Talk:Rhea Pillai

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

This seems better on the discussion page (if anywhere)[edit]

than in the article. I've made a few changes, standarding the English, but not the content.

Rhea pillai has her own personal life but latest news about her and Manyata is really very disturbing for those who respect her as a Teacher of Art of living, if you can't follow some basic morals in your personal life how can you guide someone else as a teacher? Money should not be such a big issue in the life of a person who has dedicated her life as a teacher. All the time Sanjay Dutt cannot be wrong, he has shown maturity for a long time as a ex husband.

ramesh jain,student of Art of living

Carptrash (talk) 19:54, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cleaned up[edit]

I cleaned up the article as I saw fit. It's a lot shorter now, but at least the information isn't garbage.Sanjayhari (talk) 02:32, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the deleted material was a copy-and-paste from a Telegraph article that is now properly cited in this article. The following statements were removed as uncited, but may be valid content if anyone can provide sources:
born in London in 1965 and lived there until two. Her parents divorced when she was three and she lived with her grandmother (actress Zubeida). She went to St Hilda's boarding school (in Ooty, Tamil Nadu) and studied economics at St Xavier's College in Mumbai when she was chosen as Society magazine's face of the year.
- Fayenatic (talk) 19:52, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Content dispute[edit]

@Samuell1616: can you explain your reasons for removing material sourced from the Telegraph as "promotional content" here? [1]

Also, having removed a citation, you immediately removed part of the sentence, and tagged the remainder as "citation needed".[2] How is that rational, please? – Fayenatic London 23:22, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Fayenatic london and Fayenatic: Hi , It was not the telegraph citation but these lines used at different places in the article "She is a brand ambassador for various products and an instructor for the Art of Living" , "a financial controller at IBM Europe" , "published by the tabloid MiD DAY" , "the broadsheet newspaper The Telegraph", "The event was promoted by Indiatimes, Asmi Diamonds and the Indian Television Academy", "founded by Sri Sri Ravishankar, and is an instructor for the Art of Living courses". (this line used n linked twice in the article)

Why the editor have to stress on these brands which does not have any direct link with the section or the subject ? and before I reply to your concerns you have restored the promotional version again !

If some details were published in Midday about the subject that should be attached in the reference why that’s missing ?

Telegraph article was more of editor’s view point and was not providing any factual data or direct authenticated information about the subject . The same section information was backed by news article from Times of India and Indian Express. The issue was about the marriage problems involving Rhea Pillai - Sunjay Dutt , Leander Paes and what supports it better news articles from highly notable reference sources or en editor criticism giving no authenticated information ?

Citation is required for the line used in the article "She stated in 2006 that they remained close friends. After the divorce became official in 2008”

Citation is required for the section talking about subjects father, mother , grand mother and her grand mothers mention being part of Alam Ara

The article was poorly referenced to some non notable websites n archive articles from www.indiaenews.com , www.filmibeat.com (website link no article found) , soulcurry magazine. The article was added with notable and relevant “news" articles from Indian express and times of India

No where in the whole article the subject information was tempered except the promotional language highlighting brands , group or publication making no relevance to the article. No reliable sources could be traced mentioning the subject is the brand ambassador / instructor or promoting products of art of living not even on the art of living website.

The entire updation was made in good faith to make the article and its information correct and free from any kind of direct indirect promotional representation. I ‘ll be happy to discuss your view point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samuell1616 (talk • contribs) 11:29, 19 January 2015‎

I acknowledge that you added some citations from good sources, but you added them to a different paragraph to the one from which you deleted all three citations.
You also left some of the "indirect promotional" material that you are now objecting to. Please be specific: which part of the content that I restored do you consider promotional? You are now objecting to a line which mentions Asmi Diamonds, but you never removed that line, and the citation for it prominently mentions "Asmi women" etc.
You also left in one occurrence of the line that says "Rhea is involved in the Art of Living Foundation"; I did not restore it. You removed its citation, so I restored (and updated) the citation.
If the citations are unreliable sources or dead links, I believe it is unhelpful to remove them and tag the statements as "citation needed", as if they had never been cited. It's much better to tag the citations as {{unreliable source}} or {{dead link}}.
If you are removing material for multiple reasons, please either state all the reasons in the edit summary. If that would be too long or unclear, then please make multiple edits, so that each edit summary does state the reasons for your changes. It was unhelpful to state "promotional content" when you were also removing material cited from sources that you consider non-notable. In any case, a non-notable source (e.g. a magazine or website) from a large publisher may yet be reliable. – Fayenatic London 14:47, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Fayenatic london:I already mentioned all the promotional lines in the article, Yes, that’s correct and am still in process of updating it I made two edits the last one was this I was searching for some better reference that can be linked to the asmi women award and just missed removing the promoter mentions, if you agree to my views you may please remove the promoter mention. I had just referred that she is involved with art of living foundation; removed further details about the roles or about the foundation and its founder. The current details where not traceable via reliable sources if she still hold any responsibility or just a individual member of foundation hence requested for citation. About removing the three cited links as mentioned earlier First ref from www.indiaenews.com - not reliable and it only talks about sunjay dutt’s life milestone (I think thats just cited to support Rhea n Sunjay marriage as no other detail is available in that with ref to the article) This information is better supported now by the newly added citations from reliable sources. Second citation was linked to a film website homepage (no mention about the subject resulting direct promotion) hence removed, Third citation soul curry magazine is not that well known , not sure is it a e-blogmagzine have doubts about its realibilty factor so removed that too but if you have sufficient information available about its credentials you may take a call. You also reverted the Midday and telegraph promotional lines along with these non reliable citations, I added citation request so that reliable sources can be linked not dead links promoting a website nowhere relevant to the article / subject, also the way you have commented the edit summery is a bit harsh. One life to live (talk) 15:56, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As the Telegraph citation is an editorial titled "The Rhea Pillai affair", it seemed notable enough to be included.
If your new citations support material in other paragraphs, please add tags accordingly, see WP:Inline citations#Ref tags. – Fayenatic London 23:21, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Rhea Pillai. 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) 21:16, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rhea_Pillai&oldid=1204834573"