Talk:Riya Sen

message: I think I've figured out why the statements about Riya being sexy, and controversial like her mother, etc. are bothering me so much. They are presented as the judgment of WP about her, personally. (And they seem to reflect a negative assessment of her as a bad girl in Indian terms.) But no references can "prove" that that judgments about a person are correct. I could cite one publication to "prove" that George W. Bush is the best president ever, and another to "prove" that he's the worst. 
A section on Riya Sen's image in Indian media might work. That could be established with quotes from the works you guys keep citing. If we say, "X in Stardust magazine says ZZZ", then it is true that X said that. But, it doesn't imply that X is telling the truth. 
As for all the stuff about who she's dating ... gossip column cites are worthless trash and I can't see that breathless reports on her boyfriends are in any way encyclopedic. It's an invasion of privacy, it's trivial and vulgar. WP is an encyclopedia, not a gossip column. I'm going to see if I can start a discussion in various places (BLP? Village Pump policy?) on when it's OK to mention boyfriends, affairs, etc. I'll probably argue, as I did at the Amitabh article, that it's none of anyone else's business unless it ends up in court or as a huge media tamasha. Reports of X being seen with Y, printed in a couple of gossip columns, just don't count. Zora 03:47, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good luck. Since several other editors who are more familiar with your editing history than I are increasingly of the opinion that you are just using WP for a crusade and trying to make it fit "your" idea of what WP should be like (see above sections of talk page), I'm finding it incredibly hard to assume good faith. And for the record, this is not gossip, it is sourced in reputable/reliable sources. As for your threatening to start discussions on boyfriends and the like (as you regularly do), feel free to apply those standards across the board in every "celebrity" article on Wikipedia, but be prepared to defend your views to several editors who may strongly disagree with your views. Although please note that I'm not advocating for the inclusion of what you term as "gossip", I just object to reliably-sourced information about the article being removed with no other reasons than pure superficiality. What you may term as gossip is reliably-sourced information about a person's life and relationships, and cannot be removed just because one editor thinks it is gossip. That seems like a POV if ever there was one. Ekantik talk 03:43, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

text: OK, I've just taken a closer look at the references in question and I agree that some of them are dubious. Two of them link directly to the tabloid section of the Hindustan Times, a reputable and reliable source of course but the "tabloid" report is dubious. AFAIK tabloid sources are not permissible in WP. However, I still object to the outright removal of such information when more reliable sources could be found to support the same information. Why indulge in blatant removal instead of helping Wikipedia to source information properly? Ekantik talk 03:53, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gossip 

message: Reading through the article, there are a few problems
*The lead is too short and it needs to be expanded to cover the article properly.
*Some parts are not referenced
*Some refs do not cover the whole para. eg 9 only covers part of the sentence, 4 only talks about "style". "Riya has appeared on the cover of a number of magazines." is not in the refs in that para.
*Secondly, a lot of the references that are there don't match up or aren't working
:*13 and 16 don't work and they cover BLP material
:*Refs need to cover the names of the writer, where applicable, this is not present in many cases.
*Controversy section should be worked into the main body, per forking guidelines. The kissing incident should be discussed in conjunction with the film and the public kissing should be in personal life.
* FU images are not really justified in the context, since the pictures are not discussed at length. The movie scene is not discussed as iconic or important. The calendar isn't discussed much - if there was a notable controversy about her exposing her skin it should be expanded on and related to the picture more.
* In general, considering the list of movies, the article proabbly should be longer.
* POV like "legendary" and "illiustrious" should not be used. ALso the source did not say that her mother was a sex symbol or that she looked like her ancestors.
Blnguyen  (bananabucket) 01:51, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's been almost rewritten after the first failure, and all the comments above were taken into consideration. Aditya(talk • contribs) 16:56, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The lead section is far too small. I'm afraid, this will hinder its quality. I request the editors to consider this seriously. Best regards, Mspraveen (talk) 10:21, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I have expanded the lead somewhat. Please, check. Aditya(talk • contribs) 11:54, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Some decent work, I would say. R. Madhavan is an Indian film-related GA article. You should have a look at this to gain some ideas on the quality you should be working towards. Unless, this is done at a fairly quick pace, I worry about a favorable assessment. Good luck! If you need any further assistance, please do not hesitate to ask. Regards, Mspraveen (talk) 13:03, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA failed 

message: Riya Sen should be ready for another go at GAN. Would you care to take a look and leave your comments on the talk page? Aditya(talk • contribs) 07:21, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Riya Sen 

message: Mm it looks much better than when I last saw it but still needs a major copy edit "the film pioneered a trend of commercial success for small budget films in India" -mm m I don't like this phrase. Was this film really the first ever low budget film to succeed??   ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦      $1,000,000?  17:56, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The public persona section has been entirely rehashed. And, it's tough to write about a film actress who has a persona bigger than her career success, especially since I can't write that outright, without reliable sources verifying it. I hope it doesn't read like a blog anymore. As for the "trend of commercial success for small budget films in India", I can assure that it was not the first small-budget film to become a commercial success. But, it was indeed followed shortly by quite a few similarly successful small-budget films, and the trend was often attributed to the success of Style. I believe the details would be a better fit in an article on the film (I haven't got around to it, yet). Can you suggest how the copy should go here? It would be a great help, as, you must have discovered already, that I suck at the copy. Aditya(talk • contribs) 15:18, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments by [[User:Blofeld of SPECTRE|Blofeld of SPECTRE]]

