Talk:Fake IPL Player

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Harsha Bhogle[edit]

WTF? We are practically accusing Harsha Bhogle to being Fake IPL player based on a /mailing list post/ that uses the fact that Harsha had good english skills. I'm sure there is some Wikipedia Policy against this. -- gja 59.92.173.168 (talk) 07:06, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have added {{disputed}} and {{fact}} to the section -- Tinu Cherian - 07:32, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah..how harsha??[edit]

Agree with the above.. There's no proof that the writer is harsha... Le the wikipedian who put it there remove, else I'll do it.. Thanks for pointing out. Nitin (talk) 08:39, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It'll soon be Manmohan Singh[edit]

Adding anonymous emails as references to outrageous/unprovable statements is plain wrong--Spaceman7Spiff 16:18, 14 May 2009 (UTC).

Speedy Delete[edit]

Just saw the Speedy delete: The blog is pretty important, here's the google stats for it: [1]

And the google search results for it: [2]

I don't think it's unimportant....Page creator?

--Spaceman7Spiff 02:26, 15 May 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spaceman7Spiff (talk • contribs)


Agree with Spaceman above, this blog is a phenomenon by itself and is important enough to be recorded for its cultural importance. There are several media stories attesting to the fact that this blog is having a great impact on several domains at the same time - democratic mass media, cricket, whistle-blowing, brand building through the internet etc. --Varun (talk) 03:31, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cannot understand why this needs to be deleted? This is about a blog that seems to be a "first" in india in this category. Nitin (talk) 04:51, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ignore All Rules Rule[edit]

The "Ignore All Rules" page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ignore_all_rules) says "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." While the Fake IPL Player may or may not be a member of KKR, but the blog itself is real. Saying the names does NOT violate the biographies of living persons. I am undoing (is that a word?) the edit removing the nicknames, and also added a clarifying statement.--Ant80 (talk) 19:16, 17 May 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ant80 (talk • contribs) 19:03, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There has been no confirmation from the blogger or within the media that these are in fact the nicknames used for respective personalities. WP:BLP requires explicit and exceptional sources when it comes to writing about living persons. And putting forward interpretations of blog followers and fandom does not improve this article and hence IAR does not apply here. Nor is implementation of BLP hindering improvement of this article. I have raised the issue at BLP Noticeboard. You may put in your comments about implementation of policy over there. LeaveSleaves 19:45, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is quite succinctly explained that there is no secondary reliable source available for this which makes it an obvious BLP violation. LeaveSleaves 11:17, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There have been some news articles I found that go through some of hte examples. Most of them are obvious because of the relation to the RL occurrences but unfortunately it would be a bit OR YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 01:11, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I could do the research and post it on my blog, which is vetted by an Indian newspaper. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 01:16, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm not sure how that'd work, but what I do not understand is what is the significance? Why is bunch of nicknames given an unknown blogger of such fundamental to this article? And do consider that if it had been so simple to just print the list in the media, why wouldn't someone done it already? LeaveSleaves 04:09, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The newspapers probably couldn't be bothered to do it as anyone who follows cricket would be able to understand what the nickname is about because when it says "Prince Charles of Patiala took a hat-trick" (mock example) well there are only a few people who did take one and only one comes from the Punjab region near Patiala (Yuvraj Singh) and so forth. But a person who doesn't follow cricket carefully might not know, so it would be useful info; just like in all books about Animal Farm, they explain the RL analog of the pigs etc. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 06:12, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I just meant that as Mint (newspaper) is a RS, I can post it on Mint and then we can stick it on WP. If people don't think it is too much of COI because it will then link to my website through the citation. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 06:12, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Technically blogs (or opinion pieces) on newspapers can't be used as references, because blogs and opinion pieces are clearly tagged as not-factual but the opinion of the writer. There are some nicknames that are already posted on ToI, Telegraph UK etc etc, they could be used. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 06:17, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am aware that some people state that, but all books have opinions in them apart from bald data and as long as opinion is stated as such it isn't prohibited. "News" articles on Cricinfo or wherever still say things like "scintillating performance", "dreadful fielding" etc, so a piece in the essay by Peter Roebuck or Gideon Haigh is still allowed as long as data is checked (which they are), and opinion/subjective things are stated as such. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 06:30, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(multiple ECs) I don't feel that the reason behind lack of discussion on the nicknames, specifically the correlation with RL personalities, in the media is due simply to assumption that people understand who the nicknames refer to. Keep in mind that there could be many newspaper readers who probably wouldn't understand some nicknames as easily as you've stated above. Further it is one thing to talk about the references being made to various players in general (much like pop culture references in a film or TV series), but to create a list based purely on OR (especially when it could be a BLP violation) is a completely different scenario. As for the COI part, I'm not particularly sure if it violates the policy. Would you consider a taking a wider opinion? LeaveSleaves 06:33, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well I'm not going to compile and vet the list unless people want to try citing it as a source. At WT:CRIC we did agree that Cricinfo blogs were RS because they were directly under the control of the RS in question and I joked that I could make an opinion and quote myself, but there was never any real debate about it. Obviously, if people think my blog is a RS because of newspaper editors looking over it for defamation, then yes, it would be fine for me to say "Prince Charles of Patiala=Yuvraj Singh" I don't think it would be defamatory, because it simply reports Fake IPL Player's view, not us. It is the same as us reporting that Warne insulted Paul Collingwood and Ian Bell and the names were reported in the media or that Harbhajan called Symonds something (although what was said is disputed) YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 06:38, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Blogs from newspapers that under full editorial control are usually acceptable as sources. Of course you'd have to link to the newspaper in question and not your personal site. LeaveSleaves 06:46, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Notability[edit]

