Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Enthiran/1
Enthiran edit
- Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • • Most recent review
- Result: Delisted. Consensus is that the article does not meet GA criteria. It fails 1(a) - Prose quality; 2(c) - No original research; and 5 - Stability. SilkTork ✔Tea time 21:38, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
This film article has been subject to lobbying for unverifiable and possibly over-inflated box office figures for the last 8 months (refer to the extensive talk page archives). There is no consensus for approach and many multiple attempts to add figures to the article have inflamed debate resulting in the article being protected several times. This was overlooked in the original GA assessment as admitted shortly afterwards on the talk page. The article remains unstable and should not retain GA status. --Fæ (talk) 17:19, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
- Also, there is a section called Scientific accuracy, which is largely composed of unsourced trivia, and a reference to a blacklisted site 'cinestar'. BollyJeff || talk 16:35, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
- Since raising this GA reassessment, the article has been locked to sysop only for 7 days due to edit-warring over the financial figures. Fæ (talk) 16:39, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
- It doesn't carry the overall important message, that this film is the highest grossing Indian film of all times. There is too much resistence from industry rivals against it.--David Fraudly (talk) 18:00, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
- Who are what are these "industry rivals" (bearing in mind I will block you if you turn this GA into any sort of personal dispute or attack on editors' motivations)? DMacks (talk) 19:13, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
- I want to explain this for you in a really sensible way. Please don't take it personally. Look, there are certain natural rivalries in this world, like in wars between nations or soccer clubs. In India we have different film industries, where there is a big cultural/philosophical war of supremacy happening. Every industry strives to come out with the best and the highest grossers. And today we are talking about a war about an all time record of all Indian film industries together. How would you react, when somebody claims, that Obama from Democrates won only narrowly over McCain, citing a dubious Republican source and ignoring all reliable sources? This is, what's going on here.--David Fraudly (talk) 19:38, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
- User:David Frauly, an important thing to bear in mind while contributing to Wikipedia is to assume good faith. You can't just assume that "industry rivals" try to manipulate articles their way in order to make that particular industry to look good. I can assure you that a lot of the editors here (including me) work with a neutral point of view to the best of our abilities and when someone breaches this, we would always take the time to remind them about it. About the 'Scientific accuracy' section, does anyone see it problematic? I was thinking about creating an article titled Chitti, the character, and thought most of that could be moved to that page instead. Scientific accuracy does seem pretty appropriate since this is a sci-fi film. About budget and gross revenue, why was the former removed? Do we not have a reliable/qualified source for that at least? And User:Fae, could you list here everything that you think is problematic about those two data in this article, just for a ready reference of Enthiran's issues on this reassessment page? EelamStyleZ (talk) 01:13, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
- I want to explain this for you in a really sensible way. Please don't take it personally. Look, there are certain natural rivalries in this world, like in wars between nations or soccer clubs. In India we have different film industries, where there is a big cultural/philosophical war of supremacy happening. Every industry strives to come out with the best and the highest grossers. And today we are talking about a war about an all time record of all Indian film industries together. How would you react, when somebody claims, that Obama from Democrates won only narrowly over McCain, citing a dubious Republican source and ignoring all reliable sources? This is, what's going on here.--David Fraudly (talk) 19:38, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
- Who are what are these "industry rivals" (bearing in mind I will block you if you turn this GA into any sort of personal dispute or attack on editors' motivations)? DMacks (talk) 19:13, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Briefly, as the issue has dragged on for 8 months with around 100 different sources:
- The problem with box office income figures: After much discussion and debate it is clear that there are no verifiable figures available for box office income, the only figures relating to ticket sales for this film are estimates from pundits or the production company. In the case of pundit speculation, the estimates are unverifiable and there is no process described of how they are created and so they appear to be highly speculative guesstimates. In the case of the production company, estimates are also unverifiable as though numbers may relate to profit declared against the film in corporate accounts, this is not related to ticket sales as there is no breakdown of the cost of sales or proportion of profit that goes to retail agencies. Further, the production company has no control or special access to accounts that may or may not include ticket sales by retail agents in India (which in turn have no public third party verification) or elsewhere. Any speculative estimates for box office income by the production company and their representatives must be used in the context of likely conflict of interest as they have a responsibility to promote the film and the possibility of being the top film in Indian cinema by box office sales, which might be true but remains unverifiable.
