Talk:Riya Sen

Gossip

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)

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)

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)

GA failed

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)

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)

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)

I have expanded the lead somewhat. Please, check. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 11:54, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

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)

Australian musician (SIESHAN)has eyes for Riya Sen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.8.46.235 (talk) 14:46, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Jhankar Beats

The film is claimed to be a hit, while only one site claims so. I looked for it and leading BO sites, such as boxofficeindia and ibosnetwork don't even mention it among the top grossing productions of 2003. I would therefore ask for a secondary source for this claim. Thanks, Shahid • ^Talk2me 18:45, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Also please see this link by Rediff. The film was declared a flop after two weeks, and was removed from the BO list afterwards. Shahid • ^Talk2me 21:35, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Rediff declares it a flop, and yes, does it after two weeks of release. That probably discounts out the money it made over the next few months. Box office India doesn't mention it in their box office report, which does the same to about hundreds of other films made in Bollywood. One interesting thing that I noticed is that they listed films according to gross earnings, but declared hit or flop according to how much of their investment was returned. The lowest earner in the list had 35%-40% of investment returned, hence a flop, but the same return of 45 million rupees would have returned 200% of Jhankar Beats investment, making it a hit. Box Office returns are a difficult equation, especially so in India. And, that's why I'd prefer to go with major mainstream media verdicts like the Hindu (which was supported by others). I didn't even count in Times of India here, as the film was an investment of their publisher. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 04:56, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I know that BOI mentions only the highest grossing. And BTW, not only box office India, but every other box office analyst in the world calculates verdicts according to how much of a film's investment was returned. That's why The Hero, which was the most expensive Bollywood production up until then, flopped miserably (which was quite expected). That's why I wonder why Rediff does not mention further. Maybe it stopped its screenings and thrown off the cinemas?

My biggest concern is: is there any other evidence? IBOSnetwork doesn't mention it either (when it has 50 film listed). This link from the Hindu doesn't really say the film was a hit, and it was published merely 10 days after the film release. On the other hand, The Tribune doesn't mention that, when it comes to a full box office coverage...

What comes from that, is that the link on the page is the only one, and I don't really have a problem with that. The problem is that other reputable sources don't even mention that, don't support the claim, and even contradict it. That's why I ask for a secondary source, for an evidence. Shahid • ^Talk2me 09:13, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh now there is another one. Shaadi no. 1 a hit? Well this one clearly wasn't. BO states it was a flop, so does IBOS, so does indiaFM, and so do many other sites. So I'll take the liberty to remove it. An article, which is on its way to reach high status, cannot be based on wrong info. Shahid • ^Talk2me 09:32, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Fine with the Shaadi bit, I already had refrained myself from quoting it as a hit. Jhankar not too sure of. Would you want to rewrite it like the success was in the public attention, like the Tribune does, and lead to a commercial success among in the limited distribution format, like reported by the Hindu? May be the "surprise" thing can stay as part of the scene.

BTW, all around the world box office success is not just measured by first week or first month success across the whole gamut of distribution outlets. Cost recovery happens in many ways that includes TV rights, music rights, franchise, selection of outlets and the mode of distribution (i.e. selling off the prints, renting the prints, screening by wholly-owned services etc.). In India it is even more difficult as audit practices are not too transparent in rural regions, and already there are way too many overlapping market segments. For really big films it's fairly easy to find out. For smaller films that recover investment at a smaller scale, it certainly isn't so. This complexities are part of the reason that Hum Aapke Hain Kaun...! was declared an all tie blockbuster even when it recovered only 80%-85%.

