Talk:J. Jayalalithaa

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.

Start

This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale. (add comments)

This article is maintained by the Indian politics workgroup.

This article is maintained by the Tamil Nadu workgroup.

[edit] Elections 2001

The election results in 2001 where not unprecedented. In fact, the AIADMK could win only four seats in the previous elections, 2 of its members later split.

-- Sundar 05:21, Jul 20, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Move/Retitle

Is there any reason why this shouldn't be moved to "Jayalalithaa Jayaram". That seems to be the proper title in keeping with wiki style. Feco 22:53, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

We can move it but for the fact that she's not well known by that name and she herself doesn't use the full form anywhere. Also, in this part of India, surnames are only either a necessity due to passport and other federal documents or due to some political figure wanting to show his/her political lineage. -- Sundar (talk · contribs) 05:28, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Neutrality

I suppose the neutrality of the article is disputed due to the following.

Her successes Relaxation camp for elephants that served in temples ==> well disputed Attracting many IT companies to Chennai - including INFOSYS ==> not to be trumpeted Successfully implementing rain water harvesting measures on schedule. ==> Let Chennai's water problem be solved first.

On deeper consideration, we don't even need to include her successes! Apart from these, all the other stuff mentioned seem to be facts. The non-NPOV tag can then be removed.

I strongly feel there should be a commendation for her bold efforts (revoking free power, etc). We could also include the unpopular midnight harrasment of Karunanidhi which led to widespread riots. 155.69.5.235

Insert non-formatted text here== Dont Defame Her - She is Really a Revolutionary Leader ==

I Really Ready to Aruge with those who are defaming her in a Informal bad manner...

She has Made many Good things to Tamil Nadu and India.. Her Recent Achivements are enomrous and that has made a Tamilnadu a Most favoured destination for Direct Foriegn Investments..

Some of her achievments are untold or mislead by medias

So that media is disgracing her. but her dedicated efforts and her affection on people and particulary on tamil people and women is untold and unseen by these scanvengers....

Her Good Steps which has been Welcomed and applaized by Genaral Public..

1 . Implementing A strong Measure on RAINWATER HARVESTING . this has significantly improved the water levels in all parts of tamilnadu.

2. Her Efforts on TSUNAMI Relif...

  As soon she heard something has happended badly in the costal areas he immedatly ordered the officals to do the needful and went to  the affected areas for direct relif efforts..

 If she waited for few more mintues she would be also affected by second tsunami waves... she is bold lady and iron lady of india. she continoued her efforts in the relif in a proper and well planned manner.,,,

This has brought her to the global arena.. now world bank has sanctioned a huge sum to the affected people relif and with her visionary and modern taught  a massive rebuilding of tamilnadu coastal work is going on...

3. Her Concerns on WOMEN EMPOWERMENT & EDUCATION..

 She understood the strugles of women, she was very active in providing all sort of support to goverment schools and offer a quality education.. in some parts of tamilnadu they wont let their female child out when it grown  up, she ordered a strong measure with the sceme name "KATAYA KALVI" - "EDUCATION MUST" and ordered her officals to door knock all houses in rural areas and spread the message and enroll students in schools..

this is great succesive scheme where large number of female students have joined in the schools now, he also recruited and filled the vaccanicies in goverment schools and to improve quality of education..

she has also offered free bi-cycle to all female students from rural and urban goverment schools. so that now many students from these areas are the toppers in the results..

does her efforts stopped... never....

Recently she has impletemented a new scheme ,those who are studing in goverment schools  from 1 st standard to 12 th will recive free books and notes .

even last week  she has abolized old admission process and has lighted the dreams of rural low income students to get in proffesional courses..

she also introduced self help groups among women and thus it created a massive job oppursunites and a high level of income to women, once they were called as home makers now they are the business women of rurals...

as this schems was big sucess she has impleted once such to employed youth...

She is strong law keeper and when ever she finds a law breaker sure they will be punished. is this wrong ?

for it is not a karunanidthi or kamakodi all are one, if they breaks law . defently she will take law to do its due course and safe guard law and order.

Now People of Tamilnadu Under stood her... thats why they had given her a massive victory in two bi-polls..

her rivalary was 7 party co-liasion and she a single lady , people  was on her side , they made her a landslide victory and by swiping 7 party to a trash can.

in coming months  tamilnadu is going for state polls , i assure this time she is going to win all the seats and it is a guiness record, there will no opposite party will win in the elections..

