Talk:Riya Sen/Archive 1

Really?

does this page really requie a clean up??--Anshuk 03:48, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gossip column material

I took out the bits re her supposed boyfriends. None of that is referenced, and I'm not sure that all of it is true, or even notable. I also toned down the reference to "having sex" -- need to check on this one -- and removed ALL the references to companies for which she did ads. This is just another opportunity for advertisers to use WP for profit, it's not notable, and ad trivia, IMHO, should be shot on sight :) Zora 12:02, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're being over-eager in removing material about her boyfriends. True, they were unreferenced - but you should have added a {{fact}} tag instead of removing it. Regarding notability, these people are public figures, and hence their love lives are a matter of public record. If you include an actor's spouse, then why not people they have dated, especially when it is relevant to other parts of the article (Ashmit Patel). As for the ads, I disagree on the removal of the fact about Lakme. Certain product campaigns are extremely sought after, and being featured in such campaigns is an achievement for the said star, and needs to be included.Gamesmaster G-9 23:10, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If people are married, presumably they've done so in front of hundreds of people, with the intent of creating a permanent, public union. That's notable in anyone's life. But dating? If an actress "dates" dozens of people, do we have to list them all? What establishes dating? If she goes to a coffee shop with another actor to discuss a problem during shooting, is that dating? Plus, the gossip columns are constantly full of rumors about who is seeing who, many of which are baseless. Do we want to be rumor central? If a liason is long-term and very public, it might be worth mentioning it (with references) but lists of people dated is adolescent gossip, IMHO.

As for the ads -- after spending years removing ads inserted by publicists for this or that, I have no wish to let the camel get his nose under the edge of the tent. If we give a list of the ads in which the actor/actress has appeared, we're doing just what the advertisers want. If an ad compaign is memorable in itself, and gets lots of public attention, then try writing it up and see if it gets deleted or not. Then link the actor/actress's name to it. But if the ad itself is just part of the endless stream of commercial dreck washing over us, then it's not notable. Zora 01:35, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On both relationships and ad campaigns, I think we should go with our common sense on what counts as notable and what doesn't. Gamesmaster G-9 05:49, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note per WP:BLP, and Jimbo's clear directive, if it isnt referenced by two wp:rs, it goes. You dont stick a tag on it and hope for the best. Hornplease 10:13, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I got questions

On citation: I do agree that this article doesn't cite its sources, well at least not enough. So, I'd like to know what kind of sources and citations would be appropriate for the article. There are no books, no homepages, and no comprhensive databank on the subject. The article was realized by evaluating a lot of web and newspaper sources, not many of them containing enough content or enough authority to serve as an encyclopedic citation source. The logic was to accept information cited by enough number of sources, not relying on one or two. I can obviously cite a couple of more comprehensive and more authoriative sources. Please, advise.
On ad campaigns: As far as my knowledge goes, a model's notability depends solely upon his/her protfolio, which is basically a compilation of brand campaigns he/she did in her career, or at least the highlights. I think the protfolio shouldn't be regarded as advertisement. Please, advise.
On dating: Well, as far as WP goes, quite a number of articles on show-biz stars include gossip column material. May be I need to put Riya Sen's dating history under the scandals, and relate it to the Indian context of regarding multiple relationships as scandalous. Please, advise.

Sincerely to whoever it may concern - Aditya Kabir 08:01, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aditya, I'm campaigning to get most of the "dating" information removed from WP articles. A lot of it is gossip with no basis. When the relationship makes it into regular news -- as with Salman's relationship with Ash, resulting in legal complaints, interruption of shooting, etc. -- then it's fair enough to mention it. But just seeing two people together in public (when it might be a professional or family matter) is not enough, in my opinion, to constitute something that needs to be reported in an encyclopedia. Let's report marriages, divorces, children, and leave the rest to the gossip columns.