- In terms of this article, a wealth of estimates are available in different sources. Putting a single figure in the infobox will remain dubious as this will be seen as arbitrarily cherry picking one of the sources, none of which is truly impartial. Adding a range in the infobox is possible but statistically rather meaningless and may fail to meet WP:SYNTH. A section exists in the article body about box office income and this can put any quoted estimates in context and provide appropriate weight.
- Note, an original film budget has been declared by the production company as part of their corporate accounts. Though other figures may be available in other publications, this less of an issue even if it lacks context and may not relate to any audit-able accounts of what monies were spent. Other figures such as revenue are available but are confusing for the film as this is not box office income and would be relevant to an article about the production company but appear tangential and possibly misleading for this article unless given with carefully explained context, particularly as the figure discussed recognizes different types of cash flow including a forecast cash flow element. Fæ (talk) 07:43, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
- Even if all box office estimates are removed, still there remains one core problem - this article desperately tries to establish legitimacy to a bizarre revisionist claim that Enthiran is the highest Indian grosser ever (and not the Hindi picture 3 Idiots). It is either a sign of ignorance or full-blown xenophobia. So, phrases like ...it was ultimately claimed to be the highest-grossing Indian film of all time...although because official box office records are not kept in India, this cannot be independently verified...somewhere in the top three... show subtle parochial bias and the page does not deserve GA status until these are removed.Kollyfan (talk) 13:54, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
- Also, please note that all Rajinikanth films have had similar inflated box office claims (see histories of Kuselan, Sivaji, Chandramukhi, Baba, Padayappa,...)Kollyfan (talk) 13:54, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
- This is a GA reassessment page for Enthiran. Talk only about the film which is currently under discussion. If you want to discuss about any other Indian film which you have problems discuss that here. --Commander (Ping Me) 14:05, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
- The statement says "ultimately claimed" to be. There is nothing wrong with mentioning a notable claim. No where does it imply that Enthiran in fact is the highest grossing Indian film of all-time. EelamStyleZ (talk) 00:07, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
- There appears to me to be an impasse here. On the one hand, Hindi folks are saying that the Tamil folks are exaggerating the gross figures. On the other hand, the Tamil folks are saying that the Hindi folks are trying to suppress the true gross figures. Without verifiable figures, which we have already established do not exist, what can be done? As long as this article is not locked, I fear that editors will consistently fight over this issue, due to the rivalries described above. BollyJeff || talk 19:19, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
- I honestly do not believe such rivalries exist in Wikipedia to a large scale, but I'm finding it hard to rule that possibility out because of how long this debate has been going on. There are fanatics and biased people (generally the unregistered users) who would want to see the gross figure as high as possible. If we can back up a figure with ample sources, I think it deserves to be on the article. I mean, whether the gross revenue was 100 crores or 300 crores, which ever figure is mentioned the most by our 'reliable' sources, that figure should be up. Having an empty space for that field in the infobox seems quite pointless. A range of the lowest cited figure and the highest cited figure may also be appropriate. I think it's about time we settled on one of the two options, rather than having to block the article from editing each time a random editor comes along and abruptly changes the figure with no unanimity. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think there was any other Indian film article that had issues with gross revenue and budget figures as big as Enthiran. GA or no GA, this issue must be settled soon. EelamStyleZ (talk) 04:25, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
- Just because someone has added a parameter to the particular infobox template does not mean is has to be used or is even good practice to use. Many Wikimedians are against blanket use of infoboxes due to their arbitrary nature and the tendency to add poorly referenced or speculative information (such as the 'influenced' and 'influenced by' fields in the writers infobox). You are also assuming we can agree some reliable sources, this has been my key point over the last 8 months, there are no reliable sources for a box office income figure or even an estimate with a clear explanation of how it was arrived at. Fæ (talk) 06:28, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
- I agree there are no reliable enough sources for the gross revenue for Enthiran. However, the Economic Times article quotes a key person from Sun Picture saying they must have generated at least Rs. 375. I know that quote is extremely vague, but why can't we settle with what we've got? The article seemed perfectly fine when the gross revenue said "₹375 crore (estimated)". EelamStyleZ (talk) 17:48, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