People is on her side and i personally dont feel for your bloody defame...

soon i am going to lauch a dedicated website for our amma who has giving our tamil people a new life and new power.

we support amma [JAYA MAM ] till our souls REST IN PEACE....

# Please sign your name whenever you post anything on the talk page.

# Media in South India is fair. We have neutral papers like The Hindu, Deccan Chronicle, Indian Express, etc. And neutral channels like Doordarshan (Free to all). You do not need to blame the entire media for a small group of people.

# You cant generalise and say that her steps are successful. We do not have any concrete indicators. For example, give information supporting RWH - some stat which says RWH increased the max during her period due to her efforts or not. Only then can you make a statement that she was successful

# Successes will be listed only if a person has been conferred an award or title.

[edit] Some POV points eliminated

some of the pov and biased points have been weeded and added some trivia and conspiracy theories. the point on the success of elimination of video piracy is a joke as anyone in the media industry will tell u. it has only created a much advanced piracyregime including that of internet and downloading etc. with DVD piracy on the rise. initial success does not equate with long term success. Idleguy 07:19, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

An article on a political figure is not a piece of propaganda. It does NOT need to include the person's successes, unless they have been noted by a national or international body or organisation in the form of an award or a title. - 155.69.5.234

[edit] Removing Successes and Failures

Successes and failures have to be supported by concrete facts and conferment of awards or titles by national and international agencies. For the lack of the above, and also for the very fact that success or failure is disputed, it has been removed from the main article. QUOTE

[edit] Major successes of her government

Banning of High interest private loans
Banning lottery tickets to encourage savings
Elimination of the much feared bandit Veerappan.
Introduction of Videoconferencing in Jails and Courts, thus eliminating the need to bring the accused to extend the remand every time.

[edit] Shortcomings and Failures

Anticonversion law - which she subsequently withdrew following the drubbing she had in 2004 Lok Sabha Elections
H Ration Cards - subsequently withdrawn
Cancelling the entrance exams for admission to professional courses

UNQUOTE 1.Rain Harvesting Scheme introduced by J.Jayalaitha is Grand Success.

2.Rural Women Self Help Programme is also benifitted lakhs of ladies in villages.

[edit] NPOV tag added on 1 Dec 2005

Numerous PoV additions in the article. Some partially justified by links and criticisms, some are definitely in need of justification or removal. These are especially found in the 'Corruption Charges' and 'Extravagant Lifestyle' sections. Imc 19:48, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] wrong edits by 195.83.212.235

the following edit is factually incorrect.

"In line with the supreme court ruling she stepped down as the chief minister and O Panneerselvam a junior minister of her party was sworn in as the new chief minister. Her opponents called Mr. panneerselvam a "puppet". In the later days her conviction was overturned by a superior court resulting in her retunrning to the post she vacated in the first place."

There is no superior court than Supreme court in India. The earlier contents were more informative and correct. One wonders as to the need to delete the specific and correct points and include incorrect statements without even knowing that there is no superior court than Supreme Court.

The persons editing may kindly create an id and leave the id so that the continuity can be achieved. Aiadmk, dec 9, '05

[edit] blp

There's a ton of stuff on this article that, while almost certainly factual, is not sufficiently cited. JJ is famously litigious, so unless something is done about refs soon, much of it will have to be removed per WP:BLP. Hornplease 08:34, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes please. But the "controversial" section of her being MGR's mistress is backed by tons of sources. Her so called marriage with Shoban Babu unless backed by a proper cite will have to go soon. However I read in a Tamil magazine about Karunanidhi making a remark about her link with Mr. Babu from a 1989-1990 assembly speech. However, if anyone cannot get a cite from the original 1971 Tuqlak mag or another solid source, it has to go soon. Idleguy 14:11, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Dear Idleguy, Your frequent edits violates following points on Wikipedia policies on living persons.

Category tags regarding religious beliefs and sexual preference should not be used unless two criteria are met:

The subject publicly self-identifies with the belief or preference in question The subject's beliefs or sexual preferences are relevant to the subject's notable activities or public life Caution should be used in adding categories that suggest the person has a low reputation. See Invasion of privacy#False light.

She is the political leader. She cannot be used with titles like Concubine. Wikipedia policy on living persons clearly states that we have to exercise great caution while editing about living persons. All citation quoted by you cannot be considered verifiable. You can attack her political decisions. You cannot launch personal attack. I can quote many points from wikipedia policy to justify my argument. But I don't want to launch edit war. I hope you will stay will away from launching personal attack on any individual.