Web sites, magazines, and newspapers can be considered reliable sources for the purposes of WP. It depends on quality. A star's "official" site, if he or she has one, at least gives the version of things the star wants believed, and that's important. I read Outlook India and Rediff online, and believe that they are usually reliable (no news source is always reliable). Major newspapers (Times of India) also make good references. But you probably know more than I do at to which newspapers are reliable and which are junk. Just learn to be very critical and cynical (often useful in real life) and then make sure you cite all the sources you use. If one of your sources is iffy, other editors will probably call you on it.

Ad campaigns. I have the feeling that our Indian editors are more impressed by ad campaigns than people from countries that have had hyper-active advertising industries for far longer. US editors, for example, just tune out all the advertising [insert obscene word here]! It is not noteworthy or newsworthy! Do not be manipulated by it to the extent of including product names in a star's biography. Please. WP is under constant assault from people, companies, and political movements eager to publicize themselves. It's up to us to hold the line and give readers information that accurately represents opinions held by significant numbers of people in the real world!

I'm not saying we give readers the truth, because no one can agree on what truth is. But what we can say is that many people believe X (and explain X), other people believe Y (and explain Y), etc. We give readers enough information, references, and links to make up their own minds. People trust us to do that and we shouldn't let them down. We lose trust when readers think that we are just another advertising billboard.

Does this help? Thanks for working on Indian cinema articles and caring enough to try to make WP better. Zora 01:51, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Slander

Mentioning that Riya Sen was involved in scandals is not tantamount to slander, especially since the article even contains a section titled Scandals. Further, if a scandal has been extensively reported and goes to public image of a celebrity, then mentioning it (with appropriate references) conforms with WP:BLP. In this case, the dramatically different images of the two sisters is notable, in my opinion, and this goes to that. Gamesmaster G-9 16:50, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I changed that to controversy and kept the cell phone stuff and the movie kisses. I removed the model box, since that information is neither referenced nor stable, I removed the fangush, and I removed the personal opinion comments re her image versus her sister's. Who she is dating is pointless trivia. She could change boyfriends every week and it's not up to us to comment on it. This is an encyclopedia, not a fansite or a gossip column. Zora 10:51, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For Zora

The measurements are fine and verifiable. Check into Indian film magazines. And, please, note that none of the other model infoboxes cite their source either. - Aditya Kabir 20:14, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought, may be you have a right to remove the measurement thingy. After reading the measurement debate on Indian Cinema Project Page, I am not sure either. I'm not removingit myself, though. It hurts to delete stuff that you put there in the first place. :D. - Aditya Kabir 20:42, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OMG

It looks like a real edit war is happening here between Gamesmasterg9, Zora, poor me, Future Perfect at Sunrise, Wise1967 and Dangerous-Boy, as well as anonymous users 89.148.40.105 and 66.110.6.119. Pretty bad. Shame on us.

Let me explain a few things. First of all, alomost none of the references are of gossip magazines as such, like Zora suggested. Newspapers like The Hindu, Hindustan Times and Times of India are respected all over and well outside India. Then, the scandal about her MMS clip is not vicious, but rather an example of vulnerability of Bollywood stars in the age of MMS scandals. That is written and cited as well. And then, the attempts at wiping out almost her entire modelling career is silly. How do I pretend that someone is a notable model without making any reference to that persons work?

And finally, please, those of you trying to add strange bits on lesbianism and so forth, stop doing so. Adding crap to Wikipedia should be punishable by law. The editors (including Gamesmasterg9 and Zora) are trying hard to keep Wikipedia strait.

Stop this revert war, please. Don't let compassion or admiration a criterion of judging encyclopedic material. Let the facts and the WP:NPOV rule. - Aditya Kabir 14:40, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Any reference to a modeling career that involves references to particular companies is advertising for those companies, and should be avoided. We don't do advertising. As for references to scandals -- we just need to be very careful how we phrase things. Saying that she's scandalous just like her mother is vile gossip that shouldn't darken our pages. Talking about her "relationships" is prurient and should be avoided. Marriage is notable. Who she's dating, and whether or not she's sleeping with him, are not notable and NOT OUR BUSINESS. It would only be our business if, say, two of her boyfriends had a knock-down-drag-em-out fight that ended with both of them in jail. You have to ask yourself, "Would this be important twenty years from now?" Who's dating whom wouldn't be.

