Talk:Dia Mirza/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Someone please change the name of this page from 'Diya Mirza' to 'Dia Mirza'. 'Diya' was her former name, she changed it (officially), to Dia Mirza in 2003.

Please change the spelling.

Thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.36.149.149 (talk • contribs) 20:56, 21 May 2005 (UTC).

--The name change has now been noted AKeen 04:41, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

Hai!

Can anyone tell her to learn acting skills.? She ism a beautiful actress...but without acting skills. Hence she is not been ablre to make her mark in Bollywood.

Dia,learn acting or you will be obselete....something we fans dont like happening. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 61.246.62.193 (talk • contribs) 09:20, 4 February 2006 (UTC). hi,

[edit] Product endorsements

Any reliable information including info on 'product endorsements' was being continously d by other editors. Please reinsert the information. or is there a need to enter the same information every few hours? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 219.64.184.11 (talk • contribs) 20:08, 14 May 2006 (UTC).

Plain Filmography provides easy eyeview than unnecessary Tables..waste of wikipedia resources. Tables are discouraged. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 219.64.184.11 (talk • contribs) 20:46, 14 May 2006 (UTC).

Anon, tables are NOT discouraged. I see them in many articles. Can you cite any official policy against tables? Zora 21:47, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tables & Product Endorsement

As for table, see Zora's comment:

Anon, tables are NOT discouraged. I see them in many articles. Can you cite any official policy against tables? Zora 21:47, 14 May 2006 (UTC

As for product endorsements: while Mirza is brand ambassador for various products, it's enough to just mention the fact. See pages of other actors for that, like Shahrukh Khan, Amitabh Bachchan or Rani Mukerji: they are all over TV for various products, but that doesn't mean the ad gets featured on their page. Mirza endorses brands, WP don't. --Plumcouch 17:08, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Tables: i find tables annoying..there are no tables for many of the actors/actress.
WP doesn't Brand: Everyone knows that..but stating the facts of her endorsing these brands or products does not tantamount to 'WP enorsing products'. These details were gathered by me from various sources after some amount of effort from me. Removing them because other articles on actors doesn't give details on their endorsements (in this case n number of ads)is preposterous. Those other articles doesn't set any precedent to be followed for all actresses. Removing details to save WP resources will only make it a 'stub' article revealing nothing more than an IMDB ..quoted Filmography.

When i am wiling to supply verifiable details to the article why are they being constantly removed arbitrarily ? Same Rules cannot be applied to Aishwarya Rai and 'Dia Mirza'..each should be considered in an individual and independent manner.

Is WP a question of how long u hang around editing the article again and again? A test of my endurance? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 219.64.184.21 (talk • contribs) 08:43, 16 May 2006 (UTC).

[edit] IMBD

I removed IMDb from 'External link ' because it is highly unreliable database when it comes to 'Indian Cinema' eventhough it has good record of English Movies. There are number of instances when IMDb either misquoted one movie for another or one cast member for another when you search for filmography of Indian actresses. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 219.64.184.21 (talk • contribs) 08:52, 16 May 2006 (UTC).

[edit] DiaMirza.com & fansites

Why was the link to http://www.diamirza.com/ removed from External links? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dm-fan (talk • contribs) 18:10, 18 May 2006 (UTC).

Is http://www.diamirza.com/ her official homepage? Because we don't list fanpages, since if we list one fanpage, we have to list *every* fanpage and then we get a dozen or more of them and some are commercial -- something we don't support here at Wiki. Best regards, --Plumcouch 18:14, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

-- What is this then? A quote from WP.. "Fan sites: On articles about topics with many fansites, including a link to one major fansite is appropriate, marking the link as such..." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:EL#Occasionally_acceptable_links

I think you need to change your rules so it applies to all fansites!

--- No more replies? Quite predictable as you don't have anything good to say!

See below.

[edit] Official or not?

Anything to prove it is not-official? How do you confirm a website is official or not.. And ...oh.. just looked at Rani_Mukherjee page.. there is a link to Hollywood fansite in external link.. what's that about then? I thought the purpose of WP is to provide up-to-date reliable information... How often do you update Dia Mirza page? If a site provides reliable information for users then why not link to it?

You talk about commercial.. isn't imDB is commercial. It links to Amazon and also uses Google's Adsense for profit.. then why not remove it as well? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dm-fan (talk • contribs) 18:23, 18 May 2006 (UTC).

I removed the fansite from Rani Mukerji's article - thanks for the heads-up, it didn't belong there. As for information on Dia Mirza - since it is on my watchlist, I up-date it as often as possible, but not everything belongs in it (like the brands, she is ambassador for). If she makes new movies, they are quickly added. You think something's missing? Give an example or add it when the article is un-unprotected again, but try to be neutral.

Concerning official homepage: in Salman Khan's article his official homepage is listed. The homepage apparently was created by his represantatives and if it wasn't his official homepage despite claims, it would possibly taken down very quickly, as it would be a violation of copyright. Generally, it is mentioned that a homepage is official and un-official pages say in their disclaimer that they are not affiliated with their actor/actress to prevent copyright and other problems. (see www.aishwarya-forever.com for example). And as for IMDb - it's true that you can get an premium account that costs money and that they have advertisements to finance their page, gut generally, they are free and do not "sell" information, meaning: you can visit them without having to pay for looking into movie rosters, so to some extent they are non-commercial. Also, here, at Wiki, it's mostly standard to include a link to IMBd. We even have a template for it. --Plumcouch 19:04, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

--- What makes it a standard? Why is it acceptable? Why not link to DiaMirza.com since it provides more useful information about her than imdb? Remove imdb.com link.. since at the moment it seems you only add links that you like! Not what users want!

Check out Wiki Project Indian Cinema. It was established as a accepted consensus by the users who look after the Indian actor & actress articles. If you have concerns about this policy, raise them at the discussion page there. And, as before mentioned, it is a fansite with unclear origin, no disclaimer or copyright information of it's pictures. See reasons above. Best regards, --Plumcouch 21:33, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

--- What? No copyright information/disclaimers? Are you sure? Because I checked it and they do have it! You need to scroll down, it's at the bottom of the page.

I mean the pictures themselves - when you click on picture gallery and look at the pictures, there's information about how large they are and when they were added, but no information who shot the photograph, if they were scanned from a magazin or simply taken from the web, who owns them. And there is a large diamirza.com-lable printed over them, indicating that they belong diamirza.com. I seriously doubt that the photographers allowed diamirza.com to add them or that the owner of the website shot them. --Plumcouch 21:58, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Plumcouch: "...seriously doubt that the photographers allowed diamirza.com to add them" Have you got any evidence to indicate that the photographers did not allow the site to add them? Maybe the site has permission to use those pictures. I don't think it's a good idea to exclude a site just because you have doubt (when it is highly relevant to the topic and maybe useful for the readers).. it's not enough!

If they have permission, one usually adds:

Used by permission of owner Name Surname. Do not publish elsewhere.

Since something like this isn't there, you'll have to assume otherwise. --Plumcouch 22:08, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Maybe it was not required by the photographer?

Plumcouch: "but no information who shot the photograph, if they were scanned from a magazin or simply taken from the web" Even imdb.com doesn't have them. I doubt imdb.com was allowed to add that picture to the site. Can you remove the imdb link then?

The policy here is to exclude picture until we are sure that they are OK to show. We don't keep pictures up until they're proven copyvios. That's the general site policy. If you can't accept it, you need to start your own Dia Mirza page where you can post all the photos you want (and take the legal consequences if anyone sues). Zora 22:10, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes.. you're right. Until you're sure! Did you verify that picture of Dia Mirza @imdb.com was allowed by its copyright owners to be published there? If not you should remove that link as well. Zora, I am not talking about pictures at WP, I am talking about pictures on external sites.

IMDb.com and Wireimage.com own all of their displayed pictures and if they don't, they were provided by the company of the movie or the agent of the actress/actor. Just try to load up a picture to IMDb.com. You have to provide copyright information and assure that it's genuine, otherwise someone will get sued. They "own" them - otherwise, other people could not legally lisence IMDb.com's content. Also, they have a disclaimer: All rights reserved. --Plumcouch 22:18, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

PS. The copyright information for Diya's picture at IMDb.com is given:

IMDb Publicity Photos are provided to IMDb.com by industry professionals, their agents and legal representatives.

IMDb.com has the copyright for it - otherwise it could not be displayed there. --Plumcouch 22:20, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

--- Probably you didn't read the diamirza.com pages properly, they also have their 'all rights reserved'. :p You can assume that pictures at imdb.com were allowed by their owners to be used there.. then why don't you do the same for diamirza.com.. probably their owners also allowed them (unless ofcourse you can prove it otherwise.) Oh.. imdb also charge a star to add their own photos there.. lol.. I think that makes it commercial.

