User:Drcrazy102/DRN transclusion demonstration/Talk:Shah Rukh Khan

Talk:Shah Rukh_Khan#perhaps_the_world.27s_biggest_movie_star.3F

As of November 2015^[update]

– Discussion in progress.

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

• Talk:Shah Rukh Khan#perhaps the world.27s biggest movie star.3F (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Bollyjeff (talk · contribs)
• Semitransgenic (talk · contribs)
• Fideliosr (talk · contribs)
• Human3015 (talk · contribs)
• Vensatry (talk · contribs)
• Kailash29792 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

The article Shah Rukh Khan passed FA and TFA recently with a certain sourced statement in the lead and blurb. A couple days after it was TFA, someone thought that this statement should be removed. Since that time several other editors have chimed in on the discussion page, some agreeing with this, some wanting to keep it as it was, and some wanting to go even further in the direction that it was. DRN was suggested a couple times so I thought of giving this a try. I am the editor who took this article to GA, FA, and TFA, and I think that something along these lines needs to be in the lead for our readers.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Many more sources were brought to light upon request supporting the statement, and alternative statements were proposed, edited in, and rejected. The current form is different than the TFA version.

How do you think we can help?

Maybe we need some un-involved parties to help resolve the conflict now. There may be some involved who have some sort of agenda (this has also been suggested on the talk page).

Summary of dispute by Semitransgenic

Saw an FA/TFA stating, in the second sentence of a WP:BLP lead, that subject was Described by the Los Angeles Times as perhaps "the world's biggest movie star" . It appeared to be an intentional misquote; either promotional (WP:SOAP) or hagiographic (WP:PEACOCK). Claims associated with a newspaper's POV need to sourced to an editorial statement. I removed the content, it was reverted. I corrected the attribution and opened talk flagging WP:POV.I questioned the validity of any claims employing the phrase "the worlds biggest." Further sources were offered, I suggested we employ the word "reportedly," this word use was disputed. It was demonstrated that multiple actors have been described as "the world's biggest movie star" and that no such claim can offered as a statement of fact. Various arguments were offered to do with audience sizes, earnings etc. to justify the claim; none of which stood up to scrutiny. To update, if we look at the Forbes World's Highest Paid Actor List 2015, in the top 10 we see three Bollywood actors (Amitabh Bachchan, Salman Khan, and Akshay Kumar), all of whom are exposed to the same sized audience as Khan, and all of whom earn more than Khan (similar claims about "world's" this and that can also be found for each actor). My view is we should not be making claims like this in a BLP FA without something like a properly sourced consensus statement of fact based on clear supporting evidence. Using entertainment news so prominently in the lead is inappropriate. Of all information found in a newspaper, such news is, arguably, the least reliable. Semitransgenic _talk. 14:00, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Fideliosr

Here's a brief summary of my concerns:

• There's no universal consensus that he is the "biggest" movie star in the world. The mention looks quite fanboyish.
• Mere and inconsistent opinion of a bunch of journalists. Not that noteworthy stuff.
• Tom Cruise vs. SRK debate, in my opinion, is irrelevant here.

Fideliosr (talk) 14:21, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Human3015

Read this FA version (first para of lead), which says "Described by the Los Angeles Times as perhaps "the world's biggest movie star"". Some editors had concern that it is view of that journalist and not of LA Times, and it is "paid news". Some users said that chief executive editor or owner of that news agency should say that he is "biggest star" then only we can attribute to News agency. There are several other sources who call him "biggest star" as seen in this version. Most of sources called him biggest star in terms of number of people know him. Around 3.5 billion people around the world knows him. [1], [2], [3], [4] all these news sources saying that SRK has around 3.5 billion audience but as per other parties these are "paid news". I think we can simply write that "Shah Rukh Khan is known as biggest film star in the world in terms of number of people know him, it is estimated that around 3.5 billion people around the world know him". --Human3015^TALK  12:21, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Vensatry