We don't get to drag the contents of gossip columns into WP. Zora 12:06, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and the model infobox is a no-go, since the information in it is unreferenced and ephemeral. Weight changes hourly and daily, measurements change too, dress sizes are pure fiction in this age of "creative" sizing (manufacturers lower the number to make women feel better about themselves and buy). If the "information" is on her website, it's advertising puffery and unreliable. Zora 12:15, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For Zora

Dear, I have not been able to make peace with your comments above. Please, consider the discussion below. And, before that I'd like to note that the vile gossip you mention may be only a matter of proper phrasing, not removal. Instead of removing the material you probably could put a Copyedit tag to the article.

As I have already mentioned to Zora - take a look at the following featured articles - Lindsay lohan, Julia Stiles, Jake Gyllenhaal, Angelina Jolie, Katie Holmes. In EACH of the cases, there is a mention of all the people they have dated, as well as other information that you would call "vile". Let me now say that it is not acceptable for that to be removed. You want to reword it, thats fine, but the information on her personal life STAYS. Gamesmaster G-9 17:05, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On Advertising

I am sure advertising should not be allowed on WP, and I really appreciate your heroic efforts to stamp out all advertising in here. But, I am really not sure if a models portfolio highlights imply advertising. Let's see... Claudia Schiffer's article has Chanel and Guess? cited, including a image from an advertisement of the latter; Cindy Crawford's has Pepsi and Pepsi Stuff; the article on Kate Moss has a whole galaxy of brand names - Gucci, Dolce & Gabbana, Louis Vuitton, Versace, Burberry, Chanel, Missoni, Dior, Longchamp, David Yurman, Yves Saint-Laurent, Burberry, Rimmel, Bvlgari, Agent Provocateur, Virgin Mobile, Belstaff, Louis Vuitton, Roberto Cavalli, Stella McCartney, Nikon, Ugg boots, Balenciaga and Calvin Klein Jeans - featured, as well as image of an advertisement of the last one and a section titled Campaigns. This list could drag on, citing exmples could go on, but, I think these examples are enough to make the point. Can you lead me to any policy decision of WP that warrants an all-out Jihad against brand names, at least any support apart from your comments that brand names and/or a models portfolio highlights should be judged as advertisement?

I agree with Aditya. We should use our common sense to determine the notability of a campaign. For example - the fact that Hrishita Bhatt first appeared as the Liril girl - or that Leena Chitnis started the trend of actresses modelling for Lux. These facts are relevant information, and no blanket ban is acceptable. Gamesmaster G-9 17:09, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On Infobox

On the model infobox I am even less sure. The template do exist and is widely used in WP, without much attempt to remove it from most of the pages (well, most, as far my research went, which is far from comprehensive). Many of the go beyond simple measurements and cite dress sizes, weight and more. If it is as unacceptable and ephimeral as you say, shouldn't there be a concerted effort, or at least a policy discussion, to remove the infobox altogether? Well, may be there already is one going around, I being so uninformed. If there is one, can you, please, lead me to it? Thanks. - Aditya Kabir 16:20, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Too much has been said abouot this. Zora's arguments against the infobox reveal her personal bias, which I find offensive. The infobox stays. Gamesmaster G-9 17:11, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I asked for input at the Model {person) talk page and no one has replied. I don't think that this box exists because it's widely approved. I think someone did it and it was copied, even though it's inherently inaccurate and usually never sourced to anything. The same thing happened when Shez15 added "Notable roles" (i.e. his favorite films) to Rani Mukerji's infobox. A wave of "notable roles" then hit the film articles and it took a while for more policy-minded editors to wake up and say, "Hey this is personal opinion." I'm going to take this issue to Village Pump (policy) too, as soon as I have a little time. (Don't right now, have class and freelance work to do.) Zora 20:03, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've weighed in about this there. Hornplease 10:12, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adding Scripts

