# Talk:Chori Chori Chupke Chupke

Filmfare: https://web.archive.org/web/20011023070945/http://www.indiatimes.com/movies/reviews/choriccc.html --Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 01:25, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
BBC: http://www.bbc.co.uk/leicester/entertainment/movies/2001_03/09/chorichori.shtml --Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 01:52, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, will add them soon. Shahid • Talk2me 11:47, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Promotional trailer: https://www.rediff.com/movies/2001/feb/21box.htm --Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 10:18, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
I found a source stated that Chori Chori Chupke Chupke had a screening at the 2012 Fiji Film Festival. Should i add this information to the article, personally it looks like a unrealiable source? (link) --Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 11:53, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
Another one (link). --Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 12:02, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
See WP:TRAILER. And why would film festival screenings be noteworthy? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 12:37, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
I think in the aftermath it could be reliable, because if a notable film festival has screened a film, it is indicative of the film's success/quality. Of course, if this infomation is properly sourced. By the way, Nicholas, Fiji Sun is a reliable source. Shahid • Talk2me 09:01, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

There isn't one particular source which states, "The film received positive/negative/mixed". If actor X is praised by, say, six reviewers, we can say that they won acclaim, can't we? It's because there's a limit to how much we should restrict ourselves in our quest for neutrality. And if someone is wrong, that's why everyone's work here is being constantly reviewed. Now, I've spent quite some time digging in the archives in order to find these reviews, most of them are not available online today. Having had to read all of them, this is the conclusion that I've come up with, and I think it's even encouraged. If we trust editors with summarising articles to write a lead, why is it wrong to allow them write introductory sentences in accordance with common sense? If anything, I dislike the practice of heading titles, where editors are allowed to sum up a period of time as "success", or "widespread success" (if they're big fans). This sentence, however, presents exactly what the rest of the article is about to support. This is not an exceptional claim, and I don't think this would be a violation of WP:SYN. If you are uncertain about my conclusion and whether it is correct, feel free to double check, but I think expecting every film article to have some reliable source concluding its critical reception is quite a stretch. Moreover, I wouldn't do it if we had just up to five reviews, but I think this article has a respectable number of reviews, which creates a representative collection enough to justify such an overview, even if more reviews were found. Shahid • Talk2me 00:11, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

@Shshshsh: Hey, thank you for opening this discussion. When I got here after your re-revert, it was a nice surprise to see your comments, as that is often unusual in these circumstances. Much appreciated.
There is a baseline expectation in the wider film article-editing community that we should not individually be acting as critical response aggregators, and that's for pretty good reason: If I saw this film, and felt a certain way about it, I could (consciously or unconsciously) cherrypick a handful of reviews that conformed to my opinion, then write a summary about those reviews that confirmed my personal bias. Obviously, that would be a problem. I could also go to an article where someone else had cherrypicked a handful of reviews that praised or shat on a film and then unwittingly summarise that selection in favour of that person's bias! In either scenario, there is no expectation that either summary is representative of the overall attitude toward a film, vs. just how someone wanted to make the film look to other Wikipedia readers. That is also a problem. MOS:FILM says fairly unambiguously, The overall critical response to a film should be supported by attributions to reliable sources. Avoid weasel words. If any form of paraphrasing is disputed, quote the source directly. We can summarise some aspects, like, "some critics praised X but some critics also felt that X was a little ___". But in these cases, we shouldn't be focussed on absolutes, we should be adhering to WP:NPOV and presenting summaries from both sides, and unless we find sources that tip the scale to one side or another, it's dicey to decide that "her acting was panned" just because I found two sources that hated her, vs. someone found a source that explicitly says that her acting was praised by the majority of critics. Did I explain that okay?
Also, if you don't already, I'd really like to encourage you to interact with folks at WikiProject Film. Indian film article editors often exist in a silent, insular environment, and I think they could benefit from interacting with the rest of the Film community, since they are the ones who create the guidelines we must all adhere to. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 00:51, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
Well that's why I found that "mixed" is not at all a tall claim, because it presents what you call "summaries from both sides". I do not completely agree with this notion, and I can assure you that I've seen many times writers in reliable sources do exactly what you decribed here - present unsubstantiated claims; no one is bias-free in this regard. Just the other day I read an article where the writer made a passing mention of a certain film from the 1980s, saying it was a critical success. Did they really go over all the reviews available from the 1980s to conclude it as I did in the archives? I don't think so. It's also quite saddening because no review aggregators existed in India in those years, and it means that these old articles would always be somewhat restricted.
But okay, I accept your view here. I've removed any mention of an "overall critical reponse" and now it's more in agreement with sources. Thanks for your concern, Shahid • Talk2me 09:43, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
@Shshshsh: You don't need to rely on a critical response aggregator; if you find a reliable source that describes the overall response as mixed, you could include that. I personally dislike that approach, because the Indian media tends to say whatever they want to say and sometimes that conflicts with other sources, but the overall WikiProject Film community seems OK with that. You are also always free to ask them for another opinion. And maybe I'm in the minority about "mixed", but it would seem that most critical response is "mixed". But if you want to ask at WT:FILM, I won't object. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:23, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi - I added the AI generated tag here in reference to the edits by Thefallguy2025. Their edits have consistently displayed indicators of potential LLM output (some of their past edits have kept the chatgpt parameter in the refs), and so I am tagging them all as it is unlikely they suddenly stopped using it. 
Since their text remains in the current version of this article, and it is unclear how much review was done of the output, it all needs review for sourcing, tone, accuracy/hallucinations, etc. (This applies even to changes that are "just" copy edits, as AI copy edits commonly introduce editorializing, subtle factual errors, unattributed opinion, non-neutral language, etc., even when they claim otherwise.) Gnomingstuff (talk) 22:15, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for spotting this. I didn't realise this initially. Reverted to last stable GA version without massive AI intervention. Shahid • Talk2me 23:29, 11 November 2025 (UTC)