message: The "Language=English" parameter is not usually needed for English sources as we are on English Wikipedia. Only the non-English sources need to be tagged like this. 
*Refs should be after the punct. I have changed some. 
*Inline cites should be ordered, so we don't get [23][1]. But that probably won't kill a GA, but it's good to get it sorted anyway.
*The first thing that struck me when reading the English is the lack of articles (grammar) such as "a" and "the" when required.
I'll point out more things as I see them. Blnguyen  (bananabucket) 07:42, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Is Sen a considered to be so common that people are known by their first names? Because there are instances of using "Riya" and "Riya Sen" in the main prose. If the convention is to use first names like Sikh Singhs and Khans, eg HARBHAJAN Singh, YUVRAJ Singh, ZAHEER Khan etc, then stick to Riya everywhere and don't use "Riya Sen" in the main body. Else use "Sen". Blnguyen  (bananabucket) 07:54, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sen is pretty common surname, like most other Indian surnames. That is why it is more appropriate for an Indian to be identified by his/her first name. The case is generally different for Indians climbing to prominence in a Western country, where his/her surname may be the only Indian surname available in his/her field. Position of refs has largely been fixed, after punctuation and putting them in proper order. Please, check if some were overlooked. Can you help putting in the articles, if some are still missing? Aditya(talk • contribs) 19:23, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure. Thanks for clarifying the surname policy wrt Sen. Blnguyen  (bananabucket) 04:44, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments by [[User:Blnguyen|Blnguyen]]

message: Note:  Project Banner with Tripura workgroup parameters was added to this article talk page because the article falls under :Category:Tripura or its subcategories. Should you feel this addition is inappropriate , please undo my changes and update/remove the relavent categories to the article -- Amartyabag  TALK2ME 11:21, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:INDIA]] Banner/Tripura Addition 

message: Riya sen is also known for her famous sex scene clip with Ashmit patel. This entire video circulated among many indians and received wide publicity in Indian Media. It is a 3gp clip taken while Ashmit patel and Riya sen had some private moment (suckled tits and fingered pussy). She got wide publicity akin to Paris Hilton in US for her mobile clip. She is now branded "too sexy" for normal glamour roles in regular Hindi or Bengali Movies.123.238.71.150 (talk) 20:21, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Amateur mobile video 

message: Ananthabhadram is a 2005 film and Vanaprastham is 1999 film. How can the use of Kathakali in a newer movie influence an older one?
vedaj 14:26, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of Kathakali 

message: Not to be confused with Raima Sen, Rimi Sen, or Reemma Sen.
– How can someone confuse here? There s no similarity in spelling or pronunciations! --Tito Dutta ✉  06:55, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, this only belongs on those other girls' articles. BollyJeff | talk 13:03, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Riya Sen herself agrees! And she adds that "Unfortunately my Wikipedia page is controlled by a handful of journalists who have totally messed it up."   Jay (Talk) 12:32, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusion! 

message: This GA looks a bit different from the others in this section. It is uncommon now to not have rows spans on the years, and to have a co-stars column.  I propose that we rectify these issues.  It will also give more screen space to the notes section, where things are cramped right now.  Comments? BollyJeff | talk 13:58, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. Please go ahead. Aditya(talk • contribs) 12:35, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

text: Please proceed to change the filmography type. Torreslfchero (talk) 12:39, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  BollyJeff | talk 14:37, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Filmography 

message: This needs to be properly sourced. I see it getting changed, as like so many other actresses too. BollyJeff | talk 15:03, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you help? Aditya(talk • contribs) 18:04, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  birthdate 

message: I have just reverted the edits by 59.182.152.34 (and subsequent edits) to the last version by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. Those changes were problematic on several levels. They introduced factual errors (for example regarding Sen's legal surname), the content often was not supported by the given references, the tone (describing Sen's mother as a "small-time starlet"?) was unsuitable for Wikipedia. I haven't checked all the content I reverted, but when I encountered not just multiple instances of synthesis and unsourced negative content, but outright falsehoods, I thought it best to pull the plug. Huon (talk) 21:29, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revert 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Riya Sen. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061031155733/http://www.keral.com/celebrities/shajikarun/films.htm to http://www.keral.com/celebrities/shajikarun/films.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:36, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:
* 
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:51, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
* 
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:22, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion 

message: I see that you have made a big edit summary while making a bold change to the article. While you have a point to make, let me assure you that an edit summary is not the place for it. A talk page is the appropriate place for such discussion.
For the discussion allow me to remind you what you said on the two occassions you have removed a piece of material widely covered by mainstream media (all sourced, cited and balanced).
I would also like to remind of the comment I made with my revert.
You see, Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth. That means if a piece of information is notable and relevant enough, and has been covered as notable by independant and creadible sources, then it stays. You can't just go ahead and remove it. If another set of sources say the information is wrong, then that gets included too, without removing the other information. Even if you know something to be true, you need to play by Wikipedia policies while on Wikipedia and back it up with sources and cites. But you still must remain impartial. 
"I don't like it" or "I know it's true" are hardly good enough reason to include or remove here. I am reinstating the article. If you have a rational for removal, please discuss here. Decisions are better taken with consensus, and not wars. I am sure we can solve this like gentlemen. If needed we can involve other editors to moderate and arbitrate. Thank you. 
By the way, the new image you used to replace the old is an empty link, meaning the image doesn't exist and, therefore, can't be used. Also the the link to the official mobile app couldn't be included in the infobox, as the infobox has no such parameter. I hope you understand. Aditya(talk • contribs) 03:01, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent edits by Prasunkuls9