Since the subject is a Bengali-Tripuri by ancestry, and often in news for that very reason, it is only fair that the Bengali (as well as Kokborok) script for her name is provided. She works in the Hindi film industry, and is known as such, therefore the Hindi script for her name should be provided in fairness as well. It would also be fair if some one could provide Telegu, Malayali or Tamil scripts for her name. Much of her success came from those industries. I personally can provide only two (Bengali and Hindi) and have done, too. - Aditya Kabir 12:44, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is exactly the kind of overkill that we are trying to avoid. Even in the discussion, most people wanted only the native script to be used, otherwise the first part of the article becomes cluttered and unreadable. Gamesmaster G-9 07:10, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For Gamesmaster G-9: Overkill, really?

Hahaha. Let's keep the Tamil, Telegu and Malayali part out to keep the overkill part out, though it should be noted that Bengali actress Reema Sen has Tamil script to spell her name since she is noted for her Kollywood career. And, definitely let's forget the Kokborok part, especially since the script has no representation on WP. But, still should I note that the article on Rani Mukerji has two scripts to spell her name - Bengali and Hindi - while that on Sushmita Sen has three - Bengali, Hindi and Urdu.

If I may pitch my two cents in I'd say, it's perfectly relevant to add Bengali and Hindi scripts to spell Riya Sen's name, since she is noted both as a person of Bengali ancestry and her Bollywood career. Still, I am not putting the Hindi script back yet, rather I'd wait for an answer, I guess, to be proven wrong.

But, the most interesting features of this discussion are two of your comments - "please don't add new scripts. this matter is under discussion" and "This is exactly the kind of overkill that we are trying to avoid". If there is a discussion on this or a concerted effort to avoid this kind of overkill I'd really like to take a look. Knowledge will only make me better contrbutor. Can you, please, lead me to any of that? I am have learned a lot from you, no harm learning more. Thanks. - Aditya Kabir 16:20, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, Aditya - here's a link - Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Use of vernacular scripts in India bio articles - 2. Its very long, so you might want to skim through. Interestingly, both Zora and I are on the same side of that argument. And the problem is that there are many Wikipedians who just love to play the game of regional one-upmanship here, so I think its a good idea to limit this as far as possible. Gamesmaster G-9 16:55, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aditya and GG9, Bdebbarma (talk · contribs) (the only active tripuri user on en-wiki) has informed me that Tripuri's use Bangla script to write their names. Borok script died out a long time ago, Reema Sen is not Tripuri, (that would be Raima Sen). Riya Sen is a fixture in Hindi cinema, so might as well keep bangla and hindi.Baka man 04:15, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that Tripuris use Bangla script is a happy coincidence - it shouldn't be used as a justification for a wider policy. And if Hindi, then why not Tamil? As for Reema Sen, I believe what Aditya was saying is that though she is Bengali, her principal work has been in Tamil cinema. Gamesmaster G-9 06:38, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I dont know who Reema Sen is, I merely stated she isnt Tripuri. Nobody seems to have issue with Bangla and Hindi on this page thoughBaka man 05:56, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Malicious gossip

Saying that she "had a relationship" with someone suggests that she was sleeping with him. The gossip about her boyfriends is salacious, and non-notable. If you just said something like "Bollywood gossip columns have linked her to X, Y, and Z," with cites, that might be just tolerable. Ditto the PERSONAL OPINION about Riya being a scandalous person, just like her mother. If you guys keep restoring this sort of stuff, I'll take it to the BLP noticeboard. Ever since the Seigenthaler affair, the powers that be have been very touchy about scurrilous gossip re living people. Zora 09:08, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your choice of words reveals your overwhelming bias. Did it ever occur to you that maybe a relationship could be based on something other than sex? It's not in this case, as the ref notes, but still. Take it to the noticeboard if you feel it necessary, because you're not going to get away with blanking content you find offensive in any other manner. – Someguy0830 (T | C) 09:18, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zora, please give it up now. I am tired of explaining this again and again. And even if two adults are indeed having sex, then HOW IS IT BAD? And most of the material you keep trying to delete is referenced. Please go ahead and take this to whatever board you choose. Seeing how desperately you are trying (and failing) to drum up support for your cause that models are "meat", I don't think you'll get very far. Gamesmaster G-9 18:06, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

