Preity Zinta is an actress in Bollywood movies of India. The article was a GA, and was recently delisted. The article also went through an unsuccessful FAC. The major concerns are — WP:RS (please see talk page of the article), language (sounded like fancruft at places). Another new issue has arrived — the need for a daughter article. Please see the article, and comment.
Comment - I usually review articles upside down. Fixed a minor issue in the cats. EL looks clean. But hit a roadblock with the refs. boxofficeindia, indiantelevision, desiparty, indiaenews, bollyvista, asianoutlook are not RS. Sarvagnya05:54, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They are non-RSes according to YOU. Most have been approved as RSes. boxofficeindia.com, indiantelevision.com and bollyvista.com are RSes. See talk page. Shahid • Talk2me12:10, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Shahid, no consensus on whether bollyvista, boxofficeindi, indiantelevison are RS has been arrived at. I put some points in the talk page of the article, and also on WT:INB. But. let's expect more input from the community. Meanwhile, we cannot take it for granted that those websites are RS. Sarvagnya is correct in his opinion.--Dwaipayan (talk) 14:27, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
replying Sarvagnya : Hi. We'll remove all those websites (bollyvista, desiparty, apunkachoice etc) you mentioned, except, for the time being, boxofficeindia and ibosnetwork. I request you to continue to review and give further suggestions, keeping in mind that the RS issue is being managed. Indeed, if no box office reliable source is got, we'll remove the numerical figures. I am in the process of contacting IBOSnetwork. If the responses are not convincing, will remove citations from that website. Meanwhile, trying to find out RS.--Dwaipayan (talk) 19:35, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comments - The article certainly looks much better in shape compared to when it was listed for GA reassessment. Good job there, Dwaipayan.
Groomed in an army household, Zinta grew up with values such as discipline and punctuality. - The reference given is subject's own interview. Needs to be supported by a secondary source or else needs to be removed.
..where she experienced loneliness, later commenting in an interview with The Times of India, "But I didn't regret spending time away from them (family) because I had a perfect set of friends (at school). – Right. So what? - Sounds unencyclopedic and undue to this article.
..she appeared in several catalogs and other commercials such as that of Liril. – Need some data from reliable sources on which are those several catalogs and other commercials.
"Early life and background" section is heavily relied upon from the references of subject's own interviews. It would have more encyclopedic value, if all those information were from secondary reliable sources.
I also think that "...did not regret" quote is undue (exactly he same question comes into my mind — "so what?"). Indeed there are one or two more instances which I have plans to curb/remove. A peer review will help consolidate those decisions. Thanks. However, one question. The subject's interviews — are not they reliable sources? Why do we need a secondary source? It's from the horse's mouth. Is there any guideline/recommendation about it?--Dwaipayan (talk) 06:37, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well it is simple. Veerappan, in his interview, claims "All the things I do for the sake of my people, and for the benefit XYZ". So, can we write in encyclopedia, as if that is true?
Now in Veerappan article, is it allowed to write: "Veerappan has done all those for the sake of his people and for the benefit of XYZ". ?
Material that has been self-published by the subject may be added to the article only if:
it is not contentious;
it is not unduly self-serving;
it does not involve claims about third parties;
it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
there is no reasonable doubt as to who wrote it;
the article is not based primarily on such sources.
- All the interview quotes, claims, information need to be revisited from the point of above conditions. Especially the last condition is very important. Not so long ago, the article was heavily based upon information from interviews. KNMTalk07:00, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This policy is invalid. LOL, interviews are considered self-published? Who said that? And where can you see interviews there in this policy? First of all, it is not self published. Secondly, it says: "Using the subject as a self-published source" - nobody said interviews. Thirdly, your example of Sachin is a bad one. I can't see what's the co-relation. If Zinta says "I'm the best actor in the country" we obviously can't add that in anyway, but if she says, "I was born in 1975/acted in 30 films/learnt the principles.." - so what's the problem? And the statemnts on this article are mostly similar to my latter example. Thanks, Shahid • Talk2me13:48, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see. I would like to know what is the name of Preity Zinta's autobiography, and the publisher name and ISBN. Also reference to it in the article is highly recommended. Thanks - KNMTalk15:43, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't talk about autobiography. Interviews are not self-published by no means whatsoever. And BTW, the material is permitted according to these conditions. I repeat for the Xth time, everything you find on the net or anywhere regarding an actor's background, is told by him in any case, whether it's an interview or not. And I repeat once again, your so called policy doesn't apply to interviews at all. You haven't provided any policy/guideline stating that interviews are not permitted, especially considering that everybody will laugh about this statement. Interviews are bad? Regards, Shahid • Talk2me16:29, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My response to KNM's comments - first of all, thanks for your comments.