That's simple. Because IMDb.com is a professional page, around for almost a decade. If they get sued because of copyright violation, they could loose millions. Diamirza.com is merely a fanpage and the owner has nothing to loose besides the photos when the rightful copyright holder wants him/her to remove the pictures - or the entire website. It is not likely that DiaMirza.com's webmaster is going to be sued, so he/she can be lax when it comes to copyright information. IMDb.com doesn't have that option. And I don't assume that IMDb.com has the rights - I know. And a Probably their owners also allowed them ... for DiaMirza.com is not good enough. If I have to choose between the largest movie database on the planet or a small fansite to put my trust on, I'll go with the database. Also, IMDb.com did provide copyright information - DiaMirza.com didn't. Non of their pictures says: Pictures are provided to DiaMirza.com by industry professionals, their agents and legal representatives. Best regards, --Plumcouch 22:31, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

--- It does says: All pictures are copyright their respective owners. Do you expect a site to say.. pic1 provided by person1, pic2 provided by person2 etc? Just because you think a site should have something doesn't necessarily means everyone else thinks the same!

Well, yes. That's why Wikipedia doesn't get sued: we acknowledge each and every owner and mention the US law Fair Use, unless we ourselves are the owner and even then, we acknowledge us and offer everyone to take the pictures given to Wikipedia. That's public domain and the GNU license. And even if not everyone thinks the same, here at Wiki, we think this way. --Plumcouch 22:43, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Where is the fair use policy @imbd.com? Where does it says.. pic1 provided by person1 etc?? What you think doesn't matters if a site provides information that is useful to the user.. Anyway, I still thinking adding links to fansite is a good idea if it provides up-to-date useful info. Since you're the dictator here.. no point me saying my opinion!

What I think does *indeed* not matter - I create articles according to the guidelines given to me by Wiki Policies and Projects. IMDb.com does not need a reference to a fair use policy, since they are a professional site and have the copyright for all their pictures. That's the difference between a fansite and a professional, official site: fansites generally don't have the copyright for the pictures they display and sadly, do never add it, official sites have. Basically, you can compare IMDb.com to IndiaFM.com or RadioSargam or BBC.India or Rediff.com: all of them are official, professional sites and copyright holders: they don't need the fair use doctrine like we do. Juristically, fansites, if they do not cite their sources and acknowledge all the copyright holders, are in violation of copyrights and can be sued. --Plumcouch 22:59, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand. The idea of this discussion was to come to a solution acceptable for both parties. You have not responded to my last post, deleted the entire conversation on the discussion page and simply went to add the fan page again. Why did you do that? You could have gone to the Indian Cinema Project and proposed to accept one fanpage if an official page is not available or something of the sort. It's not a solution to simple defy things. --Plumcouch 23:37, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I did go to the Indian Cinema Project page and raised the issue of adding fansites. If enough (registered) editors agree, we can add one fanpage per article. Currently, it's against the policies, but maybe, those can be changed. While I'm not sure if it will work it is worth a try. Why don't you go and contribute? Best regards, --Plumcouch 23:56, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

--- Thanks for doing that. :) But it won't happen. You guys only seem to apply your policies to certain sites, not all. I bet you're affiliated with imdb.com! Btw, what is WP policy of deleting own posts?

[edit] Great!

Great! You may wish to remove the following links as well..

in External links: Tribune's Lead Article on Aditi http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aditi_Gowitrikar

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amisha_Patel Amisha Patel First Fan Site with Photo Gallery,Tagboard and Forums. Amisha Patel Picture Gallery

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amrita_Arora Amrita Arora Picture Gallery

There are hundreds more listed on articles related to actresses. Hope you edit them all. :)

http://www.diamirza.com/ is free as well. They don't 'sell' information, nor you have to pay for things. They why do you differentiate between diamirza.com and imdb.com? Isn't it a bit biased?

Rules are rules and they should apply to all sites! Then why do you treat imdb specially?

Well, obviously, I can't go through all the actress pages since there are hundreds of them. I do my very best however. ;)

I checked DiaMirza.com and for example, they do not provide copyright information for their pictures - and they are obviously taken from other sites or all around the internet. They don't even have a disclaimer, which is eminent for copyright reasons. And, if we list them, we have to list all the other thousands and thousands of Dia Mirza fanpages too - whose owners all think they have the greatest page out there and it should be linked at all costs. Wiki is no link collection, so no fanpages. --Plumcouch 20:10, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

--- Just realised you didn't answer my questions regarding imdb.com. I think you should remove their link as well. If not, then why not? Please justify, otherwise people would not have faith with WP. They might think your affiliated with imdb or something! Regarding copyrights, just because a site puts (c) somesite.com, doesn't necessarily means they own the copyrights.. How do you verify that?

Imdb links are pretty much regarded as acceptable. See WP:EL#Occasionally_acceptable_links.

As to the copyright status of external links. Policy is to avoid linking to sites that may have material in violation of copyright. --GraemeL ^(talk) 20:26, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

--- What's so special about them (imdb.com) that make it acceptable? You may wish to remove some of the external links from here as well: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shahrukh_Khan

A better idea would be to remove the External Links section from wikipedia, since Plumcouch said WP is not a links collection.

Removed at SRK's article. And as for IMDb - it's the biggest, largest Database on the planet concerning movies and it's standard. (Link above). --Plumcouch 17:19, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tables, Endorsements & IMBd

Hello, anon.

I (personally) believe that tables make an article more organized. There are editors who don't accept listings of movies or cast members, unless there are presented within a table. For an example, you can look at the history of Dilwale Dulhania Le Jayenge. It provides a better overview and is not *disencouraged*. If you think that tables are annoying, put up a discussion and talk about with the other editors. However if the majority is all for tables and only a few are not, we try to be democratic and go with the majority, since there are certain standards people agree on.

Most actress/actor articles look the same: we try to standardize them - it's easier to write an article according to guidelines; otherwise everyone would just do what they want. Some guidelines, you can find on the Indian Cinema Project page.

Endorsements: Why don't you just mention that she *does* endorse stuff, not what, which commercial and for what company? If we keep lists what actor has endorsed what we have to make new pages just for the products -- Shahrukh Khan is brand ambassador for many different lables. Also, WP does not endorse. If you want to put up that kind of information, wh don't you create a web page for Dia and write it there?

IMDb: no matter how unreliable, it's standard and people have agreed upon the fact that it's standard. You'll find the IMDb page on most actor/actress pages - and IMBd itself is improving; slowly, but it is. You can subit information to IMBd - why don't you go there and repair Dia's movie list if you are not happpy with it.

Best regards, --Plumcouch 17:58, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anon's 1st Reply to Plumcouch's Tables, Endorsements & IMBd

Thanks Plumcouch for responding to my plea at the discussion page of Admn with whom you lodged a complaint against me ..accusing me of Vandalism. I appreciate your response.

Let me make myself clear and open to all...thereby removing any doubts as to my 'malicious intetnions' to Vandalise the article. Since the time i found the article some time back i have added the following to it...

Major Television Appearances (all of them) in recent news..evasion of custom duties, NBA support, the fact that she has been influenced by Jiddu Krishnamurthy teachings who has article in wikipedia. Trivia..her dog name, her pet name i.e 'dee', Blue baby syndrome,her place of residence in Mumbai, the fact the she had an eye operation recently , Her education details..names of schools and places. Recent Filmography including .the recent...'Vaah, Kya Family Hai' which of course has been deleted by the trio Plumcouch,Zora, and another again and again. and 'Product endorsements' when there is already reference to her endorsements before Asia pacific .

Many of these and others pieces of info added or contributed by me have been tweaked or cleaned up in proper manner for the article by Zora or some one (i don't know). i am happy with the fact that they improved what i contributed. But they also deleted a lot of information because they think it is what they call 'Unencyclopedic' and other unviable arguments.

They instead of adding anything newto the information they have been persistently Vandalising what i have been contributing all along and claim i am vandalising the article. The above explanation is to make point that i have no intention of 'vandalising' the article as accused by the user Plumcouch in his complaint to Gaeremel the administrator who locked up the article but that i acted in Good Faith and with good intentions of retaining the quality of the article.

i limit my explanation here and will not go into the details as to arguments against what 'plumcouch' 'Zora' and another (the trio)have been advocating for the past few days. i will not proceed further unless there is an independent mediator to read and understand the dispute here, one who can hear both sides and try to resolve it. There is no point in barking like a dog here when the trio decided to stick to their arguments and don't welcome any other point of view. i will not loose my time unless an 'observer' is agreed upon.

I don't think you need to go for mediation yet. Posting here is a good step. If you and the other editors of this page can come to some agreement here, it will almost certainly happen faster than going through mediation. If you can't come to an agreement, then is the time to look at mediation. I'll remove the page protection as soon as it looks like some progress is being made. --GraemeL ^(talk) 20:09, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Hello, anon,

first of all: I'm sure you have good intentions. Most users who contribute stuff, have. I'm going to add her nickname (since nicknames of several other actors on their pages are also mentioned) and her new movie.