The fact that the claim appeared that way when the article passed FAC/TFA appearance is irrelevant. It's possible that our reviewers had overlooked that. The way in which the claim was there before I participated in the talk page discussion was clearly a violation of WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. Besides, I don't think it's a lead material. Human3015's argument about the 3.5 billion people adds no value to the discussion. Wikipedia doesn't work that way! —Vensatry _(Talk) 09:41, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Kailash29792

I have just tried supporting the article being how it was during its FAC pass, and TFA appearance. I supported the LA Times quote about the actor being in the lead because, even though it praises him, we are maintaining neutrality by quoting someone else rather than praise him through our own words. Kailash29792 (talk) 11:58, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Shah Rukh_Khan#perhaps_the_world.27s_biggest_movie_star.3F discussion

• Volunteer note - There has been extensive discussion at the article talk page. However, the filing party has not notified the other editors. Another editor may provide a procedural close if the filing editor does not first notify the other editors. The filing editor can notify all of the other editors. I am not opening or closing this case, but it may be closed if the filing editor does not notify the other editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:04, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

They have now been notified. BollyJeff | talk 04:33, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

•  Volunteer note:  Verified All involved parties have been notified on their talk pages. JQTriple7 (talk) 05:05, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
•  Note to participants: Can parties please refer to diffs when discussing prior versions of the article in question. It helps to save DRN Volunteers' time when looking through your statements, instead of edit-history trawling. You can also use the {{diff}} template to create "in wiki" links (without the 'external' link icon in the corner). Cheers, Drcrazy102 (talk) 08:34, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
• Comment Not particularly about the dispute but reading the disputed sentence I think it worth noting that Described by the Los Angeles Times has a different meaning from described in the Los Angeles Times. The first refers to an editorial statement while the second merely states that the description has appeared in the newspaper. From all appearances, the second statement - described in the Los Angeles Times - is the more accurate one here. --regentspark (comment) 02:47, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
•  Note to participants: Please keep discussion to a minimum before the case is opened by a volunteer, which will happen as soon as all parties respond, or in a few days if they don't. Thank you for your understanding. JQTriple7 (talk) 07:00, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Statement by volunteer moderator Winkelvi: Since it has been a few days since everyone involved has been notified of this DRN, I will go ahead and take a stab at this. From a first look at the article, it does not seem to me that the content should be in the lede to begin with, rather, it should be in the body of the article. It's an opinion by a newspaper journalist in one article, not an honor or title given to the article subject in the mode of "Sexiest Man Alive" ala People Magazine. Frankly, I am amazed that the inclusion of the statement in the lede made it past those reviewing the article for GA, FA, and TFA. The wording as well as the statement itself ("...biggest film star in the world in terms of number of people know him, it is estimated that around 3.5 billion people around the world know him") seems very fan-site-ish and very un-encyclopedic to me. Regardless, if it stays in the article (and I personally don't think it should as it is), it's not suited for the lede per this: "The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents. It is not a news-style lead or lede paragraph". -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 22:53, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

"XYZ editor is a fan of this actor or that actor" such accusations are already made by each party on each other on talk page of the article, thats why we have came here to have discussion without any accusations. 2nd thing is that all claims are supported by the sources. You can read this and this which are reliable sources stating SRK is more popular than Tom Cruise on the basis of a popularity survey. Also this abc news is giving reference of Business Week and stating that his estimated audience is 3.5 billion (there are several other sources to back it). These are not opinions of journalist. These things needs mention in lead somehow. --Human3015^TALK  23:42, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

@Human3015 - This is rather getting odd because you haven't been listening to anybody's opinion and presenting your own thoughts based on that, but only repeating the same 3.5 billion thing over and over again. @Winkelvi - I totally agree with your suggestions. Fideliosr (talk) 14:29, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

I think you are repeating your statements and ignoring sources. What I have provided is not journalist opinions. Above ABC news attributing to "Business Week" and not to any "journalist" while stating about 3.5 billion audience, and other sources are attributing to "popularity survey" when comparing SRK with Tom Cruise. --Human3015^TALK  21:13, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

@Winkelvi: The statement that you made above is not the original, or current version. It is "Described by the Los Angeles Times as "perhaps the world's biggest movie star"". There are many sources available, as discussed on the talk page, but only one was used in this version. The 'In the media' section discusses the subjects popularity, so the lead needs some sort of summary of that section. It is important for readers to know the magnitude of the subject's popularity. If we agree to remove the original statement per your concerns, how do you feel about some of the alternatives that were presented on the talk page, which tone it down such as, "He has been referred to as one of the world's biggest film stars in the Times, the Guardian, and The Los Angeles Times."? How would you choose to include something of this nature? BollyJeff | talk

Please be sure to sign your comments after leaving them. Thanks.