Groomed in an army household, Zinta grew up with values such as discipline and punctuality. - The reference given is subject's own interview. Needs to be supported by a secondary source or else needs to be removed.
So what did you think? ALL the info about an actor's background is told by him, isn't it? Nobody said that she is punctual. She grew up with these values. Only that. There is nothing wrong with that. And there are no direct policies against interviews as sources of info especially when it comes to background and family. It doesn't need more references. I repeat, background of a celebrity is obviously told by him. Please make your point clear.
..where she experienced loneliness, later commenting in an interview with The Times of India, "But I didn't regret spending time away from them (family) because I had a perfect set of friends (at school). – Right. So what? - Sounds encyclopedic unencyclopedic and undue to this article.
Done - I think you meant un-encyclopedic. Yes? See page of Jolie. Her loneliness at school is mentioned. All her childhood days are there. Even if we don't include this quote, we have to mention that Zinta was away from family, she experienced loneliness, she was popular at school, etc.. all these things are part of her background, life and personality. This quote illustrates perfectly an important part of her childhood. Although she was lonely, away from family and home, she was OK, why? Because she was popular at school, she had many friends. Only one quote of one line shows all these details. With or without this quote, it has to be mentioned.
You are right, I meant unencyclopedic. Thanks for pointing it. I have corrected.
I've seen that several times. Doesn't imply to FAs. And I am not talking about specific content, I'm talking about general stuff, and these facts must be mentioned, as part of her background. Shahid • Talk2me16:29, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
..she appeared in several catalogs and other commercials such as that of Liril. – Need some data from reliable sources on which are those several catalogs and other commercials.
OK. Will look for. But again, it is clearly mentioned in the refs. I don't think we have to give you 10 sources of different commercials. If we write: "He starred in more than 5 films", is an RS ref which states the same insufficient? Do we have to give you over 5 references with different titles to prove the above claim? I don't think so. And again, there is no policy against that.
Can you please point out what is clearly mentioned in the refs? From available information from the refs, the statement can be best put like, ..she appeared in commercials such as that of Liril. - KNMTalk15:51, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Early life and background" section is heavily relied upon from the references of subject's own interviews. It would have more encyclopedic value, if all those information were from secondary reliable sources.
ALL the info about an actor's background is told by him, isn't it? So what kind of a source you want to see? Interview is the best thing we can get, especially because it is relied upon from the references of subject's own interviews. And again, there is no policy against interviews.
We can find a source saying, "she was a good student, loved literature, sports, she was extremly naughty" and it's not an interview, it's OK. But... one minute - although it's not an interview --- It was obviously told by her, the info about her background wasn't written by the author just because he knew that miraculously. Zinta is the one who tells her background story in any case.
OK so finally, I think, these concerns are so minor, yet at the same time they can be very crucial and important. We have to work on it carefully. Thanks, Shahid • Talk2me13:06, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand the repeated references to Angelina Jolie; if that article has issues, then perhaps it needs to go for a featured article review? Comparing to another FA is never wise, as others FAs aren't always up to snuff. I remember being unimpressed by Jolie when it came through FAC. It passed FAC with 4 Supports and 1 Object; not exactly exemplary or something to aim for. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:24, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sandy, the Jolie article is an FA, and if you want to write a similar FA, you will definitely use some other FAs as role-models. That's obvious. Now, re Jolie, it's very unlikely to be delisted, as it's only got better since the promotion. Regards, Shahid • Talk2me06:59, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The images are all of suspect licensing. See here. Dont bother removing them just yet, though. I believe their fate will be decided soon and we can wait. That apart, screenshots from movies are not FU for this article. They can be used on the movie articles but not this article. Using them is blatant abuse of FU pictures. Sarvagnya08:20, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I wasn't convinced that those screen images could be used fairly as they are of the film. They were only recently added in fact to attempt to improve it, judging by the three images that were being used on the FA article Angelina Jolie and many other FA or top articles which have one or two key screenshots to try to enhance the discussion. But to remove these and then have many questionable "fair use" images in many other FA is double standards. I noticed that somebody has removed one or two now from the Jolie article. Either we have them or we don't. I know a lot of trouble has been caused by the images and it is nice to have them in the article but really all people have to do is click on the film to see images that can be used under fair use and google image the actors -two seconds it takes. Hopefully something can be sorted where we can legitimately and without question at least keep one or two and not have to completely make the article nude!!♦ Sir Blofeld ♦"Talk"?12:00, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop pointing to other articles. See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. If there is something wrong about another article, it doesnt mean you reproduce it in yours. Now, since you seem to either have no clue how things work, let me explain. Wikipedia deals in free content. All the content we use here is licensed such that anybody, anywhere can use our content any which way they please. Even for commercial enterprise. This is what we do and as a result of what we do, we're today one of the top ten websites on the internet and people donate hundreds of thousands of dollars to wikipedia.