School: I guess name of school is okay, but what teachings they have there: that's something that belongs into the school article, doesn't it? If there is an article which mentions how much those special teachings have influenced her life or something, I (personally) would add it but only with footnotes - and with the consensus of the other editor.
Tables: WP does encourage the use of them and the general consensus is that they make things look cleaner. Someone almost got a Barnstar just for adding a table over at the Ajith article ... or Vijay Joseph article - not sure which one; just check the discussion. Everything is not so crowded, but neatly ordered - and if one editor is against an article and all the others approve, ::generally, we go with the majority. Democracy rules! ;)

Major television appearances: why not. But why not create a table for them? ;)

Product endorsements: she is a brand ambassador for several products, but we cannot just list them all. Shahrukh Khan endorses over fifty brands and if you add those he has advertised in the past, it would be hundreds! We just cannot list them all. Also, it's some kind of endorsement Wikipedia does, so no names.
Residence of Mumbai: Why not? Shahrukh has a mention of his Mannat house.

Dog name, baby blue syndrome, removed cyst: There is interesting trivia, and then, there are things even to trivial for trivia. Shahrukh Khan's fabourite book is The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy <- that's also an example for too trivial trivia.

My two cents. Opinions? --Plumcouch 20:38, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Plumcouch, since you seem to know a lot.. can you provide me a example of non-trivial trivia?

Well, for example: if a grenade had been thrown at her concert, killing two people, like at the Sri Lanka concert, that's interesting to add. Or if she would have almost been killed by the large Tsunami two years ago like Preity Zinta. If she were the first living Indian to get a statue at Mme. Tussaud's like Aishwarya Rai. If Julia Roberts would have called her "The Most Beautiful Woman on the planet" or if she has two thumbs on her right hand like Hrithik Roshan. That's non-trivial trivia, I think. And so far, it has been accepted by all the other editors who work on the articles of before mentioned actors and actresses. --Plumcouch 22:04, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] To Graemel the admin

What made Graemel add the new item to Filmography which has been removed 4 times by him and added all times by me during the day ? 'Awakening'? This is a clear case of mistaken or innocent Vandalism by the Admn himself..removing true and corrrect data. i again request you verify facts before you respond to complaints instead of antagonising 'genuine' editors by simply acting hastily.

Awakening? I'm not sure I understand. If you refer to Vaah, Kya Family Hai -- I added that. I just verified it and added it as a peace offer. --Plumcouch 20:40, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Just checked with IndiaFM.com - according to them it's now called Familywala. There is an article about it - I guess everyone just got confused that Neeraj Voora changed the title so often. We'll see what the final title will be -- maybe it'll change again. --Plumcouch 20:44, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I shouldn't get involved in this matter, but just of interest, how can you be sure of indiafm.com?

Sometimes they publish loads of rubbish which is completely untrue.

I guess the information of the title being Vaah, Kya Family Hai is taken from her SmasHits-interview with S. Kumar. If you scroll a bit up, you'll notice that she says that she has a part in Munnabhai Lage Raho which has already changed to Munnabhai 2nd Innings. I concluded that the interview must be a little bit older, as is the information of the other movie being titled Vaah, Kya Family Hai. IndiaFM.com may be biased sometimes, but generally, they are up-to-date when it comes to their movie database. And even *if* the title is wrong - we'll find out when the official page is launched and the corresponding page can be moved. No big deal. --Plumcouch 21:47, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] To Plumcouch

R u an administrator or a simple user Plumcouch? i am not going to respond directly to you anymore. AS i said i need a third party..no truce offers please..if u r interested call others like Zora as well. See u tommorrow....Anon Alleged Vandal of Diamirza article.

Basically, you can never be sure - we'll just have to wait until it comes out to determine what name it will finally have and change it again, if necessary. It's no big deal. As for Admin - I'm an ordinary user, but I've done enough not to be qualified as an "new user", so I can change the page if I want to. Till tomorrow. --Plumcouch 21:07, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

If you're not sure.. then don't publish it.

Well, that's what edits and the "move"-option are for. ;)

And, it's not Munna 2nd Innings; It's "Munnabhai 2nd Innings". Changed.

Plus, it's not Gayatri Tania, its "Gayatri Tantia". Just checked the endings of my Parineeta DVD - it's Tantiya. Guess we were both wrong.

[edit] Discussion Ends Here

Now that the article has been unlocked, i presume there is no more any dispute here...Anon Alleged Vandal of diamirza article.

I'm not 100% sure about that. I just thought that, now all of the parties were talking, the article should be unprotected. If you make an edit and somebody reverts it, please discuss it on this page instead of just making the change again. I will keep an eye on things for the next few days, but it looks like everybody involved is now being reasonable and I hope to avoid protecting the article again. --GraemeL ^(talk) 14:14, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

To Graemel

When you locked the article earlier the summary u gave is like this.."(Protected Dia Mirza: IP hopping vandal [edit=autoconfirmed:move=autoconfirmed])" I run on a Dial up connection of 128 kbps.. and the ISP assigns me dynamic address everytime i connect to the internet. This is to clarify my position that i am not 'Ip Hopping' as alleged by you. ....Anon alleged Vandal of Diamirza article

Yes, I do understand that. I should also point out that I no longer consider you a vandal. You were just not familiar with the way things work on Wikipedia. Now you are using the talk pages, you shouldn't have too many problems. --GraemeL ^(talk) 14:53, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

--I am using Talk pages becuase i am forced to use them. I will not discuss my edits unless you lock the article..

Sigh. Here was I thinking that you were going to be reasonable. If you start an edit war again and refuse to discuss changes, then the article will be protected for as long as necessary for you talk to the other editors and build a consensus as to the content of the article. If you want to follow the way things work on Wikipedia, everything will be much easier. If you want to ignore the way the community works, the article will be protected. --GraemeL ^(talk) 15:08, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Well i appeal to you to please protect the article from everyone(including the registered user)for some more time,call for an observer, discuss the pros and cons of everything posted. I appreciate WP policy of encouraging 'discussion' and compromise. But 'Consensus' cannot be reached when both sides want only their POV to prevail.From the earlier talk of Plumcouch' the major editor of diamirza article it is evident hat he will not backdown on anything. When no 'Consensus' be reached someone has to intervene and decide the matter once and for all. I hardly see an 'open to all community' here. I see systematic abuse and 'control' of articles by the people who have the 'time' and 'resources' and 'energy' to edit the matter.

It is sad that whereas the 'ideaology'of Wp is great there is no 'proper Mechanism' to solve conflicts,abuses. The way you (Admn and peacemaker here) reverted the article again and again without checking the facts proves that Wp has got no 'guidelines' to adhere to while acting on a complaint. No procedure in place..plain discretion. There needs to be a system of 'controls' and 'check and balances' to gain 'respect' and 'standing'. All these things are utterly lacking in WP. No doubt people get agitated and sue Wp when people find it as the 'platform' for defamation, Copyright violations, violations of domestic laws. I think WP stand on the same platform as P2P ..a provider,facilitator. ..Anon alleged vandal of Diamirza article

[edit] IMDB funds WP?

Since you guys show so much favoritism towards IMDB, I was wondering whether WP is funded/controlled by them? IMDB pages contain lot of ads and whenever someone is referred from WP, I can assume atleast some of them will click those ads! Do you guys get paid for that?

Because I am not happy with you applying your so-called rules to some sites and not to others. Just because a site is owned by "professionals", or it has been around for long doesn't necessarily means its content is excellent as well.

When Open Directory (DMOZ) can link to a page, then why can't WP do the same? DMOZ is also human-edited and I am sure they know as much as you do! Why act as dictators? Isn't Wikipedia supposed to be unmoderated/open?

At the moment it seems you guys want to put up whatever you like!

Hello, anon,

there are some rules that have been agreed upon by editors who work on the Indian Cinema articles. And there are even more rules given to each editor by Wikipedia and it's community. I myself am not happy with each and every resolution we have here, but, out of respect for the other editors and the fact that the majority decides things via democracy, I accept them. I put a question about fansites on the Discussion board (here [1]) and so far, it has not been roundly rejected so maybe there is hope. If you favour the DMOZ, don't like the way things are done here or simply do not what to participate in the discussion about fansites over at the project page, I suggest you leave. If you can convince more editors to accept endorsemnts on actor/actresses pages, fansites or other links, and gain a majority, the policy will be changed and these things can be added. Since a majority for your suggestion isn't reached, you either try to get one or accept the current policy designed by an earlier majority - we strongly advocate democracy here and ask every editor to follow it. No one here works for IMDb (I most certainly don't), but it's the standard decided by a majority. Put up another debate and maybe you can change the standard. Best regards, --Plumcouch 15:51, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

---Democracy..how can prove the policy is being demcoractic. For something to call democracy(will of majority)there needs to be what i call a 'transparent system of Voting', 'recognition of the voter' 'fair sytem of counting' and many more. Time and again u have been supporting your argument calling 'democracy'. I see no such 'democractic mechanism here'. U by no standards can call it a democracy. And don't dare to suggest me 'to leave' the WP because i am pointing its 'weaknesses'. Be receptive.

