites that mirror the movie's synopsis advertisement, just copy and paste the film's paragraph, or are blogs are not reliable or have conflict of interest. The websites you cite provide no evidence that they critically verify the claims in a manner that would qualify them as reliable source for wikipedia articles (WP:RS). Unless you can find a verifiable and reliable source for that 250 million number, the sentence must be re-written to avoid WP:SYNTH and WP:OR problems in this article. I welcome you to add more content to the article, but every claim in the synopsis must be verifiable in a reliable source. See Schindler's List for specifics in an example. ApostleVonColorado (talk) 12:44, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

• prefixing an ' * ' learned by you just now : )... i don't know exactly why it is used for but saw your reply starting with a ' . ' so i did same 8 P. one more thing, i would certainly read the article of schindler's list as suggested by you & definitely will try to make my article more impressive, however, replying you in short..

1. i would like to remind that the subject of the film 'shudra - the rising' is never confined to indian people or indian caste system, instead our motive was to make this film in a way to symbolically display how the life of discriminated people is full of misery, hopelessness or doom all across the world. however the plot, the storyline, is undoubtedly based on ancient indian circumstances but at the same time we have said everywhere about the movie that "SHUDRA IS A HEARTFELT DEDICATION TO WARRIORS OF LIGHT LIKE - DR. AMBEDKAR, NELSON MANDELA, MARTIN LUTHAR KING, JYOTIBA FULE, SHIVA JI MAHARAJ & OTHER UNSUNG HEROES WHO FOUGHT AND STILL ARE FIGHTING FOR JUSTICE, EQUALITY, FREEDOM & RESPECT OF THE OPPRESSED CLASS" it is nowhere claimed (in the movie or its website) that 250 million people were from india.

2. when we say were forced to keep themselves in dark for ages what most a common man would understand by this if he/she reads this article.... it will be exactly the same what unicef report puts in light, discriminated against they can be denied access to essential care and services. They can be excluded from school or unable to get essential medical treatment. Discrimination can also result in violence or exploitation. Many of the children exploited in the worst forms of child labour, so it is just to rephrase in short rather than copy paste entire matter from a cited source (as far as i understand citing means to acknowledge what is written & to be referred for more details)

3. websites that mirror the movie's synopsis advertisement, will have to just copy and paste the film's paragraph because they have no right to edit or rewrite our synopsis in whatsoever means. moreover i m always being asked to be verifiable in a reliable source while we have cited almost all the prominent journals, newspapers, news portals, entertainment portals, video portals, news channel of india.

4. ApostleVonColorado i have no interest in promoting or advertising my film here. it is just my dedication to this great encyclopaedia because it helped me a lot at times. i enthusiastically participated (i don't remember exactly what campaign was that) when to protest certain imminent bans from the government & the whole wiki portal went black. i supported this protest at various portals & forums too. you can go through my efforts (in history) to contribute this article to my love wiki & easily can estimate the worth of my time (several hours) i invested here. m not gonna be disheartened at all by the running dispute or any possible cancellation of this article but m taking each moment of this as a new learning opportunity.... a lesson. : ) Deepak 08:52, 17 March 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sdeepak scor (talk • contribs)

• Thank you for clarifying. Wikipedia is a website and it can not "mirror the movie's synopsis advertisement, will have to just copy and paste the film's paragraph because they have no right to edit or rewrite our synopsis in whatsoever means." With your clarification, we must discard parts of any cited source that simply copies and pastes your synopsis advertisement because you give no one the right to edit or rewrite your synopsis. Our goal in this article is to bring the article to wiki quality and deliver content that wiki readers would expect from an encyclopedia - therefore, we must rewrite your synopsis in plain english. As you add more to this article, please be clear and concise: avoid ambiguity, jargon, and vague or complex wording.

I am not convinced that the phrase were forced to keep themselves in dark for ages is exactly the same what UNICEF means, or that is what a common man would understand by this if he/she reads this article. Please rephrase your sentences into plain english, writing that means what you intend it to mean, and that does not mean what you do not intend it to mean. The term "Dark Ages" has many meanings, see for example see wiki article Dark Ages. In modern times, it also means living without light and electricity; but then, almost every human being lived in dark before the 19th century. Your language is symbolic, I sense. In this article, we must move away from symbolic language with many meanings, to clear language with a definitive meaning. Please see WP:MOS for more guidelines.

Please do not add words like "Warriors of light" etc to this article. Because, it would be wrong to associate MLK Jr, Mandela, Ambedkar and others as warriors. War is violent, and warriors use violence. No primary or secondary source supports that they were warriors; rather their message was one of peace, love and transformation of the tormented and the tormentor. The word war can be a symbolic word too. For this wiki article, we must eliminate all symbolic advertisement language with many possible interpretations. Let us keep the language simple. Let us check the article for this, and scrub the symbolic language out.

