Talk:Jai Bhim Comrade

Skip to table of contents

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Jai Bhim Comrade article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on December 7, 2014.

The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the Anand Patwardhan documentary Jai Bhim Comrade, released in 2011, took 14 years to produce?

Film: Awards / Documentary / Festivals / Indian

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles
	This article is supported by the Film awards task force.
	This article is supported by the Documentary films task force.
	This article is supported by the Film festivals task force.
	This article is supported by the Indian cinema task force.

India: Cinema Low‑importance

	India portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Indian cinema workgroup (assessed as Low-importance).

Jai Bhim

There should be some explanation of the title; what does "Jai Bhim" mean? Languagehat (talk) 15:00, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dubious source

@Cyphoidbomb: Sir, can this source be used in the article? While this website seems blog type and unreliable, the snapshot (an image) from the Sight and Sound magazine written by Mark Cousins (film critic) is making me think otherwise. Please check. I've added a "better source" tag. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 15:28, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Fylindfotberserk: The source in this case isn't dependent on the website, which is merely hosting it. Sight&Sound seems reliable enough; it would be a valid source even without the url. Unless we have reason to believe the website is fabricating the whole thing, therefore, I'd say it's not a problem. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:42, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vanamonde93, I agree, but the blog ness of the source and the fact that the real source is just an image made me tag it with a "better source needed". Let's see what Cyphoidbomb says. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 15:48, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Fylindfotberserk: I agree with Vanamonde93 here. I'd use {{cite journal}} and ascribe the info to Sight&Sound, written by Mark Cousins. I tried to find an archive of this magazine but was unsuccessful. Sometimes you get lucky at Google's Newspape Archives. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:04, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Cyphoidbomb: Thanks for the input. Should I remove the "Better source needed" tag? - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 16:09, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]