Of course it's a transparent system of voting. One asks a question like "Are cows green?" and you have three lists: Support, Reject and Neutral. Everyone who says "Yes, cows are green" places her/his name under "Support", everyone who says "No, they are not" places his name under "Reject" and the neutral ones ... well, you know how it goes. You can check via the history page if someone's manipulating a vote and socket puppets can be unveiled by the admins and mere IPs are not allowed - since if people have a Dial-Up connection, IPs get changed and next vote, the same user could be using another IP or the other way round. What is not fair or not transparent about that system? --Plumcouch 16:49, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

--- If it was really democratic then why don't the WP users get to vote? Why does autocrats (a select few) have to decide what can be included and what not? Isn't it discrimination.. isn't WP supposed to be a encyclopedia by people for the people? Put up a poll on WP homepage if you really think democracy exists and see what people have to say.. Lets make it really democratic!!

I did! Currently, on the Indian Cinema Project Page, I put up a question what people think about the fansite issue. You're most welcome to adopt a user name (otherwise you can't vote for resons just one response above this) and put up your own vote. No problem. But as long as this has not happened, we stick to the old rules as long as someone comes a along and makes people change them. (If you want to make a vote to find out what everything thiking, try with those, for example: Let's include commercials as an attempt to list each and every information about an actor/actress, instead of just mentioning the fact that someone is a brand ambassador for something. Or: Let's cut tables - they eat up Wikipeadia resources. Or: Let's accept fansites! Or: Let's kick IMDb since it isn't a comprehensive database anyway - especially for Indian Movies -- and commercial, too!) :) Happy voting. :) --Plumcouch 14:23, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

--- "Let's include commercials as an attempt to list each and every information about an actor/actress, instead of just mentioning the fact that someone is a brand ambassador for something. Or: Let's cut tables - they eat up Wikipeadia resources." If you really wish to do that, do so Plumcouch, you're the boss here! Btw, who is the highest ranking person here?

There ware no higher ranking persons here. Everyone's an equal. Admins are only users with more abilities. *I* don't want to change anything about the policies - I'm happy with them. If one of you guys wants to change them, make the proposal over at the project. --Plumcouch 17:50, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

--- From your previous responses it seemed your the only person who is in authority here as you talk of enforcing "rules","democracy" etc. Since, now you said everyone is equal then treat them the same, equally!

I do! I accepted the fact that you are not happy with the current state of the page. I told you how you can change established policies and set up a vote. I didn't revert it back. But I also accept the democracy which has established the fact that we are *against* endorsements. Yet, I didn't revert it back so you guys have a opportunity to talk to other editors about what concerns you. Still, by not setting up a vote over at the project page and by just putting everything back how you like it to be, you don't even try to be democratic. Ask other people how they think about it. Give others a chance to voice their ideas or concerns. --Plumcouch 18:15, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Yay.. the Product Endorsements & Major Television Appearances are back!

Whoever added those sections did a great job. We want to be kept informed of what is Dia is upto.. and when can we see her in TV. Great job.

Let the pro's manage the article. Wannabe experts, stay away from this. :p

well i don't want myself dragged more into this WP by registering. For past some months WP has become a great source for filling in my mind with any unknown knowledge on anything. Let's come to some compromise solution. I want product endorsements anyway. But you suggest way of keeping it small or a simple. Lets arrive at some compromise..acceptable to both sides..i am ready to make some concessions. Since you seem to know a bit more here, i want you to add references for various facts. I can supply you with links to original interviews. Lets make it look more authentic...even on matters of trivia....Anon alleged vandal of diamirza article.

No compromise is possible on using Wikipedia to advertise products. If we allowed that, every celebrity article would quickly be jammed full of "endorsements". Ads are kill on sight here. Zora 17:47, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Zora..the tougher one to crack..please say why your against ads..?You think it amounts to advertising for the products by WP. I don't want you to bring SRK here..because each is an individual case here and you can't apply same rules for everyone.

Anon..alleged vandal of diamirza article.

That's not entirely true -- all of them are actors and each and every actor page is treated the same no matter the subject. And the reason why WP is against ads ... it's just a paragraph above yours. --Plumcouch 17:57, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

i still don't understand the 'rationale' behind it. You think by putting the product names WP's resources are being 'employed' for advertising of those products. if that is the case giving a lengthy list films acted by an actor is advertising for the film production company. Is it not? or for that matter putting a IMBd link on every film page is advertising for the company. Is it not?

or if the logic is 'the number of products' endorsed by the actor are too large to be listed like SRK or AB then u can list out major ads. why not? if publishing list of ads by an actor is advertising then the filmography should be done away with. if the list is to large for Wp then as i said 'major ADS can be listed.

i want more clear explanation for this ? to Zora who refuses to talk and to Plumcouch Anon alleged vandal of diamirza article

I'm not refusing to talk, and you're wikilawyering, anon vandal. WP exists to convey information. Films in which an actor/actress has appeared are information. They are universally considered to be so -- as is the IMDB. Celebrity endorsements, however, are generally of no interest. Sometimes ads do become notorious, for one reason or another, and can be discussed, but run-of-the-mill ads are non-notable. None of Dia Mirza's ads are notable. No one save YOU seems to care in the least, and the sole reason for inserting the ad list seems to me to be plugging the products. We don't do that. Wikipedia would die under a deluge of ads if we did. Look at the stats re email -- 80% of it is spam. Persist and we will get this article semi-protected so that anons can't edit. Zora 18:31, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Don't add your subjective assessment of what is good or what is bad for WP. Deluge of ads? i don't understand how? so u r not for ads unless they are 'notorious'? For that matter none of her movies are notable. Don't speculate on matters. And you are attributing 'intentions' and motives to my inclusion of ads? When you can cite IMDb because WP has policy to believe it to be 'reliable' and longstanding database on any films..is it not blatant on the face advertising for IMDb?

Product endorsements form an important profile of any actor. Atleast in India. The fact that someone endorsed coke or some other MNC is taken note of in Indian media circles and among the audience. Product endorsement should form a part of any actor profile...instead of filling in some IMDb cited filmography.(Dubious for there inaccuracy and lack of understanding of Indian cinema). Product endorsements reflect the rank of the actor, the popularity and his perception among people. I think you read too much into the 'hidden motives' of corporates, rivals etc..Plain statement of the fact that so and so featured in certain ad doesn't amount to advertising in my belief. Product endorsements of an actor are a part of 'information'. May be in some part of the world they are not taken seriously.But not in INdia. You can't impose your perceived sense of 'universality' on others.I see no reason why you don't buy my argument.

SPAM? i didn't understand the 80% part of it? i always asked for semi protection from vandalism.

And i see that you instead of entering into dialogue here have been attributing 'motives' and 'threatening' of locking up article. i genuinely believe ads must form a part of her profile and the various trivia i added must be retained. Don't revert my posts again and again because you don't agree with me.

--- You say not to allow endorsements related stuff.. but look what? Check the Cocacola article on WP: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cocacola#Advertising

It has a whole section dedicated to product edorsements and advertisements. By including that don't you think you're helping a commercial company? Can you remove that section; Zora, Plumcouch?

I was also wondering whether the dictators (some registered "users", not naming!) of this topic have the permission to modify it, because I think they should also be banned! Talking of democracy is not enough if you're not going to apply it! Treat everyone equally!

You may also like to take a look at the 'External links' section of the Cocacola article, as some of the links may contradict with your so-called policies! --- --They will always say ' WP is a big place, we cannot keep track of everything'. The article on COCO-COLA has many sites other than the ' official website'. They themselves are the makers and breakers of rules, guidelines. They decide what is good and what is bad, lay down the policy, interpret them to suit their needs. They even don't care to explain things. Any complaints as to their manner of working here are taken as appreciation of 'ability to stand against frustated unregistered users' and go to the extent of adding their profiles with titles like 'dictator' or 'racist. This reflects the mindset and manner of working of the closed group of users and the Admns. Supported by Google (the future MS) and IMDb, AMazon and others they set the direction of 'the knowlegde' on the interent. Whatever,WPedians must be happy that people are worrying over the growing influence of WP. ..Anon Alleged vandal of Dia mirza article.

First of all: Coca-Cola is a large article with lots of editors working on it. So when the sites at the bottom where added, people over there made sure they have a neutral, non-fan-site value and provide additional, non-biased information (which is rarely the case with fansites with their glorification of a person).