Thanks --Lravikumar 16:54, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Pl see my response here. Idleguy 18:18, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

You should have only blanked the page after a consensus was reached. More over, there is nothing called as Gossip Magazine. It is Magazine. And I don't agree with you calling all the sources as Gossip Magazines. You should note that the para is based on well cited sources, which no one in Tamil Nadu can disagree.

Point two. I disagree with your view that don't mind if you attack about her political decisions/political life etc Even that has to be cited and there should be more sources for that.

Remember that it is clearly given (in another article) that another Tamil Nadu CM has two wives.

If people go on blanking all that is not good about their favourite leaders, then we will have no articles in Wikipedia at all.

There is no policy in Wikipedia which says you cannot write about affairs. (Note that Sexual Orientation is different from affairs). See Princess Diana and Bill Clinton for example. Of course, you cannot write completely baseless affairs. But the para is question is NOT ORIGINAL RESEARCH and should be maintained as it is well cited. Doctor Bruno 19:09, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Given that consensus from the two who have responded on noticeboard suggests that no policies have been violated, I presume it's ok for me to now add some more sources for the live in relationship with MGR etc. Idleguy 10:25, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Personal Life

It is not correct to write something that one is not sure of. MGR had three wives - 1st wife's name was Thangamani. After her death MGR married Sadanandavathi and then he married V.N.Janaki. Manirathnam's movie is not a true biographical account of MGR's or Karunanidhi's life and if it is so that character of Aiswarya Rai - the actress dies before MGR. MGR never had a long standing extramaritial relationship with Jayalalitha. MGR never loved Jayalalitha and has never stated anywhere that he loves Jayalalitha. It would be better if the title of the picture of MGR and Jayalalitha that she was the lady love of MGR in real and reel life is removed. The media is making up things that are not true and that is being given as citations. kumarrajendran 18:00, 4 November 2006

I think you should read the previous messages on the same issue. This has already been discussed in length. Also see Wikipedia:Verifiability official policy. Tx Idleguy 14:33, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Screenshots removed

Film screenshots are not eligible for fair use in an article like this, unless the film in question is being critiqued/discussed. Therefore they have been removed from the article. kumarrajendran 04:00, 5 November 2006

[edit] Movies

Jayalalithaa was a very famous actress and had acted in scores of movies before she entered politics. It would be nice to see a section about her Movies and acting. In fact, I believe this should be the first section in this article (chronologically). The current article mentions a couple of lines about her movies then directly jumps to Politics. --Madhu 14:23, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Problem with a citation source

Citation 17, the one directed towards this quote, "Jayalalithaa's detractors draw attention to the 1995 wedding of her adopted son as an example of her extravagant show of wealth. Guinness Book of Records records the ensuing wedding banquet as the largest ever", does not work. The (not working) link is http://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/content_pages/record.asp?recordid=54234. So a source that works is needed. Thank you. Battlecruiser 16:06, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Achievements

The entire section on achievements is completely unreferenced. Citations and sourcing are a must for claims of this nature. I've inserted a template calling for citations, rather than cluttering up the page with individual fact templates. Hornplease 01:18, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Foster Son wedding

I think the extravagant wedding of her Foster son Sudhakaran needs to be mentioned in this article. It is a wedding with a record breaking attendence and source of many controversies. Thanks! ώiki Ѕαи Яоzε ^†αLҝ 18:54, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I fully support your point--Indianstar 19:00, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] POV tag for Personal life section

I have added NPOV tag due to following reasons. Sentence about her personal life needs to be removed due to following reasons.

1) Violates WP:UNDUE. She is the popular leader. Few citations based on views of certain editors is minority point of view. It is the viewpoint of extremely small minority so it does not belong to Wikipedia. Wellknown Indian newspapers does not mention about her relationship with MGR though she is very popular leader and appear in news reports on daily basis.

2) Some citations violates WP:SPS which discourages self published sources even if author is prominent editor. It asks us to be extremely careful on biographies.

3) Exceptional claims requires multiple high quality citations. Points about her personal life is not supported by multiple high quality citations. WP:REDFLAG asks us to be extremely careful about Biographies due to libel issues and politically charged issues.

4) Some citations are not verifiable since login is required.

5) Story has been built by taking cue from one word mistress mentioned in unreliable citations(as per WP:BLP) Mistress has multiple meanings including positive meanings. Citations does not say anything about her personal relationship except that word. Editors of good standing seems to have assumed in bad sense. Sentence in the article violates WP:SYN and can be termed as original research. She is not married so Extramarital does not come into picture.

