Talk:Churumuri (blog)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.

???

This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.

[edit] Request

For weblinks please at least use the format [URL title] Source - Date.Baka man 04:15, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Will do. Sarvagnya 04:21, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request

Puffed rice is not the specialty of Mysore. It has historical references in Marathi, and Tamil litresture going back to 1000years. Please research that statement which is not true. It is famously used in Bhel Puri in Mumbai, Maharashtra and as Arisi Pori in Tamil Nadu.

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.181.101.210 (talk • contribs)

It is not claimed that puffed rice is a specialty of Mysore. But Churumuri a preparation made from puffed rice is. And btw, churumuri is not bhelpuri. Sarvagnya 09:01, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I now see what you meant.. and I've changed it to convey the intended meaning. thanks. Sarvagnya 09:12, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Concerns about the claims made in this article

I have some concerns regarding the claims made in the article. First of all, a truckload of the reference links seem to be from the blog itself, which would make the article heavily reliant on a primary source. Not a very comforting idea.

Anyway, a graver issue at hand is that there are simply no third-party sources available for certain paragraphs. In parts where third-party sources have been provided, the article has mischaracterized the sources to give this blog greater credit that what it is due.

Let me list these concerns (excerpts from contentious information in the article are in italics):

During the high-profile takeover of the Vijaya Karnataka Group... - Why is the blog's role notable in this? Has any third-party source mentioned the blog's coverage?
Churumuri's reporting of the internecine war... - Same question as above.
Churumuri's post on the hidden squash ball... - This paragraph seems to say that it was this blog that caught Gilchrist red-handed and broke the news of the squash ball, and all the subsequent debates were ignited due to this blog's stories, when nothing of the sort happened. The fact is that none of the cited third-party sources support this claim anywhere in their articles. In fact, four of the independent sources provided - the BBC, news.com.au, The Nation News and Cricinfo - do not mention the name "Churumuri" anywhere. The source "blogs.smh.com.au/sport" (which, by the way, is itself a sports blog) merely gives a link to Churumuri's post and that's it. And yet, the article goes on to state that "Churumuri's post on the hidden squash ball...created headlines.".
Churumuri and Infosys - This is another section that suffers from the same malady as the squash ball paragraph. The disparaging stuff about lampooning is completely unnecessary, and is not backed up at all via reliable sources. Then, the part about the national anthem controversy mentions that this blog broke that story, whereas none of the cited sources say this anywhere, nor do they give credit to the blog as their first source of information. The only reference to "Churumuri" is in the Indian Express' link, where the newspaper mentions its name in a sample of various bloggers' views about the controversy.

To sum up quantitatively,

Total number of inline reference links in the four aforementioned contentious paragraphs: 15
Of those 15, number of third-party sources: 7 (All other reference links point to Churumuri's own posts).
Of those 7, number of sources that do not mention the name churumuri anywhere: 5

which leaves just two third-party sources (one of which is itself a blog), which do not corroborate the information about Churumuri "breaking" any story, but merely mention it the context of a larger reaction of bloggers across the country/continent to the given issues.

In light of all this, I am trimming the information about the squash ball and Infosys so that it stays true to its independent sources. The parts about the "takeover of Vijay Karnataka" and "internecine war" also need to be dealt with, but we can let them be for now. Please discuss if you have any objections to these points. Thanks, Max ^{- You were saying?} 19:27, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Quickly.. though I started the article I'm not sure I am responsible for some of the content here. Anyway let me try to answer some of the the concerns. This blog's role in covering the takeover of Vijayakarnataka and Vijaytimes by the TOI group is notable because Krishnaprasad was then the *editor* of Vijay Times and one of the people intimately involved in it. Obviously, if the editor of a newspaper has something to say about the inner intrigues of a takeover in which he was intimately involved, it is notable. Also you have to note that this blog has several noted journalists involved in it. And their opinions in matters concerning journalism is certainly notable. Also it is not like this blog or the opinions of its authors is being used as citations in other articles(say, something like TOI takeover of Vijay Karnataka or something) to support statements of fact. And its opinions about the "internecine wars.." also is notable for the same reasons.

As for the national anthem, if I remember correctly, not just Indian express but IBNLive also acknowledged churumuri in the story they carried. They even quoted verbatim from churumuri... saying "Churumuri had this to say about the controversy...." or something. You can see this on ibnlive's site if you search for it(both in the text and the accompanying video). I think the link should already be somewhere in the article. Even The Hindu mentioned Churumuri, I think.

As for Gilchrist, I dont know. I didnt put that in and I'll try to reply after taking a closer look. Thanks. Sarvagnya 21:53, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Hello Sarvagnya, thank you for your reply. I didn't mean that you were responsible for the dubious content (I didn't even know that you were the originator of the article. Plus, it's a wiki - we're all collectively reponsible for what goes on :-)). I was just being safe by putting my concerns out in the open with adequate evidence so that I could defend my edits.

I am inclined to agree with you about the Vijay Karnataka takeover and internecine wars, since this blog gets some contributions from noted journalists in South India. I don't mind letting that info stay.

As for Infosys and Gilchrist, all the sources that I scoured mentioned the blog in the "reactions to the controversy" part and not as the source of breaking news about the incidents. Hence, I have cleaned up the paragraphs about these incidents in the article so that the information they convey stays true to the references they quote. Thanks again, Max ^{- You were saying?} 15:35, 6 July 2007 (UTC)