Now, if we were to use FU images(images over which we have no rights in the first place) indiscriminately in our articles, it will be like we're stealing somebody else's copyright and giving it away for charity. We have no business collecting donations or being a popular site doing that. And this is why many people on wikipedia even hold the view that there shouldnt be any fair use images at all. People like you give such a view added legitimacy. I hope you see the folly and impropriety of your actions at least now. If you dont, you'll only bring wikipedia a bad name. Also, screenshots of movies serve no "critical commentary" purpose in a BLP. It can at best serve such a purpose in an article about that movie and even there FU pics should be used sparingly. Sarvagnya15:17, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Don't tell me "stop". I'm aware of this policy, and it doesn't imply to well checked and investigated FAs. We are permitted to use FU images to illustrate acritical commentary on the film, or precisely: "for identification and critical commentary on the film and its contents". Kal Ho Naa Ho is described a a tearjerker. And that exatly what the image says. This is debetable, so we have to discuss it. Shahid • Talk2me15:36, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Shahid, you are trying to misrepresent the policies. "For identification and critical commentary on the film and it's contents" is for the article on the movie and not biographical articles on person. Using movie posters as fair use in this article is unacceptable. Those pictures are fair use for movie article and not for this article, especially when there is lot of room to obtain free images. I have said it before and I'm repeating. Please go through the guidelines for using fair use images. These images will fail several of those criteria. -- Gnanapiti (talk) 17:09, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Should have read further; see my point above. Please avoid comparing to Angelina Jolie, which was not an exemplary or well reviewed FAC. Further, articles deteriorate. And, reviewers for *this* article won't be the same necessarily as for that article. Just because something else got by, doesn't mean it always will. 23:26, 20 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by SandyGeorgia (talk • contribs)
No. It is not written "on the film page" and according to what an admin told me, it is permitted on an actor's article if it does that. Wait, I have to consult some people. Shahid • Talk2me17:22, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No sir, I'm not talking about BollywoodBlog images. I'm talking about this, this and this image. Those movie posters are uploaded as fair use images and can be used used only in the articles on those movies. You can't just take screen shots from hundreds of sources and claim their fair use all over wikipedia. Fair use images have very strict and specific guidelines and they are not ought to be used where they don't qualify as fair use. Movie posters are certainly not fair use for this biography. First of all, using fair use images for living persons is not allowed. On top of that cropping movie posters to illustrate a living person is abuse of fair images. -- Gnanapiti (talk) 17:27, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of the outcome of that discussion, screenshot images from movies are not fair use on this article and will have to go. Sarvagnya17:26, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I said that I have to consult some editors. Will talk about it later. If the community permits the usage of FU images, as it does on Diane Keaton, Cillian Murphy and other FAs, and as some editors on the FAC said hat FUs are permitted, I doubt that it's not permitted. Let's see. Regards, Shahid • Talk2me17:35, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, Gnanapiti, I thought you were talking about the BollywoodBlog images. AFAIK, Gnanapiti and sarvagnya are correct in pointing out that posters/screenshots are fair use only in the article of that film, not in the article of the author. However, there may be some exceptional cases (for example, the screenshots in the Satyajit Ray article). I don't see any such exceptional instance here in Preity Zinta. so, these screenshots better be removed.--Dwaipayan (talk) 17:44, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