6) This point is not mentioned in MGR article which shows bad faith editing.

I can quote violations of many Wikipedia rules. I want to keep my discussion short. Likes to chip in incase of further discussions.--Indianstar 19:00, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I see no synthesis as the cited sources (Asian Times, for example) use the same terminology. Second, it's not extramarital for Jayalalithaa but for MGR. Please point out exactly which citations are unreliable or not verifiable. We can weed them out if required. Requiring logins do not amount to unverifiability, I think. As long as it is published in a reliable source that someone can look up (even at a cost), it should be deemed verifiable. If the remaining citations are insufficient, we can rewrite the section making fewer claims. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 03:38, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I am opposing mainly on WP:UNDUE. Just check how many web sites talks about Jayalalitha and how many of them talks about her affair. This should prove it is a small minority view. As per Jimbo smally minority view don't belong to wikipedia. Dictionaries give different meanings for word mistress. Mistress is the only word which appears in citations. There are no additional sentences in any of the citation to show its context. Sentence currently in the article gives the impression that "extramarital" word is meant for Jayalalitha. Ref WP:BLPSTYLE, Biographies of living persons should be written in responsibly, conservatively, in neutral, encyclopedic tone. Availability of 2-3 web pages with word mistress in ambiguous way out of millions of web pages about Jayalalitha does not make statement as majority point of view. In Jimbo's words,

Even Wikipedia rules suggest to remove such derogatory words attributed to minority view citations immediately from Biographic articles without discussion in Talk page to avoid libel actions. Words in sentence like Extramarital, popular knowledge are synthesis. However irrespective of whether it is Synthesis or not, it has to be removed because it is a small minority view. None of the mainstream newspapers in India talked about this matter though her name appears on daily basis in these newspapers. --Indianstar 04:08, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I have removed contents about her personal life as per Wikipedia:Avoiding harm which suggests to remove titilating claims first and then discuss in Talk page.[1]. Given statements clearly and unambiguously violates following guidelines of Wikipedia:Avoiding harm.

"Wikipedia is not a tabloid, and we are not in the business of "outing" people or publishing revelations about their private lives, whether such information is verifiable or not. As Wikipedia has a wider international readership than most individual newspapers, and Wikipedia articles tend to be permanent, it is important to use sensitivity and good judgment in determining whether a piece of information should be recorded for posterity."

Following quote of Jimbo is applicable for this article contents

Real people are involved, and they can be hurt by your words. We are not tabloid journalism, we are an encyclopedia.

–Jimmy Wales ^[1]

--Indianstar 05:08, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I left message in talk page and removed after 2 days as persuggested procedure. No discussions has taken place earlier whether it violates WP:UNDUE and Wikipedia:Avoiding harm. Suggested procedure clearly says to remove first and then discuss. I am open for discussions. We can go for Third opinion as suggested in suggested procedure. I have also mentioned that some citations violates WP:SPS and some citations leads to "Page cannot be displayed" message.--Indianstar 06:25, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] POV tag for entire article

I have added POV tag for entire article. Article covers only criticisms in depth. Other aspects are not covered. Violates WP:UNDUE and WP:BLP. It violates following points mentioned about Criticisms in WP:BLP

"The views of critics should be represented if they are relevant to the subject's notability and can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to side with the critics; rather, it needs to be presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone. Be careful not to give a disproportionate amount of space to critics, to avoid the effect of representing a minority view as if it were the majority one. If the criticism represents the views of a tiny minority, it has no place in the article. Care must be taken with article structure to ensure the overall presentation is broadly neutral, in particular, header structure for regions or subsections should reflect important areas to the subject's notability."

Criticism section overwhelms total article contents. She is notable even before joining politics. Article focusses mainly on her political criticisms.--Indianstar 07:04, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I plan to shorten criticism section to make it comply with WP:BLP. If anybody has views on which important points needs to be retained and which points to be deleted, Please share it. I plan to add sections on Early life and Film career to cover all aspects of her life. If anybody has ideas about which sections to be added please share your viewpoints.--Indianstar 05:46, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

If you are a supporter of Jayalalitha, it doesn't mean you have to remove sourced criticism which amounts to only 2 lines and claim that it overwhelms the total article contents, especially when it is cited from reputable sources across the world and is pertinent to how she managed to get into power (from being MGR's mistress). As far as I know only you seem to object to this inclusion when other neutral disinterested editors have agreed to keep this section since it is properly cited and is not some blatant attack or unfounded rumour.