Anyways, it's great to have someone taking an interest in the article, and I want it to turn out only the best way. When you get to the Family life and Public persona sections you'd find a lot of choppy sentences loosely joined together, not always making a coherent sense. That's the part I really need to clear up before submitting it to GAN or something. I hope you'll be here till that happens. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 10:12, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Well I'll be here to help you, friend!=] Writing a BLP article about an artist, media person or celebrity, is not an easy task and actually one of the most difficult ones. I know that from my own experience. I'll try to do something with Jhankar Beats first. Regards, Shahid • ^Talk2me 12:01, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

What do you say about it now? Shahid • ^Talk2me 13:20, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Riya Sen

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)

Comments by Shahid

Well, I've made some copyediting, but it still needs a big deal of work. Here are general comments.

Reliability of sources

• Deccan Herald
• Keral.com
• That's Malayalam
• Chennaionline
• India Varta
• 4dw.com

Are they reliable?

Prose

Needs major work in that aspect.

• Please beware using too many "also"s, "even" etc.
• Don't start a sentence with "But".

Later I'll comment on specific sentences. Shahid • ^Talk2me 16:27, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

The more I read, the more I get disppointed. There is no end to the word "also", and this is not the way an encyclopedia article should be written -- it makes it sound like a list of sentences without coherence or flow. But I'll still say that it has great potential, and with some work, it will reach the so awaited GA.

more comments

Public persona

• What is Mr. India Final?
• Smashits is not a reliable source.

Shahid • ^Talk2me 16:49, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I've made major copyediting, grammar correction, etc., and in my opinion it looks better. I'm yet to go through the personal life section. What do you say? Shahid • ^Talk2me 17:10, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Reply A lot of issues there. Going one by one. Deccan Herald looks like a very reliable source to me. Keral.com and That's Malayalam are too far behind, judging by the amount of citations they have. Though all three sources are wee bit tainted by POVs, which is readily manageable. I can't decide as strongly about Chennaionline and India Varta, but judging by the content, POVs aside, they look kind of reliable. Don't know about 4dw.com, looks pretty unreliable at that. Smashits is obviously not reliable.

Thanks for removing all those "but"s, "even"s and "also"s. I have removed what was left, and the prose actually got better. Sorry about the prose. I know my already bad English is getting worse, and that's why I keep requesting people to lend a hand there. Not getting too many copyeditors around yet, and most of my hard-work remain short of good articles because of the atrocious prose. Thanks for improving it dramatically.

The personal life and public persona sections (especially the latter) is particularly in shambles. Please, take a long hard look. I promise to address every issues I can. And, oh, Mr. India Final would be the final of the Mr. India competition. I have tweaked the copy a bit there. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 13:40, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Deccan Herald should be fine. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:42, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

More comments

• Please don't refer to her as "the actress".
• There are problems in flow:
  • "...MMS clip, which was alleged as a publicity move. In 2007, she underwent a brief detoxification..." - It doesn't flow, and there is no relation at all - these two sentences cannot come together in one paragraph, let alone one right after the other.
  • "...where she stays with her sister. In her early days in Mumbai she used to travel by public transport..." - Again.
  • "Riya's public persona is compared to her mother..." - it clearly belongs to the "public persona" section. Although it starts with info re her mother and grandmother, the section is named "Early life and background" - which means - no redundant additions regarding her present life, this section should introduce a pure and factual description of her family and background, nothing else.
• The MMS clip, alleged affairs etc., can be moved to a separate section, "Personal life" or "Personal life and controversies".
• Shahid • ^Talk2me 16:39, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I have made some radical changes to the personal life section. Most problems should be fixed, though, I feel, there's still some choppiness left. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 19:27, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments by Blofeld of SPECTRE

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)

"Riya Sen, since joining Bollywood, has become a representative of the aspirations of younger people of India by way of her clothing style, kissing scenes and outgoing manners" -this is far too generalized and POV however much of a model she is. All the stuff on the glitzy parties and bikinis. Much of that reads like blog and will have to be seriously cut and reworded ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 18:23, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

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)

Comments by Blnguyen

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)

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)

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)

Sure. Thanks for clarifying the surname policy wrt Sen. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:44, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Riya Sen/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Hello. I'll be doing the GA review for this article. I see that it has already had several editors look over it, and that has taken care of most of the issues. I've read through the article, and here are a few things I think still need to be improved:

•  Done"Her other notable films" - don't say things are notable...if you are writing it, then it is assumed it is notable --> "Some of her other films include"
•  Done"as an infamous MMS clip" - same as above --> "as a MMS clip"
• ✗ Not done Citations should be after punctuation. In the first section: 3, 4, 10. This is a problem throughout.