well, I see the uploader of those images have written the FU rationale with proper care. However, I fear those won't be considered in an FAC.--Dwaipayan (talk) 17:50, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, we'll still wait for the outcome of BollywoodBlog debate. If the consensus is to delete all images, then we can use one fair use image to illustrate the subject on the grounds of unavailability of free images (in my opinion). We can't use fair use images in the infobox though. If the consensus of the debate is to keep, then movie posters are irrelevant in the article. As of now, movie posters can't be used in the article as we have plenty of free images in the article. -- Gnanapiti (talk) 18:26, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still not sure if your claims are correct so they won't go as of now. I said, many FAs use FUs, with or without free licensed images. So I now want to ask some editors for an opinion. Thanks, Shahid • Talk2me18:35, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: "See Also" section can be easily removed, as at the moment it has only two links. See if you can cover List of Indian movie actresses link anywhere in the article. List of Rajputs, IMO, is vaguely related to this article. See WP:ALSO for more details, and it is a good practice to absorb these links in the article and get rid of "See also" section, unless we have stuffs like corresponding Portal etc. - KNMTalk17:52, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[[List of Indian film actresses|Indian film actresses]] - It does not direct us to the correct and relevant page. She is Indian - which must linked in an appropriate way, and an actor. Links should refer the readers to the right definition of these terms. We'll find later where we can add it, it's not an urgency. Shahid • Talk2me00:07, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APRt11:50, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done - Thanks for pointing that out, but I've already gone through it. I have this program set, and I display it on different pages. This article has no problems from what I see and regularly check. Two comments are irrelevant, and one is yet to be done. Thanks, Shahid • Talk2me12:06, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Potential problem; can you all please check these out?
There may be others; these are samples. Unlike other Times of India articles, where the author's name is given, these three indicate "TNN" in the space where others have an author. Who/what is TNN? Are these either letters to the editor or from the editor (editorials), which wouldn't rise to the level of reliable sourcing needed for a BLP? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:41, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what this means:
She challenged the press to come up with proof, and offered Rs 1 crore (10 million) if an injured woman were found ...
The images of Preity from Kya Kehna, Kabhi Alvida Na Kehna and Kal Ho Na Ho are screen shots and shoulf be used only in articles related to the movies. Not here. KnowledgeHegemony15:11, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Even the caption of the image alongside is "vague". Please specify what Premium charity?? What sort of charity is called Premium?? I guess it must have been some "_________ ______ Premium" charity. Please solve this issue.File:Zinta4.jpgZinta at the Premium charity function.(Premium?? what?? please add more??)
Hey thanks for the comments. I'll look for more info for this image. As for the screenshots, this issue is being dealt with amongst some experienced editors on other common forums. The big concern is that many FAs use screenshots. So how can it be possible? Regards, Shahid • Talk2me16:14, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would question the glorification of Preity Zinta by this so-called critic Taran Adarsh in the article. He seems to have given very bad ratings for films like Swades and Black. I am questioning his neutrality in writing about films, as other people in various blogs on the net have done. May be one should read, this, this, this and this article. Don't blame me that these are blogs, I am showing them as an example of what people think about his reviews.