As for the advertisements: They don't name each and every ad that was ever done by coca-cola. Also, they don't name any brand ambassadors (Like Aamir Khan). They comment on it in a neutral kind of way and add things that are mentionable - and what *is* mentionable is decided by the consensus of *all* editors. If I'd go and remove the advertisements, I'd act against the consensus, which is a disrespectful thing to do. --Plumcouch 10:31, 24 May 2006 (UTC) PS. And thanks for visiting my userpage. ;)

If it is so much about consensus and being democractic there is no point in opening to anons like me. Because the registered users will ultimately decide on 'consensus' to include or manipulate or exclude any information or for that matter lock it. Anons have no say because the users always weild their ultimate weapons: this is consensus,democracy, WP resources, reliability all tilted to the needs of few closed group of individuals. Accept it..ANON alleged vandal of diamirza article.

Your expalnations for Coke ads are too Vague. Anyway, after some research on working style and other things of WP i found that it can't be given more importance than some 'gossip collections' by select WPedians who'll try till death to defend their 'egos' until they are thrown out someday.(In which case they form a group of dissidents who form 'underground secret groups to avenge their enemies. i Just realised WP is a game to be played. This has been very wonderful experience to participate in serious so called 'Edit or revert war' on some unknown actress on some very trivial matter. I bet i gained experience in waging this 'edit wars'-my first one...Anon alleged vandal of diamirza article.Keep the article semi protected for some more days..:)

and Zora please remove ads from the coke article..it is against WP policy.

How can we accept an anon? Whatever Dial-Up-Connection you use, there are possibly lots of other people who use your IPs, too. And that would only confuse things when someone else uses the same IP. IP A vanadlizes article, other person gets IP A and is confused with former vandal because of same IP. And it's really not *that* much of an effort the get a user name - you surely can think of one along with a password and that's about it. You don't even need a email, if I remember correctly. And, no comments on wikilawyering from your side so far? You seem the only person fond of commercials - if there would've been, like, a wave of protests after your request: "Yes! Give me the ads!", things would be different, but you are the only person around here to constantly ask about them and question the accepted way how things are done. Accept the consensus of the Indian Cinema Project. We have 49 editors on the project and the only one who is complaining is you. Speaks volumnes, doesn't it? --Plumcouch 17:09, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

---You don't accept anons and suspect alway he is a vandal. Or otherise it has become 'catch phrase' for anyone to call the other who disagrees as 'Vandal'. Well i don't quiet have the the resources or time to campaign and garner supporters for 'vote for ads' like you seem to do or rather i want things done without registering. I learnt a lot from Wikipedia Review on why and how edit wars start and how they conclude. You have 49 editors..let me tell you ..i am not at all interested in rest of your so called project...since this article alone shows how difficult it is to put anything here..hardly anything remains. i Am interested in what i am advocating for long. You seem to be better than Zora (Who talks like your WP final BOSS ..some kind of former porn king) in replying and explaning things...thanks for patience and receptiveness. ..I didn't understand your Wikilawyering replying thing.What do u mean by it?..Anon ALLeged vandal of DiaMirza article.

Not all anons are vandals, of course. But if I had to guess, i'd say about 90 percent of them are. User:81.103.101.97 for example is an excellent editor - not sure, he/she has taken up an username yet. As for the project: since we try to organize things here at Wiki, every larger group of articles has a project where the participants debate and talk and ask for help. Since Mirza's article is part of the Indian Cinema Project, the guidelines of the project as set up by it's participants apply here.

And some things remained, for example, the TV appearances you added. As for User:Zora: I'm sorry you have problems with her, but she's possibly one of the most respected editors here. I, personally, look very much up to her. It's difficult to remain calm if you call her "porn king" and make an insult about her "getting a life". As for wikilawyering <- just click on the link, it's all explained there.

If you don't have the time to campaign and garner supporters, I'm afraid you won't be able to chance anything, because that's the way to handle things: to talk to people. Again, you can raise the issue and your ideas over at the project, but since you don't accept the project, it'll be difficult for you. Again, good luck, best regads, --Plumcouch 17:59, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

....the insult is directed at your Boss who it seems has the final say on all matters of WP. I referred to 'her' (Zora) style of explaining things as being heavy handed..single sentence statements. The 'insult' is referring to WP boss who i learnt was a Porn King. And not Zora being a Porn King. i crticised her style being that 'as if i am the boss'. WikiLawyering: Well my case is not excatly Wikilawyering since since it didn't go till Arbitration Committee. But however no Arbitration Committee in the world can act arbitrarliy..i.e eventhough it need not apply all legal techincalities there are certain principles of fair play which must followed if the 'award' or settlement of the AB are to be enforced at the end of the day. And no amount of 'Disclaimers' or 'limited liability clauses' or 'discouraging Legal threats(discouraging legal remedies available to an aggreived person is not such a good thing)can Save WP if some matter involves a persons rights and remedies if WP harmfully affects him...Anon Alleged Vandal of Diamirza article.

If you refer to Jimmy Wales's involvement of the Boomis portal, which sold R-rated content, then, man, grow up. It's the twentyfirst century. Pronography is probably one of the oldest, if not *the* oldest media on the planet, dating back to the Stone Age. Also, that hardly qualifies Jimmy as a Porn King, which is an insult in itself. You could also say "he sold R-rated content" instead trying to insult someone or provoke people. Hugh Hefner is a better candidate for this title (and he'll probably be proud of it.) And Jimmy Wales possibly doesn't know anything bout this article and he didn't set up each and every guideline here. That's something established by the each and every editor. No, it didn't go the the Arbitration Comittee, but some of the rules applied here, did. That also qualifies as indirect Wikilawyering. As for User:Zora: no matter how short or curt her statements are, she's absolutely right - I'm just more talkative than her, but 100% behind her.

If you ask me, you have to options: take up a user name and try to change things (which you said you wouldn't and even then, you'd only qualify as a new user and could not change the article anyway.)

Or wait, until the article is un-locked again and try to add the commercials again (only resulting in them (the ads) being removed again and the article possibly being locked up again.)

To me, this doesn't look like much is going to change for you and since I'm not going to reply anymore, since you don't seem to get it despite a 28k discussion trying to make you understand how things are done here and because there are about twohundred other articles on my watchlist, I suggest you consider your alternatives. Best regards, --Plumcouch 19:03, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My 2 cents!!

The article is a bad read in its current form. The biography section is highly disjointed, doesn't talk abt when she started modeling (that's important, not what products she endorsed), when she entered acting etc. Also, all of the trivia in its present form can be integrated with the biography. Having tables helps in ease of organising and editing, apart from being pleasant on the eye for a reader. Imdb.com is a repository of information about movies and movie personnel. I can always report a discrepancy if I find one. I'm not sure that fansites are objective and hence I don't see a need to list them - Also, WP is not a link farm. More importantly, we frown on fair use for the simple reason that the content here is licensed out on GFDL, which means that fair use puts a restriction on the content itself. More info can be obtained by reading the article on GFDL. One may like it or not, but WP works on consensus building, subject to notability and verifiability. --Gurubrahma 04:39, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for locking up the article...i suggest you people here(whoever is privileged to edit the article) add references to your biography, trivia and filmography. Make it appear authentic. My stand remains the same. Product endorsements must find a place in good article.

May i know why 'fair use' is being invoked by --Gurubrahma?To explain what? i assume most of the pictures displayed in your articles are based on fair use' principle. Anon Alleged vandal of Diamirza article

[edit] Suggested References

'Biography' -1st sentence of 2nd paragraph..."Mirza's car was seized in [year] for alleged evasion of custom duties"

http://www.ibnlive.com/article.php?id=6808&section_id=8 (CNN-IBN)is an established and widely recognised News channel of India and its reports are first hand reports and they are verifiable.

'Biography' - 2nd sentence of 2nd paragraph..." Hindutva activists from the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) and BJP threatened her in [year], along with Aamir Khan, after they publicly expressed support for the Narmada Bachao Andolan, a group protesting the building of a dam."

The above statement is factually wrong. It is BJP workers who protested against Dia Mirza and her statements and not RSS as alleged in the statement.

Indian Express Group citation: http://www.expressindia.com/fullstory.php?newsid=66594

Rediff.com http://www.rediff.com/news/2006/apr/24narmada.htm

'Biography' 3rd sentence of 1st paragraph " When living in Khairatabad, Hyderabad, she attended the Vidyaranya, a school based on the teachings of Krishnamurti, and later Nasr School, in Kushnuma."

http://reachouthyderabad.com/newsmaker/nm136.htm

http://www2.sholay.com/women/womenewsmakers.htm

Undoubtly lot more of 'information' can be added subject to consensus among 'Zora' 'plumcouch' and now 'Gurubrahma'. I hope the above references will be cited and not taken as 'free advertisements' for the respective news organizations. i request 'whomsoever concerned' and have access (possibly only registered users of WP)here at the WP to take note of the above references and improve the article. ..Anon Alleged Vandal of Dia Mirza article.

[edit] Lost Interest?