“

Saying that she "had a relationship" with someone suggests that she was sleeping with him

”

Not all of us think that way, Zora. Your opinion is irrelevant, as are the empty threats. I'm certain GG9 has cited them properly and in his mind "Relationship" does not have such imaginative connotations.Baka man 06:28, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Read WP:BLP, everyone

OK, I've come here after noting the acrimonious discussion at the Village Pump. First of all, everyone please read wp:blp, which is now a policy on line with wp:rs and wp:v. Note the following relevant quotes (1) "Not all widely read newspapers and magazines are equally reliable. There are some magazines and newspapers that print gossip much of which is false. While such information may be titillating, that does not mean it has a place here. Before repeating such gossip, ask yourself if the information is presented as being true, if the source is reliable, and if the information, even if true, is relevant to an encyclopaedic article on that subject." (2) Jimmy Wales very directly says :"I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced." and ""Real people are involved, and they can be hurt by your words. We are not tabloid journalism, we are an encyclopedia." (3) "Administrators encountering biographies that are unsourced and controversial in tone, where there is no NPOV version to revert to, should delete the article without discussion." and following the recent ArbCom decision on Rachel Marsden, admins can radically stubify most articles on living people if they feel that it is unsourced and controversial in tone. (4) Finally note that moral objections are irrelevant here, as well as your projections about what Riya might feel. I happen to know reasonably well what her sentiments might be on the article, but that's not the point. The point is whether she might be moved to complain about it; and whether her complaints might be 'justifiable'. The answer to that, given public sentiment in India - think about the Kareena kissing flap! - is very different.

Please keep these things in mind. Hornplease 10:21, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Repeating from above:

"Not all widely read newspapers and magazines are equally reliable. There are some magazines and newspapers that print gossip much of which is false. While such information may be titillating, that does not mean it has a place here. Before repeating such gossip, ask yourself if the information is presented as being true, if the source is reliable, and if the information, even if true, is relevant to an encyclopaedic article on that subject."

This, I hope, wasn't stated seriously. If it was, I'd request Hornplease to check the discussion above, and then check reliability of the sources (that shouldn't be difficult).

If you are trying to apply your rule 2 here, please, go ahead and remove the part on Akshay Khanna. No problem, see? If you're implying that rule 3 from your checklist should apply... well, let me quote from WP:BLP:

The views of critics should be represented if their views are relevant to the subject's notability and are based on reliable sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to side with the critics' material.

What does that say about an arbitrary decision in reducing any suspect article down to ashes... I mean, a stub?

I hope, instead of flaunting threats an/or policies without an argument you'd rather like to participate in a discussion (you almost have got to that point at the end of your comment above). No matter how acrimonious, a discussion is still a discussion. - Aditya Kabir 20:16, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I must appreciate your comments on that acrimonious discussion, and I am proud that it matches my views on the issue discussed almost perfectly. - Aditya Kabir 20:16, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not questioning that the MMS thing was news. The way its presented is problematic, though; and it should be noted that she continues to deny its her.

I'm not flaunting any threats here, actually; I havent made a single threat. I have chosen bits of policy that seem relevant to the discussion. No point me wading into a discussion if nobody's actually read the relevant policy. About rule 3: well, I hardly think that "scandalous like her mother etc." is really likely to be considered 'the view of critics' in the sense you claim. Unless you have several TOI references that say so? From the main paper, not the Delhi Times? Ah, I thought not.

I hope you agree that what this means is that the article needs some savage re-editing to sound like an actual encyclopaedia, rather than something out of a rather yellowish tabloid. Hornplease 08:41, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree to you with all my heart. My understanding of the subject and the article is simple - the info is NPOV, the style is not, and it still requires more citation. I would really appreciate if someone edited the language instead of just deleting the info. And, yes, it would great if someone helped in putting appropriate citations in. I just don't know who do I turn to for help. There's too much argument going around. Thanks. - Aditya Kabir 14:43, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]