I know Adarsh is being criticised at times, but every critic has his own opinion, just like every individual blogger has. I'm also not a big fan of his reviews, though I tend to agree on some things. But indiaFM is an RS, Taran was a director formerly. Now he's a critic and even a TV host of some show which you can see on this site too, with the biggest stars of the industry (SLB John Abraham, Shahid Kapoor, Farah Khan). Nobody glorifies Zinta. Reviews cannot glorify someone for the simple fact that they are written by critics, not us. And as says one of the bloggers there, Taran Adarsh is very prominent today. Sanjay Leela Bhansali was on his show pre Saawariya's release, but it didn't stop him from criticising the film. So he is not biased. Reputable sources frequently mention him [1]. Thanks. Shahid • Talk2me09:35, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am not commenting on whether Taran Adarsh is notable or not. I have an issue with the reviews he writes, though, and they dont seem to be very objective. Due to the enormous criticism that he has received, we should ask whether his views carry any weight (which does not seem to be the case) and hence should his comments be taken at face value and be mentioned in this article. You also agree that you are not a fan on his reviews. Why should an arm-chair critic whose reviews dont seem to be objective, get space for his non-notable reviews in this article? How do we know that he is objective and unbiased? Here's another joke review by him -- ¿Amar៛Talk to me/My edits09:49, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I cannot answer your question. Just like you can't know if he is unbiased, you can't prove that he's actually biased. Different blogs accuse him of being biased, but these are only blogs, and nobody, not bloggers, not you nor me, have the authority to invalidate his reviews, because he is a critic who is very well recognised for his work today. Many people tend to hate critics, don't they? And many of them hate their reviews. And many critics are known for their sharpness and criticisms. His low ratings for Black and Swades, only prove that he is not here to glorify films or actors. As critic, he has his right to express his opinions; when it comes to reviews, everything is based here on personal opinions, whether it's Taran Adarsh or Roger Ebert. I really don't think that someone here can invalidate his reviews because many bloggers hate his reviews, it seems silly. Regards, Shahid • Talk2me10:04, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, a critic who cannot judge the calibre of a Swades or a Black or a Lagaan, is not good enough to be called a critic. His low ratings for Black and Swades, only proves that he is useless as a critic. While the comments by the critic are his POV, they better be objective. Taran Adarsh, hardly seems objective. His comments dont seem to carry any weight and needs to be removed. It does seem very silly that he cannot judge a film as good as Lagaan, bloggers seem to be much better critics than what he is. Thanks -- ¿Amar៛Talk to me/My edits10:13, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Again, everything you say here is your POV. Taran Adarsh is one of the most prominent critics today (fact). Taran Adarsh's reviews are unfair (POV). I personally wasn't really impressed with Lagaan. Really. As for Black, nice film, but merely copied. I can also disagree and hate reviews of one particular critic. So what? There are many readers who hate some particular critics. So what? I can't see the point here. Again, neither you nor me have the authority to invalidate his reeviews. Everything is based on POVs here. And as you say, bloggers hate him.. ??? Bloggers?? ... !! While reputable sources quote him verbatim. If I told you now that Roger Ebert is biased and we shouldn't quote him, your natural response would be "and who are you?". Just like this I ask now, "who are these bloggers?".
I'm sorry, editors on Wikipedia have no authority to invalidate reviews of notable and very well regarded critics, just because they hate them. This is going nowhere. There is no point in it. Nobody really will remove reviews of critics that you, or any other editor on Wikipedia or any blogger hates. Critics are not here to write what you want them to. Regards, Shahid • Talk2me10:30, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And BTW, even if a reputable source says that Taran Adarsh is biased, it's still POV and it still doesn't help because he is Taran Adarsh, a very well known critic. Let alone when it comes to editors on Wikipedia, or bloggers. In fact, Reputable sources cite him as a good critic. This discussion is pointless. Shahid • Talk2me10:36, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
When he has made mistakes with Swades, Black and Lagaan, how do you know that whatever he has said about PZ is true. I have every right to question the objectivity of his POV. Whatever he is saying may not be the actual fact or the majority opinion. Read WP:UNDUE. Thanks -- ¿Amar៛Talk to me/My edits10:41, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Again POV. "mistakes"??? What do you mean by mistakes? Everything is based on your POV here. You liked the film, I didn't and million people across the globe could hate it. Adarsh didn't find these films good enough to give them 5 on 5. I think he's fair, you didn't. So what's the matter? After all, he is a notable critic. That's all. And WP:UNDUE has absolutely no relation here. Actually there isn't a policy to support it. Again I repeat, editors on Wikipedia (and bloggers on the net) have no authority to invalidate the reviews of notable one critic, who is cited in reputable sources, and whose views are quoted verbatim in numerous RSes. I can give you tons of RSes. Regards, Shahid • Talk2me10:53, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(unindent) You have to prove that his comments about PZ are unbiased and objective, and is the majority opinion. This has to be done to satisfy WP:NPOV. Whether, Taran Adarsh is a reputed critic is a big question mark. Since there are lot of films which he has mentioned as not good films, which have went on to become successes. Don't just blindly mention him, bring in the majority view. We are writing an encyclopedia, not an ad for PZ's future films. Thanks -- ¿Amar៛Talk to me/My edits11:02, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On the other hand, I think that we have to coclude things now at the moment, rather than ruining another FAC. That's why we have a peer review.