Why are the self-declared protectors and editors of the article are not acting anymore? Since you got what you want you no longer have any interest in the article? What happened to all the 'WP' users who build 'democractic,consensus based' articles which are agreeable to the users of the WP( which may not be necessarily be true and authentic)? ...Anon..alleged vandal of diamirza article.

I have a life, believe it or not. I finished proofreading two manuscripts this morning, then spent some time with my daughter before she returned to the Bay Area for summer school. Taking a class in data structures! My little geekette! Zora 09:40, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

--- Seems like you just started to get a life.. A sign of backing down?

That is not a kind remark. Zora 20:50, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

As far as I am concerned, the page looks good now. It's up to Mirza to provide new material to add. Still think, the semi-protection should be maintained because of you-know-who. --Plumcouch 13:57, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I doubt if she will ever give information to WP...considering how it can be vandalised (last few weeks of proof) and also the fact that WP doesn't accept original research and work'.

and 'Zora' the remark is unkind because your manner of working is unkind to others(Quid pro quo).....Anon alleged vandal of Diamirza article.

--- Plumcouch: "because of you-know-who."

Why are you scared on naming? I don't think Dia herself would bother supplying you with information... Semi-protection so you can keep you control? Maintain absolute power? Dictate?

"Semi-protection so you can keep you control? Maintain absolute power? Dictate?" You really caught me there. ;) And I'm not scared of naming you, but so far, you don't have a name on Wiki - and I'm sure you caught the literary reference of "you-know-who". --Plumcouch 16:30, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Watch Dog

i accept my defeat in the 'revert edit war' and promise not to edit anymore the 'diamirza' article. You can safely unprotect it from now(if the apparent reason is me). Since i realised i cannot post anything here without the information being removed by Zora or Plumcouch(for time being)..they being on better side as registered users and since i don't want to register. I would not supply any information and it is upto the likes Zora, Plumcouch to find and post what they think is 'consensus' 'WP accepted' information. However i appoint myself the unregistered Watch Dog' who'll watch every change made to the article and recommend(bark)on this Talk page(atleast this page is not vandalised so often. ..Anon..the alleged Vandal of Diamirza article:)

Okay. See you then. --Plumcouch 19:04, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

---

Hope that makes you happy! At the end autocraty prevailed.. Death to democratic WP! (If democracy ever existed.)

[edit] Tom Harrison

What happened?..Anon Alleged Vandal of Dia Mirza Article...—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 219.64.179.33 (talk • contribs) .

Sorry, I don't understand your question. Tom Harrison ^Talk 18:09, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

What is rm s protect?Since you are adm i wanted to ask to whom and how one can complaint for some kind Vandalism and the ask for Protection semi or otherwise?.Anon Alleged Vandal of Diamirza article.

If you want to ask someone to protect or semi-protect a page, go here: [2]. --Plumcouch 11:19, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

My question is to Tom Harrison and not you Plumcouch.Don't take the trouble of answering my questions.Anon..alleged vandal of Dia Mirza Article

Well no replies?..Anon Alleged Vandal of Dia Mirza Article.

Go and talk to Tom on his Userpage. --Plumcouch 17:28, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Revert to external Links by Zora

I think it would be appropriate for you to cite your reason to the removal of external link (fan site)instead starting another edit wars. All don't have the time to read this talk page. Anon..Alleged Vandal of Dia Mirza article.

[edit] Article Update

The article needs Update?Looks like none of the 13000 volunteers are interested in adding anything to the article except remove or manipulate information supplied by others and add tables to it? I suggest you people can do some Google search and add information to the article. ..Anon alleged vandal of DiaMirza Article

--- Seems like they only know how to talk without action! Good there is some update there..

Thanks there for saying something.

It Would be nice if the user whoever updated the father 'Ahmed Mirza' information cite articles or any other video or audio source. SURNAME: She has been using the name Diya Mirza even at the time of Miss Asia Pacific Days. So how can the update claim She changed her surname after the step father's death? PRATEEKSA: The production of Prateeksa has been finished long back and the film has been released on Sahara one as part of Sahara one series of films releasing on Tv. However it never released in theatres..for many reasons. May be you can find some help here.. http://www.sahara-one.com/fpc/30-11-05.htm More information on the production stage can be found by searching articles on this unique sahara one initiative new to Indian Hindi Cinema. IMDB: The Imdb Filmography is not uptodate and omitted information on Diya Mirza filmography (has not even made changes to her name)See here http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1069850/ And it is the professional WP recommended standard site for all cinema. ...Anon Alleged Vandal of Dia Mirza Article

Added refs, changed Prateeksa, and as for IMDb: yes, it still is. ;) --Plumcouch 20:17, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Well your smile tells me that WP will not abandon IMDB even the page is full of errors found on your face. May be the registered users and their unknown 'democractic consensus' agenda can make rights wrongs and wrongs rights.Keep Smiling Plumcouch for WP seems never to give up on their precious buddy IMDb even after showing that it is wrong information (not even if the producers or the actress himself/herself refuse the Manufactured Filmography of IMDb). And thanks to the new user of the article who added something worthwhile.

..Anon alleged Vandal of Dia Mirza Article. Deepa Mirza Why don't you add sources for this fact? I think it would be good to add citations for any factual information on personal lives of other people instead of writing articles as if you known them personally. This needn't be repeated all time?:)..Anon Alleged Vandal of Dia Mirza Article.

...Thank Plumcouch for adding source to 'Deepa Mirza' ..Anon Alleged Vandal of Dia Mirza Article.

[edit] IMDb and Filmography Link

The 'Dia Mirza'filmography is not uptodate whatever the official policy of IMDb on announced or in production movie. Prateeksha is missing and the new films cited by you in WP cannot be found on IMdb to be more specific the 'Filmography' as shown on 'WP' have got 25 items and the one on IMDb has got only 17'. The following are the 8 missing entries

Naa Naa Karte

Familywala

Honeymoon Travels Pvt Limited Bidhaatar Lekha

Prateeksha

Alag

My Brother Nikhil

Stop

When WP makes a table of Filmography i presume they wanted the reader to believe 'IMdb' as the source since there are no apparent links to Filmography and IMDb cited at the bottom in 'External Links'. If this is true then what could be the source for new names being added by you to the Filmography? They needed a citation which if are presumed to be lifted from the IMdb 'Filmography' cannot be traced to the page(not updated). In this scenario is it not appropiate to add footnote to the new names being added by you when they are not found on IMDb? Atleast i cannot find the film names found on WP article on IMDb'..the standard and only true source for all WP's Filmographies. Anon Alleged Vandal of Dia Mirza Article.

If you want to, I can add the missing movies to IMDb. Besides that, IMDb is not only listed for the Filmography, but also to research stuff we can not provide here at Wiki, like the PowerSearch engine which is too complex for Wiki to adapt and the IMDb Pro Details, which can be looked at partly including much other details. If it were only for the filmography, IMDb would be neglectible, but the Database offers much more to provide information about it's movies and actors. Best regards, --Plumcouch 14:35, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

You can add the missing stuff..i can understand. But this proves 'reliability' of IMDb. Instead of WP borrowing information from IMDb it is otherwise albeit indirectly by WP users (who first add information from original articles to WP 'filmography' without citing those google articles go ahead and add the same information to IMDb(here it adds original articles)and then cite IMDb another Wiki as its Source .It is only that there you can add original articles which obviously you don't personally work on. If it true then it is one wiki relying on another Wiki. Why is you (self proclaimed yourself the IMDb representative on your personal talk page)instead of wanting to acknowledge the information(Filmography) to the original articles you researched on want to cite IMDB first (eventhough there is no such information there) and then add the information to IMDb when i raise the issue of this unknown link between this film information and IMDb link? Is it not bypassing acknowledgement of original articles and bringing in IMDb which can be added or deleted by you?

To your suggestion that you are capable of subsequently adding information to IMDb (first cite IMDB on WP and then add the missing information to it)my question is why don't you want to add the citations of original articles done by professionals and published as their research instead of blindly citing IMDb first and then add information to it as and when the need arises.i believe your own words prove that IMDb has no original research but relies on editors or contributers like you in which case it is like any other repository of second hand information?Is it proper for WP to acknowledge in their Sources secondary work when there are articles which are original published researched information?

Can the 'intention of WP 'vis a vis IMDb more apparent than this? You can keep IMDb. But why do you don't want to add original researched filmography information. Imdb can atmost have the same reputation as WP in the matter of 'reliability' given the fact that the information there can be added by laypeople ike you after reading original researched articles. More credit can be given to the original work and then you can put at your wish 'Imdb', it being secondary data pool. If IMDb offers other information as well ..well it is well and good, but do show in the article what it provided.The readers do have a right to know where you collected the specific information? I don't know if source can be first cited and then the source can be built on the basis of your article needs? Seems like everything runs the opposite way on WP.