See [[2]] and then you'll see the consensus on this tricky issue. Thanks. --Idleguy 02:53, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Content being discussed is exactly like what is described in Wikipedia:Avoiding harm. I am telling again that it was removed as per Suggested procedure which clearly says to remove, discuss as per WP:HARM#TEST and then add after consensus. Please read what I told before clicking Undo button. Earlier discussions never focused about WP:UNDUE or WIKIPEDIA:Avoiding harm. Thanks for attributing motive for my edit. I know you are a “ideal guy” who is trying to improve this article as featured article by making various unsourced edits like this for the last 2 years. [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] Please read what I told before clicking Undo button.

POV tag for entire article is based on disproportionate amount of space for criticism. So please discuss it as separate issue. I never told issues in personal life section overwhelms article contents. Some people who told it is cited are reputed administrators. You can ask them to share their opinion whether it qualifies WP:UNDUE and qualifies POV tag for disproportionate amount of space for criticisms. People are disinterested because of numerous reverts by you and 24/7 watching whereas others may not be having that much energy and time. --Indianstar 13:39, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Pl. do not attempt to misquote me by saying I added all the unsourced statements. I was merely readding it (as the edit summary clearly indicates) and to say I was adding it smacks of provocation without proof. I am the one who eventually added the sources for previously uncited claims and allowed unsourced lines to be eventually deleted. So please, read carefully and slowly before jumping to half baked conclusions. Further, consensus has already been reached by disinterested (pl. see dictionary for the correct meaning for it is not "uninterested" editors as u presume) parties and I have nothing to say about someone who violates past consensus on the issue. Idleguy 16:35, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

If you are readding something, you should make sure it is sourced and acceptable as per wikipedia policy. All edits quoted by me do not carry any sources. I quoted wiki rules, invited you for discussions, left message in your talk page. You were maintaining consensus is already reached. You are a good contributor but since beginning, you flouted all wiki rules in this article by adding lot of unsourced claims. Past consensus never discussed about WP:UNDUE. Availability of few sources does not mean it can be inserted into wikipedia. Add word "Gay" with any famous personality, you will get search results in thousands. Some of them may be from reputed websites.--Indianstar 16:52, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Inclusion Test

Following are the criteria in Inclusion test. Is the information already widely known?

As per Alexa rating, Rediff, India times, Sify, Hindu (Tamilnadu’s largest selling newspaper), NDTV, Indian express, Hindustan times etc are most accessed websites. In Tamil, Dinamalar, Daily Thanthi, Dinakaran, Thatstamil are most accessed websites and newspapers, This contentious issue never appeared in these mainstream newspapers or websites. Out of around 300 thousand web references, less than 10(Around 5?) websites, some blogs, some wikipedia mirror sites quotes this word which shows it is a small minority view.

Is the information definitive and factual?

Some of these citations added by Idleguy itself quotes that as rumours. If it is definitive then it would have received widespread coverage like Clinton or Diana episode

Is the information given due weight in relation to the subject's notability?

No. Very few web references out of large web references about her shows it is a candidate for WP:UNDUE weightage. Even those websites mentions only single word called Mistress. Few comes under WP:SPS. They don’t show any references, photos additional information about their relationship.

Sentences and wordings generated by Idleguy cannot be attributable to original citations.--Indianstar 13:39, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

You mean to say The Economic Times, New York Times, Asiaweek and other such sources which clearly indicate the close relationship with MGR are merely insignificant "websites, some blogs, some wikipedia mirror sites" in your own words? Please read the sources carefully, for I have carefully used atleast 3 citations that use the word "mistress" next to that particular word, which I believed was contentious. False accusations of editors of lying about citations as in your final comment, without having properly done the reading, is demeaning. Idleguy 16:43, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Economic times citation leads to Page cannot be displayed message. Newyork times citation is Shashi Tharoor's website hosted by Newyork times. ( Which I told violates WP:SPS). Availability of few messages in 1 or 2 reputed magazines over the entire period of her history out of thousands of articles about her shows it is a small minority view. I told prominent Indian newspapers/websites as per Alexa rating and other sources never carried this news.--Indianstar 17:00, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I think there are enough reliable sources that can be cited that she was indeed reputed to be MGR's mistress.[11] [12] Wiki San Roze ^†αLҝ 00:30, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reason for WP:UNDUE