Sorry, you are the one who has to prove that he is biased, because you are the one who claims that he's biased, and you started this discussion. So far, you have only said that he's biased, that Lagaan is great and that bloggers criticise him.. Please...
I don't have to prove nothing, because Adarsh is a famous, prominent, well recognised critic. His reviews are quoted verbatim in reputable sources.
As for this - "lot of films which he has mentioned as not good films, which have went on to become successes." - pointless. A critic is not a soothsayer. A critic is a critic (notable one). His views are important regardless of what business a film he reviewed does later, if it's a box office success or if it wins an Oscar. Additionally, critics don't hold a cristal ball, they just give their opinions and that's all. "a successful film" doesn't necessarily mean "a critically acclaimed film". Even two years after Devdas, have you heard what Shobha De said about it? "It was a nothing film. A big budget film with great costumes and it didn't deserve any of the hype it received."
Readers read that and that's all, and if someone disagrees it's his problem. Many actors say, "critics - crap". Your opinions on him is just another expression of someone disliking a critic. It's your right (and your POV). I've already provided his notability. And if reputable sources quote him verbatim (which means that they do appreciate his views), neuther bloggers nor editors on Wikipedia can invalidate his views. That's all. I have nothing to add. Regards, Shahid • Talk2me11:29, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, I've never witnessed a case that an actor received an award for his performance while Adarsh criticised him. Look what he wrote there about Rani Mukerji while reviewing Black, "And yes, she's bound to walk away with all major awards next year as well!" - no? Shahid • Talk2me11:34, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
One and last note. Last Diwali, Adarsh reviewed both Om Shanti Om and Saawariya. He liked OSO but criticised saawariya. If you see users' own reviews on the site, you'll see that their opinions are very similar to Adarsh ones. Shahid • Talk2me11:41, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever, has been said and done above, it boils down to this. Prove that his views about PZ are the majority opinion. You are mistaking his notability. He might be notable by finding a mention in different articles, but you have to prove that whatever he has said about PZ is notable and a majority opinion, good enough to be mentioned in the article. This is needed because people reading this article will have the view that whatever is mentioned in the article is the majority opinion and the fact. Which need not be the case if it is the POV of one single critic. An encycolpedia needs to be factual and not a space for critics to mention whatever their views are. If you understand and agree to my point, well and good. If you dont, I dont want to pursue this matter further. Anyways, I wish you good luck at the FAC. Thanks -- ¿Amar៛Talk to me/My edits11:44, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks friend!
Why don't you say the same about Rediff or variety? I do understand your point, but that's exactly what you can say about every review. And he is notable enough to present his opinion as a representative one. Don't worry, if his views about Zinta were not the majority opinion, I would definitely write that reviews were mixed or even negative, I'm not here to glorify her. In fact, there are only four reviews of Adarsh there. The review of KANK is supported by Rediff (positive reviews), the review of JBJ is supported by The Times of India (mixed reviews). Furthermore, all the reviews of Adarsh on the article are for roles that earned her many nominations at different award ceremonies. Regards, Shahid • Talk2me11:59, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Shahid, I realise that this may be a perennial problem about whether critics' views should find a mention in any film-related or film actor-related article. I will open up a discussion in a forum where others can participate. I would definitely want to hear what others have to say on this. Honestly, I feel that PZ does some good roles and hence is a good actress. However, I also feel that her article on Wiki needs to be an objective portrayal of her career. Thanks -- ¿Amar៛Talk to me/My edits12:04, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK I have no problem with that, but I think that you definitely can invite everybody to participate here, if that's gonna be mainly about Zinta. My work is inspired by other FAs, and that's what other FAs do. Taran's reviews in particular only support claim.
Here are the performances she was nominated for (those which are marked with (*) are accompanied by Taran's reviews on the article):
Done - I think you meant un-encyclopedic. Yes? See page of Jolie. Her loneliness at school is mentioned. All her childhood days are there. Even if we don't include this quote, we have to mention that Zinta was away from family, she experienced loneliness, she was popular at school, etc.. all these things are part of her background, life and personality. This quote illustrates perfectly an important part of her childhood. Although she was lonely, away from family and home, she was OK, why? Because she was popular at school, she had many friends. Only one quote of one line shows all these details. With or without this quote, it has to be mentioned.