Stating "He has been referred to as..." per your suggestion is certainly preferable as it is not in wiki-voice. Wikipedia doesn't declare article subjects to be the "best" or "biggest" or "greatest" anything - that's not the job of an encyclopedia. My suggestion, however, would be to not list the publications in the statement, but to say something along the lines of "He has been referred to by a few <reporters/writers/critics> as "one of the world's biggest film stars" (or whatever the exact quote is). It has to be worded correctly and appropriately and not in Wiki-voice and certainly not in a manner that would violate WP:PEACOCK or WP:OR. Since the beginning of Hollywood, there have been many great film stars, but few have actually made the list of "the world's biggest film stars". I hardly think the article subject is of the caliber of Clark Gable, Errol Flynn, Judy Garland, Meryl Streep, Bette Davis, Katherine Hepburn, Marlon Brando, James Dean, and so on. His name isn't a household name, he's not really known in the United States, and other than what comes out of the UK, nothing compares to Hollywood in film star greatness. Those are just my personal thoughts. Here's something compiled by AMC that lists the 100 greatest film stars of all time. Is the article subject on the list? (I haven't looked at it yet and I think I already know the answer). AMC 100 Greatest Film Stars. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 21:46, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Well, its beginning to look like I am defeated here. If I say "referred to as ..." without giving an attribution, the "by whom" tag will come back. We never said that he was the greatest actor, just the most popular. The whole point of the statement was to show people that only know about American actors, that there are other actors out there in the non-Hollywood-centric world, that are even more well known and loved than those on your AMI list that everyone knows about already. If the statement can stay in the body, but not in the lead, I suppose its okay. I cannot speak for the other editor here who wants even more coverage in the lead though. How do we end this gracefully? BollyJeff | talk 00:50, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Well, now -- there's no need to look at it as you are personally defeated, Bollyjeff. If the right thing happens according to policy and guidelines, then it's Wikipedia that is the winner and no one loses. We're supposed to be editing for the betterment of the encyclopedia and the reader, not for ourselves, after all! Having the statement in the body is fine, as long as it is sourced properly and the sources support the wording -- which needs to remain neutral and not in Wiki-voice. Ending it gracefully? I have no idea other than what you just stated re: retaining the content in the body of the article rather than the lede. Thanks for having a good attitude, and really, don't think of it as a "loss". I've "lost" plenty of discussions/arguments in Wikipedia. But, as I said, if the encyclopedia and the reader ultimately are the winners according to policy and guidelines, then the right thing was decided on and done. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:41, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

re: "The whole point of the statement was to show people that only know about American actors, that there are other actors out there in the non-Hollywood-centric world that are even more well known and loved than those on your AMI list" Not our job as editors to engage in this kind of thing, lacks objectivity, is this some kind of activism you are involved in? Might be worth reading WP:ADVOCACY. You should be very careful editing if this is what motivates you. Semitransgenic _talk. 16:10, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

We can look for any replacement in sentence, we must show somehow popularity of this actor. For example good article of Frank Sinatra says he is greatest singer of 20th century by giving attribution to someone (read last line in lead). So such kind of things we can write in this case.--Human3015^TALK  17:36, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