Google has 400 thousand plus references for the subject. Could be 300 thousand if you exclude other usages of her name. I was able to find at the maximum 20 less/more significant pages quoting about her relationship if you omit blogs,discussion forums, wikipedia mirror sites. Is it not Undue weightage. Idleguy created illusion that his sentence is well cited. I checked Alexa rating for websites of his citations and found most of them are insignificant sites with the exception of few.Questia Online collection. Rating for Individual article not relevant, Crisis states Alexa Rank 50009517,Aghilam Alexa Rank 695594, Asiaweek Alexa Rank 23674, Etimes See other section, Atimes Alexa Rank 23674, India Together Alexa Rank 252909.

Amazon rating for his books are 1312218,2255810,472609.(Somebody can suggest better way to evaluate significance of books). Barring Times of India, it does not appear[[13],[14][15][16] in Top Alexa rating sites of India (Probably he may be able to dig few references). If we decide this as Due weightage it will set wrong precedent for Biographies. I don't plan to argue any more on this subject. Let BLP Board decide.--Indianstar 12:19, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Your loyalty to this politician perhaps(?) means you have a warped view on the subject, coming up with excuses to discredit reputable magazines, journals and books by authors (one of whom is a vocal feminist) as insignificant. By your reckoning of using Amazon sales ranking to evaluate the reliability, fictional works like Harry Potter series will henceforth be a much more significant work to quote from, for real life facts. Idleguy 01:59, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Your hatred to this politican has made you to write/readd unsourced nonsense about her sexual orientation, her marriages etc. I added criticisms/positive points to this article. I am a balanced person. This hatred makes you to believe anything negative written about her anywhere as encyclopedic quality. --Indianstar 05:17, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Great. By your logic, this & this edit on article Karunanidhi - another prominent Tamil politician - where I was the one who added 2 reliable sources for a well known fact that he has more than one wife, should therefore mean I hate him, because I wrote about his marriages. To top it, this edit thus proves that because I added factual statements on terrorism in India, now I'm an India-hater! Great reasoning. Idleguy 16:58, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

You should differentiate between facts and rumours. Karunanidhi married 2 or 3 wives legally and he has never denied it. Terroism is seen by people. But in this edit, how did you ascertain fact about her homosexuality. Did you read it from Encyclopedia or whether somebody peeped through her house window. How you have verified availability of her son? Did you get photo from Jeppiar who was claiming to release photo. How did you know her jewels were bought using black money. Did you collect info from Chidambaram through RTI?. This article is unique in wikipedia. In past history, IP Addresses followed wiki rules and reputed named users with full of barnstars vandalised the page with unsourced info.(Please feel free to ask citation). Your past edits for this article are suitable for Uncyclopedia. I do appreciate your contributions to other articles and your relentless efforts to maintain quality(?) of this article. I will give up as I am not idle now. --Indianstar 14:58, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Why is it that edits from way back in 2005 when I wasn't fully aware of Wikipedia policies, and when BLP was far different from today being used to talk about the currently discussed matter which is fully cited? Is it because I'm the only one who adds reliable sources as citation for well known facts which you personally disapprove of? It appears you know more about her illicit/illegal facts (Jeppiar link) than myself, so I don't know what the big fuss is all about. Idleguy 02:44, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] why was Successes and Failures removed when Criticisms still exists??

this articles seem to have been edited safely to keep the negative aspects on the forefront , when publishing an article about some famous personalities all the aspect's must be included , when writing about political career or personal both the success and failures must be included , when Criticisms finds a main stay in the article her success has been largely ignored

Elimination of the much feared bandit Veerappan
Banning of High interest private loans
Banning lottery tickets

these were even discussed as a major success and achievement in the well known media such as BBC [17], this article seem to been one sided and seem to deliver a wrong image to one and all . Pearll's sun (talk) 20:53, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

- - This article is mostly monitored by Jayalalitha haters who wants to maintain their own POV. Others don't have time and energy to fight with them. History of this article will show even administrators took full liberty to vandalise this article. Her policies are controversial which antagonized majority of educated masses. Since wikipedia is maintained by educated masses, systematic bias in this article is likely to persist. --Indianstar (talk) 12:34, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

yup ...u r right...this article has been diverted to go anti jaya to its full extent in all possible ways ....when doing something new controversy is inevitable , that to her policies catch much public and media attention , her every single move is watched by both the state and central .... this is the same for almost all political personalities.....every single party and political personality have their own pros & cons . but its so shocking to see even her bold moves are missing ...her creation of the India's first women commando force too seem to be absent in this article , where is the take over of liquor market by her government ?? where is veeranam ?? where is TESMA ?? where is the tsunami relief effort?? .....this article is nothing but a whole collection of anti jaya preach .....this will sure harm wiki image . Pearll's sun (talk) 19:42, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