- I appreciate that the article seemed fine to you, my viewpoint is with a cautious interpretation of appropriate weight and verifiability. The last 8 months have shown that picking any figure (particularly one from a non-independent source) for the infobox rather than leaving it to a full explanation of context in the article body will lead to instability and accusations of cherry picking. Fæ (talk) 20:16, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
- "Full explanation of context in the article body" sounds like a reasonable alternative, perhaps under the 'Response' section. That could possibly replace an empty 'gross revenue' parameter in the infobox. EelamStyleZ (talk) 01:21, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
- Just to add it, I'm a main contributor in the music articles, but even then I have seen the dragging discussions regarding this article, the continuous edit wars, the personal attacks etc. Both folks are equally to be blamed for turning this encyclopedia into a fancrufty paper bag. And no, after careful inspection I don't see any reliable source claiming the highest-grossing info. — Legolas (talk2me) 07:38, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
- "Full explanation of context in the article body" sounds like a reasonable alternative, perhaps under the 'Response' section. That could possibly replace an empty 'gross revenue' parameter in the infobox. EelamStyleZ (talk) 01:21, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
- I appreciate that the article seemed fine to you, my viewpoint is with a cautious interpretation of appropriate weight and verifiability. The last 8 months have shown that picking any figure (particularly one from a non-independent source) for the infobox rather than leaving it to a full explanation of context in the article body will lead to instability and accusations of cherry picking. Fæ (talk) 20:16, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
- I agree there are no reliable enough sources for the gross revenue for Enthiran. However, the Economic Times article quotes a key person from Sun Picture saying they must have generated at least Rs. 375. I know that quote is extremely vague, but why can't we settle with what we've got? The article seemed perfectly fine when the gross revenue said "₹375 crore (estimated)". EelamStyleZ (talk) 17:48, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
- Just because someone has added a parameter to the particular infobox template does not mean is has to be used or is even good practice to use. Many Wikimedians are against blanket use of infoboxes due to their arbitrary nature and the tendency to add poorly referenced or speculative information (such as the 'influenced' and 'influenced by' fields in the writers infobox). You are also assuming we can agree some reliable sources, this has been my key point over the last 8 months, there are no reliable sources for a box office income figure or even an estimate with a clear explanation of how it was arrived at. Fæ (talk) 06:28, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
- I honestly do not believe such rivalries exist in Wikipedia to a large scale, but I'm finding it hard to rule that possibility out because of how long this debate has been going on. There are fanatics and biased people (generally the unregistered users) who would want to see the gross figure as high as possible. If we can back up a figure with ample sources, I think it deserves to be on the article. I mean, whether the gross revenue was 100 crores or 300 crores, which ever figure is mentioned the most by our 'reliable' sources, that figure should be up. Having an empty space for that field in the infobox seems quite pointless. A range of the lowest cited figure and the highest cited figure may also be appropriate. I think it's about time we settled on one of the two options, rather than having to block the article from editing each time a random editor comes along and abruptly changes the figure with no unanimity. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think there was any other Indian film article that had issues with gross revenue and budget figures as big as Enthiran. GA or no GA, this issue must be settled soon. EelamStyleZ (talk) 04:25, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
- There appears to me to be an impasse here. On the one hand, Hindi folks are saying that the Tamil folks are exaggerating the gross figures. On the other hand, the Tamil folks are saying that the Hindi folks are trying to suppress the true gross figures. Without verifiable figures, which we have already established do not exist, what can be done? As long as this article is not locked, I fear that editors will consistently fight over this issue, due to the rivalries described above. BollyJeff || talk 19:19, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
- The statement says "ultimately claimed" to be. There is nothing wrong with mentioning a notable claim. No where does it imply that Enthiran in fact is the highest grossing Indian film of all-time. EelamStyleZ (talk) 00:07, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
- This is a GA reassessment page for Enthiran. Talk only about the film which is currently under discussion. If you want to discuss about any other Indian film which you have problems discuss that here. --Commander (Ping Me) 14:05, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
Delist, as an unstable article (as this is when unlocked) fails criterion #5. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:25, 3 July 2011 (UTC)