You can improve the synopsis by including the story line / plot in brief. Include a description of the novel or fiction or hearsay or source of the story - include citation and link for the novel or fiction work, so any interested wiki reader can easily find it for himself or herself. If the story is set in certain century of ancient India, mention it, describe it. If the story is set in certain kingdom of ancient or colonial India, mention it, describe it. Add more facts. Do not worry if your summary is not perfect or as simple as it can be. If you try to add facts and good content, other editors are likely to help improve your contribution. ApostleVonColorado (talk) 11:22, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Analytics section

This has been recently tagged as an 'advert' by ApostleVonColorado. I'm not sure it is advertising, but the section has a confusing name and, in reality, large parts are probably an irrelevant and unnecessary. For example, though this Aaj Ki Khabar article has Shudra - The Rising in its headline it does not talk about Shudra - The Rising at all, instead describing 'realistic' film directors of the past. Because it goes off on a tangent not directly related to the film (nowhere saying Sanjiv Jaiswal is in the same category) I'll remove those sentences.
As to the remainder of the section, a better name for it might be "Critical reception" or something similar? Sionk (talk) 11:18, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

• sionk i agree whatever you or other respected editors suggest me for this article.... however i just read the "critical reception" of aarakshan & m curious to know that just with help of a particular tab name r v allowed to use all those terms ApostleVonColorado was referring to like puffery, peacock terms etc. really now m totally confused whether i should believe the stringent rules & regulations as per told by ApostleVonColorado or search for some sort of cheatsheet (may be available somewhere for wiki) comprising usage of certain terms like "Critical reception" under which one can promote, advertise or even propagandise their works (link says something similar)....... "NO HARD FEELINGS ABOUT THE MOVIE AS I AM A FAN OF PRAKASH JHA SIR & I HAVE WATCHED AARAKSHAN 7 TIMES"

please guide me dear bro!!!... : (

ApostleVonColorado, would like to see your comment on whatever is given on this linkDeepak 09:59, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

What did you intend the paragraph to be about? Sionk (talk) 11:49, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

• I concur with Sionk that off-tangent comments on director/producer/cast does not belong in this article. All comments, criticism or praise, must be related to the film. Generic observations and promotional WP:POV claims do not belong in this section either; for example, promotional claims such as With the time Commercial Cinema has always dominated the Box office but these off beat realistic movies keep on hitting the theatres at regular intervals & have earned significant fame & recognition every time. Vague allegations such as big names or group of national repute must be replaced with specific names and facts that can be verified in secondary sources. Finally, the section titles would be better if they are similar to other wiki articles on movies. See Schindler's List for section titles. ApostleVonColorado (talk) 11:59, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

I am removing the concluding sentences "With the time Commercial Cinema has always dominated the Box office but these off beat realistic movies keep on hitting the theatres at regular intervals & have earned significant fame & recognition every time. There’s another name “Shudra – The Rising” has been further added to the currently popular movies like Lagaan, Aarakshan, Rajneeti on raising Dalit matter & hitting Casteism", which are cited to "Shudra - The Rising". India Today. March. Because the sentences make very grand statements about the film, they need to be very well cited. India Today have their articles from 2007 online and I can't find anything about the film. Sionk (talk) 11:18, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

References

Verifiability issues

The LEAD section claimed the movie is about out caste or shudra. This sentence does not make sense, or is proposing a theory that is controversial and POV claim. Out-caste and Shudra were two different things in ancient India - which the movie claims is its setting. Shudra was one of the four varnas, and therefore in-caste. Out-caste was someone outside of these four varnas. Out-castes were also present in numerous societies outside of India (including ancient Europe, Islamic empires, Africa, China, Tibet, Japan, Korea, etc); In many of these societies one type of out-caste were the co-called Untouchables. If you want to include both out caste or shudras, I will put the LEAD dispute tag back in. For now, I have deleted shudra and out caste, and left it generic and without the LEAD dispute tag.

I went to Goa film festival website, and found information on many films in recent years including 2011 screenings. The wiki article claims the director got the idea in 2010, so it could only have been screened in Goa in 2010 or 2011. I diligently searched for this movie; couldn't find anything. The claim of reception at Goa IFFI seems unverifiable. The cited link looks like an ad copy, not a reliable secondary source such as a newspaper. I removed the big names at Goa IFFI claims sentence.

I tried to confirm South Asian Film Festival claim as well - failed again. The cited reference is a blog - which is not acceptable as reliable secondary source. It is unclear which SAFF they are talking about; I assume it is the SAFF in Canada, which is being established, and plans to hold its first film festival in Vancouver. I find no mention of this movie on their site. When I have time, I will call the officials to confirm if this movie or any movie has been invited. For now, I have left the sentence there because it may be a film festival elsewhere and we must assume good faith. The author is requested to clarify and include where this film festival will be, so we can confirm it, and wiki readers can learn where they may be able to watch it.

I made an minor correction to the election controversy section for the following reason: I went to the sources again, and there was no election in Uttaranchal on 24 February. Elections were held there on 30 January, and the state is now known as Uttarakhand not Uttaranchal. I think it is important to not create false claims, wrong names and misleading dates in this wiki article on any other wiki articles, even though this article is about a movie. The content should be true, complete, balanced, and verifiable in reliable sources.

For now, I am leaving only one tag there. We can remove the promo-ad tag at the top when the author adds facts such as story line and real content that is more than something from the movie's promotional ads. ApostleVonColorado (talk) 16:38, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Movie in other languages?

Why isn't there any other version of this movie than in Hindi language? I can't find an English version, I can't find a german version! I can't find a French or Spanish version! not even a version with german or English subtitles are available. Why is that so? it seems to be an excellent movie which shows the caste system, which could show the whole world the meaning of castes and class system, did nobody a translation so far? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.147.16.92 (talk) 13:51, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

-still no answer — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.147.16.92 (talk) 09:56, 4 June 2014 (UTC)