This is with reference to the Notability tag since April 2011. At its peak in summer 2009, this blog was at the centre of a storm in the cricketing world. There was media frenzy, public curiosity, and Kolkata Knight Riders were alleged to have dropped players suspected of being this blogger. Now the focus and notability has reduced, but not ended. Notability is partly apparent in the discussion on the talk page above, and in the references. This article has also survived AfD. Pending further discussion, propose to remove the notability tag in two days. (Aside: How come the page history doesn't show the addition of the notability tag? The history appears to end in May 2009.) VishalB (talk) 15:27, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • The history shows the notability tag [3], although the editor didn't indicate the addition in the edit summary. That said, if you wish to remove the notability tag, you must address the issue in the tag by adding reliable, secondary sources about the topic. It matters little that the article survived an AFD discussion. It can be sent for deletion discussion any number of times. And if the editor that added the tag is not convinced, it would not be inappropriate for them to nominate the article for deletion (as frustrating as that may be). While it appears that there are several sources presented in support of the subject, we cannot use blogs, self-published sources, or primary sources to establish notability. It looks like there were several sources indicated in the AFD discussion, but they were not brought to the article. In order to meet Wikipedia's standards for verifiability and notability, the article in question must actually document that the criterion is true. It is not enough to make vague claims in the article or assert a subject's importance on a talk page or AfD page – the article itself must document notability through independent and reliable sources. A lot of times, an individual will create or edit an article first, hoping to find sources for the content later. That is a bit putting the cart before the horse. Encyclopedic content must be based on significant reliable and independent sources, properly cited. At this point, the article is lacking in this area. I would recommend taking a look at the sources provided in the AFD to determine if they can be used to indicate a possible source for the article's content. Then, properly reference the content through inline citations. This should be sufficient. Another option would be to contact the editor that placed the tag and respectfully share your thoughts regarding notability and ask if they would be willing to remove the tag themselves based on that understanding. Removing maintenance tags without sufficiently addressing the issue in the tag is considered disruptive, which if continued, may result in a blocked account. And nobody wants that. Feel free to contact me if you have any questions. Cind.amuse 16:40, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for such detailed info. Was off Wikipedia for a coupla days and saw your comment only today. Agree that the article itself should walk the talk when it comes to notability and sources. Hindustan Times is among India's largest-circulation English dailies, but the other sources look iffy. Am going to find and cite better sources. Regarding History, I'm 99% certain that when I saw the history page, the last edit shown was 2009. Maybe I saw the history of the Talk page by mistake? Could be. Anyway that's of no relevance going forward. VishalB (talk) 16:44, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Largely addressed the citations and noteworthiness issues; restructured the flow of the article, added much new information. Removing the tags now. Thanks for your guidance. VishalB (talk) 20:17, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just wanted to touch base again. Great job on adding the extra information. Anytime you have questions or need assistance, don't hesitate to contact me. Best regards, Cind.amuse 07:48, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the appreciation and generous offer of support. Will keep it in mind. Please excuse the delay in reply. VishalB (talk) 07:52, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Fake IPL Player. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:55, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Fake_IPL_Player&oldid=1207173029"