This is capture of IMDb between 10:10 and 10:15 PM (IST)on 10/10/06,Sat of IMDb link found at the bottom of Dia Mirza Article as an 'External Link'. The Filmography shows only 17 movies whereas WP article shows 25 of her movies apparantely sourced from IMdb..since i cannot find any other source for the given 8 movies in the entire article. When confronted how the source has no movies but derived table have them, the immediate reaction of Plumcouch is 'oh i can add the movies info to IMDb if i wanted to'.

Link to the screen capture http://img75.imageshack.us/img75/2968/imdbdia1006061nl.jpg

The above capture is taken anticipating addition and alteration to IMDb filmography page by the said user in future. All i want to ask is 'the source or the derivative which is first built?' Is it proper to built your sources on the basis of your needs of the article? Why all registered users who are eager to defend IMDb but don't allow any other 'original researched' Publication be cited (they being primary source)? ..Anon Alleged Vandal of Dia Mirza Article

--- Plagiarism? Copyright infringement? Seems like it is ok for some people to 'quote' anything without even acknowledging the source! If you don't do it yourself (so called professionals), then how can you expect small sites to do the same? As you have said you are able to alter information on IMDB. Doesn't it suggests that you're affiliated with them (indirectly)? What's so professional about IMDB then? Professional because they fund WP, you control them?

Are you guys also affiliated with Google? Why are you linking through Google cache then (in the footnootes)?

Hi, there.

Erm, not sure what you mean. When I create a filmography for some actress, I generally use IMDb as a basis, then I go to IndiaFM, RadioSargam, Bollywoodplanet and various other pages to compare information. Sometimes, new movies are added, sometimes, others are cropped, because no side, either IMDb, or the Indian movie sites generally have all the information on actors/actresses. Also, IMDb is not cited as a reference, but as an External Link (consensus about this is here: [3] (look for "Conventions").

As for adding information to IMDb: everyone can do that, you just have to click on "Update" at the end of any page. You don't have to be working for IMDb to do that, just register for free. As for my Plumcouch user page: the title of the list where "IMDb represantative" is mentioned is called "So far I have been called" - I don't call myself that stuff. You might want to look at this: sarcasm.

As for references for movie titles: generally, you can read on every major site what movies actors play in or are going to play in. Also, someday, the DVDs appear, you see CDs in a store or see a movie at cinema. What kind of reference do you add in this case? I have seen the movie at cinema? Movies actors play in is general knowledge and if a movie gets cancelled or is put on hold, either note it or simply delete it. Those are no cases of copyright infringement.

Movies are one case. If someone plays in a movie or not, it's pretty easy to find out. One will watch it and correct the article or not. Personal information about movie actors and actresses needs to verified, so you add reference. And there's a line between information on an actor and gossip.

I linked Google cache, because the articles themselves are no longer on the sites. Google cache is the only place where you can still access the information.

As for the IMDb site: I can fill out a form to add Mirza's missing articles, but if IMDb puts it up, I don't know. Generally, I do not contribute to IMDb, but to Wikipedia. IMDb has another bunch of people active for them in their free time. When a user not profesionally working for IMDb (e.g. for money) submits information about an actor/actress, IMDbs own editors (who get paid for it), look through the information and try to verify it. I don't know how they do it, but I guess they have production companies and producers as their source. If they can't verify it, it's not added. Sometimes films appear there, and disappear (like on Wiki), because they don't get made (SRK's Hindustani Spiderman is a recent example). IMDb works different than Wiki and generally, I'd estimete 90%, most information there is verified and true. On India, they are not uptodate, but it got much, much, much better. Give them a bit time to make up and you'll find everything else there too. IMDb sites are added because of the information, the great features and because it's consensus. You'll find their link on almost every actor's page.

--Plumcouch 17:33, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

---Well none of your replies answer my questions. I do know everyone can add to IMDb by registering for free:). I am not into how and why you add information to IMDb. i quote you "Also, IMDb is not cited as a reference, but as an External Link (consensus about this is here: [4] (look for "Conventions")." SO you agree or rather point to WP policy that IMDb is only external link and not a reference to the 'filmography' table made to the article. IF this is true then there is presumably no 'causual connection' between Filmography and IMDb. And it is only a policy of WP to mandatorily make a link of IMDb on cinema related articles (for wahtever reason which ia m not interested).

IMDb not a reference So if this is the case you are not putting any references to the entire 'Table' of Filmography and they are being added randomly without a proper reference merely out of the personal knowlegde of the editor/reg user of WP. Don't you think it affects the quality of the article when it is made out of editors personal knowledge of filmography (since filmography is a major and important and substantial part of any actress/actor article)? My question is simply why don't you add references to the bollywood sites you refer by doing a google search?When you make use of the information of the article why don't cite the links from where you got the reference? Can i watch some news channel and add info of what i see there to the article?Absolutely not. I will go the news channels site note down the reference and then alone i 'll put the information with reference from where i got the information.

So the issues are a)Filmography has no references at all whatsoever and it is being made out of the personal knowledge of the editor/user. How can such an important part be built without any references?

b)Why can't the user add the reference to the bollywood sites from where he got the information?By personal acknowledgement of Plumcouch it is clear that she also relies on bollywood sites for her information which she puts on WP and then on IMDb.Why WP is shying away from acknowledging the 'original works'?

So the information on filmography is being added out of the Gneneral Knowledge of the editor?Don't you think it is ridiculous? You say since movie titles are available on cd covers ,Dvd covers etc..which you may watch at home or theater you can add out of general knowledge.But WP is not built on original researh of individual editors. Every thing available on WP is made from other verifiable sources and not by watching movies and adding movie titles and credits to the filmography table. How come such a major part of an actors career is being added without proper reference? Anon Alleged Vandal of Dia Mirza Article

There's a difference between personal or professional information or trivia and the filmography. Let's take Alag as an example: Alag isn't cited at IMDb, but it's in cinemas all over the country. It's easy to find out if this fact is true or not. Not only one site, but a dozen sites are out there to prove that Mirza had a role in Alag. There is the Official Homepage that cites her playing a part in Alag. You don't need a reference for that; it's easy to verify. (As if you had to put a reference in the article that Shahrukh Khan had a part in KKHH, DDLJ or KANK.) If it's information which is overly trivial, like she owns a dog: first of all, that's too trivial, (we had to conversation about this someparagraphs above) and second, in most cases, you can't prove it. If someone watches a press coverage on Mirza on Mirza, saying that she was, let's say, a militant vegetarian (which is of course, nonsense), and it's put on the article, how can you verify this? There is a fansite out there which says that Mirza's German father is called "Frank Handrich". This is the only place all over the Internet where this is mentioned - but it wasn't added. It may be true, but it's a) a fansite, and b) not possible to verify that - fansites are no trusted sources. If BBC, Sify, RadioSargam or IndiaFM would have that information, things would have been different and I would add it.

As to your second question: you can add information from Bollywood sites, given the fact that you provide a proper reference AND that it is not gossip, no product endorsements or plain un-encyclopaedic (Mirza had an affair with XY, Mirza isn't getting along with XY). If it's something like "Mirza was named UNO embassador and is visiting Third-World-Countries in order to raise money and attention", "Mirza got engaged to Abhishekh Bachchan: Both their represantatives confirmed it" or "Mirza was hired by world-renowned director Steven Spielberg to play Mother Theresa" - that's mentionable. Just check for Featured Articles the time they were featured.

Best regards, --Plumcouch 16:53, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

So if there are more sites to check the filmography you don't need a reference?Is that what you are suggesting? I don't understand how you skip the reference for Filmography? why don't you apply the same rules for trivia and filmography? What is easily verifiable and what is not is your individual judgment and the readers ability and knowledge of the subject. My reply is simple "you cannot have a filmography out of thin air". And the information available on WP is not authored by any single individual (they no tbeing experts in the matters and hence don't carry any weight to what they say).Everything is taken from somewhere else. The manner in which you are separating professional and personal information and then refuse to acknowledge the sources of your information is more annoying than anything else. When you divide and separate professional and private trivia you are making a mistake by concluding that professional info is alway s verifiable and private trivia is not. There are as many sites giving you info on trivia as there are sites giving you professional filmography.

Thanks for your lenghty analogies. You also caught with the the term 'Uneyclopeadic'as Zora (to remove matters which you don't like the way Americans brand people they don't like as communists and leftists). But second question is not any information but filmography in specific. i am not referring to trivia when i said information but the matter in question 'Filmography'. i ask you why cannot say for eg India FM be cited as the source for the filmography. After all they are as reputed as BBC or CNN (known for international and war time news)when they deal in matters of Indian Cinema.

I quote you "Alag isn't cited at IMDb, but it's in cinemas all over the country. It's easy to find out if this fact is true or not." An easy to find out fact for those who are residents of India or those who access to information on India and Indian Cinema. by suggesting some info is more verifiable and some is less verifiable (threfore needs reference)you are adding your own subjective assessment of the matter...may be agreed between some of your colleagues. your statement that trivia is not easily verifiable but filmography can be found easily is not true. A simple Google search shows up any trivial matter of the actor easily and quickly.