- - I lost hope. I had quoted multiple wiki rules about how this article contents violates all wiki rules. A guy wants to insert minority view as a fact. He takes silence in BLP as acceptance of his views by wiki community. Many times, anonymous IP Addresses removed unsourced abusive languages which was reinserted by famous administrators. --Indianstar (talk) 15:29, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

well then should we bring this one under deletion (AFD) review , this type of one sided and substandard articles doesnt have the moral right to stay here i think , i think only this attempt will bring this issue to everyones notice else selected single sided and vandler's will continue to have their control this article and all our effort would go vain , sure like you even i would lost hope and start to ignore this then this article will be left out without any one to save . Pearll's sun (talk) 17:31, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

- Poorly written or non neutral contents are not accepted as reasons for AFD. Only original research or non notability are accepted as reasons for AFD. --Indianstar (talk) 05:16, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

then only god should save this article . —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pearll's sun (talk • contribs) 10:38, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rewrite

Why dont we rewrite the whole article abiding by the norms of WP:BLP? The article always can be biased either towards a WP:FAN or WP:NPOV, nevertheless, she is a very prominent leader with a huge following who has influenced both regional and national level politics. The LEAD paragraph is by itself pathetic in my opinion. Dravidian politics is ideology based and doesn't need the leader to be a Tamil. I see no point in mentioning that in the lead. Chronology of events are missing. I propose that the article should start with a least controvertial lead the proceeding on to

Early life
Movie career
Entry into politics
Rise to power
Tenure as CM
As leader of the opposition
Influence in national politics
Awards and recognitions
Criticism

This article will indeed attract suporters and haters alike, but that shouldn't stop anyone from being bold and putting the foot down. Opinions and suggestions are welcome. Cheers Wiki San Roze ^†αLҝ 06:18, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

- good work , indeed this will include all that is needed for a living personality in wikipedia , indeed we must rewrite it the way you have mentioned , controversy is present in almost all leading politicians world wide moreover she is a very prominent and is the only possible candidate for the chief minister from the opposition , that too being a president of one of the biggest Dravidian politics party which came to power several times , as far as my knowledge she is a tamil like we find tamilians in Malaysia , Singapore , srilanka , Switzerland , Canada and in many parts of the world . this article really needs a rewrite to survive . --Pearll's sun (talk) 20:00, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks mate. It is my opinion that we may want to move about her mother tongue to Early life or background if need to be mentioned, rather than in the lead. Given that there are good number of sources that claim otherwise, we should bear in mind that she claims herself to be Tamil. Her oponents (for eg: EVKS Elangovan [18]) and atleast one third party source claims that she is not a Tamil [19]. The best for us to do is to state both sides or just not mention it. Either way, its best not to state that in the lead. Cheers Wiki San Roze ^†αLҝ 16:32, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

well we'll not put any thing about Tamil until it has been solved . so now lets start to improve the article . --Pearll's sun (talk) 11:56, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

i'v cleaned the article to some extent by removing story type infos , if you feel wht iv done is wrong u may very well correct it or undo it . i wont mistake , my primary intention is just to present a good article to users .--@ the $un$hine . (talk) 20:04, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

- Main problem with this article is disproportionate amount of space to criticisms. In my opinion, Shortening criticism section to 1 paragraph with 4-5 sentence is the 1st step to bring neutrality to the article. Entire criticism section was developed out of competition between 3-4 wikipedians by adding Expand tag. Even Saddam Hussien, Osama Bin Laden or Adolf Hitler articles don't have this much of space for criticisms. This article has to be written in WP:Summary style, which means criticism has to be one small part of the article. If required Jayalalitha haters can write separate summary style article with the name of Criticisms of Jayalalitha like Criticism of George W. Bush or Criticism of Osama bin Laden. This new article can contain subsections like Extravagant lifestyle, Arrogance etc etc to satisfy whims and fancies of certain individuals --Indianstar (talk) 15:36, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
if the article is rewritten as u'v stated then it would be nice and neutral , im ready to assist u for the same .--@ the $un$hine . (talk) 11:16, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

well .i still dont find a reason for the inclusion of her personal life there . why not we make the criticism and and private life bigger than that of real article ?? the critisism , politics ,Personal Life & Corruption charges seems to have no difference than the change in subtitle's , i think the best way is to change the title to Criticisms of Jayalalitha which would atleast serve the real meaning of the article --@ the $un$hine . (talk) 17:00, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image