• Need a Moderater: I did not comment here for last 3-4 days because I thought some moderator will come and will open this debate so that we can do proper debate. But no moderator has officially opened this debate. I came here to comment only when one editor here who is commenting like "disputant" but claiming as moderator appealed one of disputant to close this thread as "resolved". How a disputant can close this thread? This "moderator" seems to lack experience of dispute resolving, we really need a proper moderator to resolve this dispute. Also one of disputant claimed consensus here and done same controversial edit. See, current pre-dispute version can be changed, here we are not discussing whether to keep or remove current version but rather how we can replace it with better and acceptable version. There are many articles of artists where they have called as "greatest" or "biggest" etc but with proper attribution. We can do here also. This actor has been mentioned as "biggest" in several international news media, we can't ignore it even though they are so called "opinions of journalists". And I hope one moderator will come to moderate this debate. Thank you.--Human3015^TALK  19:00, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
• User talk:Human3015 behavior beginning to enter into the realms of WP:TR/WP:HEAR. Semitransgenic _talk. 20:39, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

This is not place to discuss behaviour, you can try another board. My behavior is at least better than this. See, Wikipedia is not democracy or majority vote. Here things work as per consensus, "10 people are agree of this and 2 on that so 10 people must be right" this is not case here. Rather there should be fruitful discussion so that any middle path can be followed. --Human3015^TALK  22:12, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

@Winkelvi: See what I mean? Although I may be able to move on, others are not. What do we do now? Does your role as volunteer make you a moderator? Can you help us craft a compromise, rather than a straight deletion? BollyJeff | talk 00:37, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Is "He has been referred to by British reporters as "the biggest film star in the world"" okay? Because that is what's there now, and you are not letting me change it. BollyJeff | talk 01:30, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

• Volunteer note - @Human3015:/@Semitransgenic:/@Bollyjeff: This is your first and only warning. We do not discuss conduct of other editors on this page. The next time one any of you lobs a conduct accusation (ex: 01:30, 30 November 2015 comment) I will step in and close this with a referral to AN as the conduct of the editors has taken the primary focus over the disputed content of the article and let administrators sort out what sanctions should be applied. Now as to the case at hand, having read the quote and the source that backs it up I am uncomfortable even the POV attribution shading that is done in the lead section. If the prose could be worked in to some other portion of the page (possibly in the "In the media" section) I think this could balance the issue between the attributed statement. I would also note that the author appears to be a beat reporter for Arts/Entertainment and that his last published article shows as of June 2012 (with the source being from 2011). Is it possible that the "biggest movie star" quote is no longer accurate? Hasteur (talk) 02:20, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

The statement is currently present in the "In the media" section. Have you seen the alternative that was proposed? It is something like: "He has been referred to (by the Times and the Gaurdian) as the world's biggest movie star". There are several sources from 2015 given on the talk page. Of course this cannot be verified as a fact, but the fact that he has been called this by several reputable non-Indian magazines/newspapers should count for something. Do you think there is room for a statement like that in the lead? BollyJeff | talk 02:40, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

@Bollyjeff: In order for it to be in the lead, I would want to see it in NYT/LAT/WP/etc repeatedly. The source that is backing up the statement (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/movies/2011/11/shah-rukh-khan-ra-one-bollywood.html) does not make that statement and plays a paraphrase of the statement using a rhetorical device. For a FA we absolutely want sensational statements to be iron clad sourced. Therefore the statement needs to be excised from the lead, the statement needs to be edited to reflect what the source says, or a new source needs to be found that supports the claim. Having looked at the talk page I see you leading the charge (sometimes with less than conduct appropriate actions) for this statement to be front and center in the lead. Hasteur (talk) 02:54, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Bollyjeff, Hasteur is correct. It's not an actual distinction. It's not an actual label given to him as an award or honor. A couple of reporters giving an opinion in print does not make Khan the greatest actor in the world. I really think you need to drop this and go with what the consensus appears to be: the statement needs to stay out of the lede and stay toned-down and non-POV/violating WP:PEACOCK in the body of the article. Additionally, I'm going to recommend that the article be re-evaluated as an FA. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:17, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Really? Please don't do that. I said just yesterday that I was okay removing the statement, and wanted to end this. I really don't think we need to go through a whole FAR process now. I have informed the FA co-author about this but he may not be very active now. Although he is one of the most respected and prolific editors in the business, sometimes @Dr. Blofeld: stops editing because he has to spend too much time dealing with disputes instead of improving the project.BollyJeff | talk 03:37, 30 November 2015 (UTC)