Your entire argument seems to rest on the assumption "Matters in public sphere needn't be referred to'. i agree that G.W BusH is president of America and will also agree with the fact that he is well known figure and centre of BBC and CNN. But this doesn't mean you don't refer the source from where you concluded that he is current president of United States. You can simply add a reference of BBC or Cnn tha the he is president of US. When you start reasoning that the reference is based on 'degree of verifiability of the information and degree of trivial nature' you acknowledge that some of the information is purely based on editors/users personal knowledge of the subject.In which case WP is built on personal knowledge of users like you who i assume is not a professional film critic or trade analyst. My point is again the same..'Filmography needs references or sources when they are available in plenty'. you don't cite reference based on your individual assessment of whether the matters needs a source or not.When you state a fact in which you are not party it is common knowledge that people cite references and especially on articles on WP which cannot be traced to a single author. When you cite facts in any article you being totally an outsider as far as the subject is concerned it is natural that you link the source. Only experts have the luxury to skip part of it in some matters.

Please come more clear on the rationale for citing sources/references on WP and how WP is not based on Original reasearch and how it is not built on personal knowledge of the author/editor who for various reasons is not required to be an expert on any matter?

Anon Alleged Vandalof Dia Mirza Article.

If it's a new movie and it's not sure who plays what role and *IF* an actors actually has a part in the movie, I'd most certainly recommend to cite sources. If the movie has already been released, then, now. If you want to verify if Mirza has played in Alag, just enter Alag and Mirza at google and you'll find it. YOu don't need to live in India for that or access Indian movie sites or need to be connected to Bollywood in any way. You don't need a reference to proof that Kajol played in Gupt. That's not a case of personal knowledge.

As for Trivia: like I said, Hrithik Roshan has an additional thumb, Preity has almost been killed twice, Kajol played five times alongside Shahrukh Khan, SRk got almost blown up in some concert, that's something which is mentionable. If Mirza has a dog or not - since it stays in and the other editors don't delete it, I guess it's consensus.

If you visit Bush's article, you'll notice that there's no reference as to the fact that he's President of the United States of America. And the article is watched over by various editors. I guess they'll find it quite weird if you ask them to add a reference to proof that Bush is USA's president. Basically, that's the same with the filmography. Let's add an reference to prove that Misfits was Marylin's last movie or that Harry Potter wears glasses.

Best regards, --Plumcouch 17:03, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

---All your analogies have no rationale basis and are simply what you think it is?It can only be called personal opinion.Its not about what other people think if i ask somebody who G.W Bush is ?Its about hte consistency of policy of WP? All i can say is there is a fairly large amount of arbitrarieness about the way you apply different rules for different and more frustating is the fact that there is no 'proper forum' to settle and decide the issues instead going on and on filling Kbs of data( WP lingo)and ending nowhere.i asked you the reason for citing references on WP ? and not why u cite reference for trivia and not for well known facts(u explained it earlier). But then even trivia ican find by googling or searching and i needn't be from India. What you are saying is simple self judgement on what cosntitutes this and what not?

well i think i made my point quiet clear here. Since you stick to your stand and i to mine and because i decided not to touch the article..i leave this discussion here..it's upto the people who read it..who may think otherwise.. ...Anon Alleged Vandal of Dia Mirza Article.

There is a forum for debating these things. You even used it earlier for the Ash-Forever.com-thingy.

arbitrarieness about the way you apply different rules for different and more frustating is the fact... Not sure, what you mean. Different what? I think there's a noun missing.

Honestly, I'm not sure if you made your point clear. It's a bit difficult to follow your writing at times, since I don't know where some setences end and others start, because of bad punctuation. Anyway, I tried to answer the best I could.

As for citing references - I tried to explain it; and if that explanation isn't enough, you can still ask any editor out there. I'd even look for some names for you, if you want.

Well, it's your choice obviously to leave the discussion. Sorry if you don't agree with WP policies, but I'd like to point out that there are plenty of articles and people who can better explain how things are done here. You'll just have to check out the Community Portal or the links for beginner. I'm merely following the rules established by the project. Best regards and take care,--Plumcouch 21:33, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Best Regards Plumcouch..yes it is my choice to leave the discussion since you put the same analogies when i ask the reason for references on WP? on wp everyone follows his own rules.there is no uniformity in rules as i can see on various articles.You do what you think (call it WP policy or whatever..which is what everyone seems to be doing within his own domain or realm if i can say so). Well i guessed you'll never understand nor you are willing to understand what i am saying.I don't want to discuss my general reference to 'different rules' now for obvious reasons.Don't feel sorry for me because i never felt sorry myself on WP. Its place of its own and i have no regrets for examining time and again what is being said and what is being told. I would like to open the discussion on the above topic if some third party also joins. you repeating the samething again and again for what i've been asking in lenghty paragraphs doesn't seem to worth my effort. And the punctuation or grammar part, you can forgot it since i hardly know and i hardly follow punctuation or grammar in english.

...Anon Alleged Vandal of Dia Mirza Article.

hi Plumcouch,

There are three new movies apparantely signed by her. Make a search.:)

...Anon Alleged Vandal of Dia Mirza Article.

Hi, Anon, took me some time to find a news site to report it. Anyway, I found one and will add the movies immediately. Apparently, directors like to put Diya in movies where Arjun Rampal has a part too - if those announced movies are going to be made, they have worked seven times together. Best regards, --Plumcouch 20:07, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

--Is this observation(Rampal and Dia) your own or have you read it somewhere? If they act together many movies.. so what?

...Anon alleged Vandal of Dia Mirza Article.

[edit] Hindu Vs Muslim

where is the self professed guardian of the article -Plumcouch? So many edits and no sign of him/her. There seems to be an edit war going on over her religion. Her mother Deepa Mirza is a Hindu n biological father a christian(assumption he being an european..there r other possibilities as well) and step father an Indian Muslim. Since Dia personally doesn't profess any particular religion n she herself is confused over the matter (evident from her interviews)her religion is subject of Indian Personal laws. Under Hindu Succession Act even if one of the parents is a hindu and the child is brought up as a member of the hindu community she is a hindu.In other words she needs acceptance of the community around as a hindu apart from being born to a Hindu Parent. On the otherhand she could be a Hindu if she is not a muslim or christian in India. She was not born to 'Ahmed Mirza' her step father who brought her up in Hyd. Apparently she was brought as a Muslim. But Indian Hanfai Muslim laws r different on definition of 'Muslim.'

Indian Law n Dia or Diya Mirza----

ok here is the legal position of dia..touching hinduism, christianity,islam.

who is a Hindu?

explanation to sec 2 of the Hindu marriage Act,1955: Explanation : The following persons are Hindus, Buddhists, Jainas or Sikhs by religion, as the case may be:-

(b) any child, legitimate or illegitimate, one of whose parents is a Hindu, Buddhist, Jaina or Sikh by religion and who is brought up as a member of the tribe, community, group or family to which such parent belongs or belonged.

if dia's mother at the time of her birth is a hindu n if dia was brought up as a hindu she is a hindu irrespective of her father's religion(christianity) remember even if the mother deepa converts to islam subsequent to dia's birth it is irrelevant. she could still be a hindu even if both parents r muslims.

who is a Mahomedan?

Mullah's book on muslim law: Any person who professes the Mahomedan religion, that is acknowledges 1)that there is but one God and 2)that Mahommed is his prophet is a MAhomedan. if it is conversion to islam no religious ceremony is necessary. it is sufficient if he/she satisifies the above two priniciples. if one of parents is a moslem he/she can be moslem only if she is brought up as a muslim(again the principles).

About Dia's Parents religion:

Dia's biological father's reigion doesn't stop her from becoming a hindu. her step father hamid mirza is irrelevant here as she was not born out of marriage to him.

Conclusion: the key factor here is if dia's mother is a hindu at the time of her birth n whether she was brought up as a hindu? since she says she was brought up in a muslim house hold..(subject to interpretation) she may or may not a hindu based on the second condition. even if dee's mother did convert to islam as required under islam law to marry a non kabita by a muslim male, it doesn't effect dia as she is born to a hindu mother orignally. But then she is not even muslim since neither of her parents at the time of her birth belong to islam. step father is irrelevant here. she can always choose to convert to islam. that is her position as it stands based on the facts i gathered.

People can reach their conclusions based on these Indian Laws. ..Anon Alleged Vandal of Dia Mirza Article.

Why should we care about her religion? We all love her regardless of her beliefs. So stop fighting guys and chill. Dia Mirza is for everyone to appreciate and enjoy her work!

Although she was brought up in a Muslim household, she has stated that she does not adhere to the faith. And I removed where it said she worships Ganesha, because she never explicitly states that. She only says Ganesha appeals to her the most, when asked. So currently she professes no religion. - Showman16