- - why dont we use this pic from tamil wiki as the article main pic [[20]] .--@ the $un$hine . (talk) 11:19, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

The image there doesn't seem to be under fair use rational (correct me if am wrong), but alternatively I think we can crop the current image in this article. Do you think that will be a problem chaps? Wiki San Roze ^†αLҝ 11:35, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

yup croping the image will do , good idea .we dont need a group pic for a single person --@ the $un$hine . (talk) 11:46, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Its done. Wiki San Roze ^†αLҝ 11:51, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

- good work ! ~~but it would be nice if someone comes out with a good pic where only she is present~~ .--@ the $un$hine . (talk) 13:25, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

the latest pic is amazing !! Wiki San Roze u r rocking !!--@ the $un$hine . (talk) 13:35, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Thats very kind. :) Wiki San Roze ^†αLҝ 19:37, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Early life

Chaps, I have found this nice article describing her Early life from a shy introvert to an Iron Lady (oops weasle!!). It can be found here, but am not adding details from it yet since am not sure if this would be WP:RS. Can someone more knowledgeable enlighten me on this please. Cheers Wiki San Roze ^†αLҝ 14:49, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Seems to be the good source. Jayalalitha wrote story in Kumudam about her early life which more or less confirm events mentioned in this article. --Indianstar (talk) 11:31, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

- - amazing ARTICLE !! welldone Wiki San Roze , indeed a good source , will do a lot help to improve this article .--@ the $un$hine . (talk) 13:31, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Name

Should the article be called Jayalalithaa Jayaram or J. Jayalalithaa? Isn't she known better by the latter? How many people in TN do know that the initial J stands for Jayaram? Wiki San Roze ^†αLҝ 23:52, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

- yup true ! she is wellknown by the latter . barely may be 5-7% may be familiar with Jayalalithaa Jayaram i suppose and moreover all my friends from the north of India knows her by amma and then by jayalalitha , i wonder even people from TamilNadu knows her by Jayalalithaa Jayaram ~~so we must rename the article to Jayalalithaa and redirect this title Jayalalithaa Jayaram & J.Jayalalithaa to Jayalalithaa~~ .--@ the $un$hine . (talk) 04:58, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

- - it's good if the name is maintained as the current form (J.Jayalalithaa) and redirect Jayalalithaa Jayaram & Jayalalithaa to the same , i mean what Wiki San Roze has done now is fit to be the title .--@ the $un$hine . (talk) 11:54, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

- - - In Karunanidhi's wikipage there is no foto of him. In that they mentioned 'Kalaignar'. But here in JJ's page under her foto, they put as ex-chief minister. If Karunanidhi's caption is correct, then we have to mention 'Puratchi Thalaivi' here too. --Sooooper

your request has been worked , now "Kalaignar" caption has been changed to "Karunanidhi" and a redirect of "Puratchi Thalaivi" "J. Jayalalithaa"to has been done . it would be really nice if you appear with a login name . --@ the $un$hine . (talk) 23:40, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

- - - - In Karunanidhi's wikipage there is no mention of his Sarkaria oozhal and all his loots. We have to mention that too. -- Sooooper —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.8.23.3 (talk) 16:52, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

well soon we gonna split "criticism" in J. Jayalalithaa and create another article called criticism of J. Jayalalithaa and so will come the criticism of Karunanidhi too , if u could appear with a login name then it will be a lot helpful in creating and contributing to both .--@ the $un$hine . (talk) 23:43, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Protected J. Jayalalithaa: Semi-protection.

due to the sudden uprise of vandalism this article has now been Semi-Protected for a week , if again this article is subjected to similar works then we would request for an indefinite protection .--@ the $un$hine . (talk) 11:48, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Readded important section on Jayalalithaa's personal life

For the third time now user IndianStar has disrespected the consensus and rules of Wikipedia where the controversial "mistress" line was removed despite fully sourced with reliable citations and multiple editors agreeing to keep it because it follows the rules. pl. follow the rules. thanks. Idleguy (talk) 02:46, 28 April 2008 (UTC)