Talk:Kalpana Raghavendar/Archive 1
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Kalpana Raghavendar. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 |
Star Singer controversy
Another editor has repeatedly deleted the sentence about a supposed controversy during the Star Singer competition, where it was alleged that she represented herself as a widow, with videos of her grieving at graveside, though her husband was later revealed to be very much alive. I can only find the claim made here, and I don't know the reliability of that source per WP:BLP: it looks a bit like a busy blog, rather than a reliable news source. It also seems to only be carrying negative articles about her, so I'm going to leave the claim out for now, since I can't find confirmation of the allegations from WP:RS online. NeemNarduni2 (talk) 14:26, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
Author
The above mentioned subject is too controversial & it's true or not no one know. That is the controversial statement against a person,it's not good to add that's the reaason requested to remove or removed.Hope you can understand.
I request NeemNarduni2, please don't delete any info of the article.If you think modifications require, we'll discuss here and update,please it's my sincere request.
But the ref links which you provied all are apt to the article,thank you somuch for that.
- I've reverted the re-addition of unsourced claims. Please have a read of WP:BLP: on Wikipedia all claims need to be verified by WP:Reliable sources, especially in biographies of living persons. Please don't add them back without verifiable references. Thanks, NeemNarduni2 (talk) 17:13, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
- You mean to say for each and every line there should be reference? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bhargavi.C7 (talk • contribs)
- Yes, for each claim made that's the least bit remarkable, rather than items which are so uncontroversial as to be unverifiable, such as what time of day it was when she said something. But the claims being made about her childhood career are extraordinary, and would certainly require references to support the claims made. NeemNarduni2 (talk) 17:39, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
- Ok, thank you. Because i have collecte that matter from her TV channel interview. so shall i put that as reference? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bhargavi.C7 (talk • contribs)
- Thanks for taking the time to discuss this - I'm sure we can reach an amicable understanding on this. Unfortunately a video interview is not a particularly good source, as it's a WP:Primary source. Can you help with secondary sources, such as a newspaper or magazine report or profile on her? Any language will do, so long as it's a reliable source. Thanks, NeemNarduni2 (talk) 18:57, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
- Ok, thank you. Because i have collecte that matter from her TV channel interview. so shall i put that as reference? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bhargavi.C7 (talk • contribs)
- Yes, for each claim made that's the least bit remarkable, rather than items which are so uncontroversial as to be unverifiable, such as what time of day it was when she said something. But the claims being made about her childhood career are extraordinary, and would certainly require references to support the claims made. NeemNarduni2 (talk) 17:39, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
- You mean to say for each and every line there should be reference? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bhargavi.C7 (talk • contribs)
Photo
may i know why you deleted the photo.can u explain clearly.