Only a couple of citations do not follow punctuations as they are serving a more serious purpose in their positioning. These are put in context of facts that may be a bit more provocative than the rest, and may face a challenge by an unwitting editor. Are you sure that following punctuations is more important than contextualizing clarifications? If so, that issue may be addressed easily. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 08:12, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

•  Done"star-studded dance number" - does it need to be referred to as star studded? It makes it obvious later when all the stars are mentioned --> "dance number"

• Agreed, start-studded seems redundant. Mspraveen (talk) 04:49, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

•  Done"a Bengali film that is yet to be finished." - this is a time dependent statement --> "a Bengali film that, as of 2008, has yet to be finished."
•  DoneTry and replace as many dead links as possible.
•  Done"Her father Bharat Dev Varma is a member of the royal family of Tripura." - source?
•  Done"Luckily for her, she was cleared of serious injury." - POV. Try combining the second part of that sentence to the previous sentence --> "During the filming of Shaadi No. 1 in France, she was knocked unconscious after being accidentally run over by a stuntman's motorbike, but she was not seriously injured."

• Thanks for detailing on how to put this across. Mspraveen (talk) 04:49, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

•  Done"intimate situations" - clarify...this can mean a lot of different things

• Changed to compromising. I hope this conveys the right meaning. Mspraveen (talk) 04:49, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

• ✗ Not done Throughout the article, she is referred to as Riya. Please only refer to her by her last name, Sen.

In India, the practice is to often referring to people by their first names, as the last names are way to common. See articles on Harbhajan Singh or Zaheer Khan to check that phenomenon. There may be over 10 million Sens in India, about half a dozen are mentioned in the article alone. Unless the Indian has an uncommon last name or have earned his/her claim to fame in the West where his/her name is uncommon anyways, it is better and safer to call them by their first names. Contrary to Western practices, there is no disrespect implied in doing so when dealing Indian names. The issue has already been discussed on the article talk page. If you believe that the argument of Indian cultural paradigm and social practices doesn't apply here, then the issue can be addressed easily. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 08:12, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Pretty good. There are also some minor comma problems, but I'll fix those once everything else is taken care of. The article will be on hold for seven days to allow for improvements. Nikki311 20:10, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Though User:Aditya Kabir is the main contributor to this, I've chipped in with a bit. On his behalf, I thank you for taking out time in doing the GA review. Shortly, I hope the rest of the points will be addressed. Cheers! Mspraveen (talk) 04:49, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I was out for good for some time. I have fixed the dead links. But, on two more issues I have a slight disagreement, and have stated my position. If you still think those issues need addressing, I can fix it fast and easy. Thanks Praveen, for watching over the article. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 08:12, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm a little torn on the name issue, to be honest. I understand where you are coming from, though, so I guess it can stay. However, she is referred to as just Sen a couple of times in the article, so I'd at least change those to Riya to be consistent. Nikki311 22:14, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

 Done I fixed this myself, as it wasn't a big deal. There is one thing left to change. Ref numbers 32, 39, and 43 need to be formatted. Fix that, and I'll pass the article. Nikki311 20:09, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Nikki for those minor fixes. The refs have been fixed now. I hope all is in order. Cheers! Mspraveen (talk) 04:50, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Excellent! I fixed the few comma problems I saw and have passed the article. Great work! Nikki311 01:38, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Great! Thanks so much for your review and the assistance. Cheers! Mspraveen (talk) 04:37, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

WP:INDIA Banner/Tripura Addition

Note: {{WP India}} 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)

Amateur mobile video

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)

Use of Kathakali

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) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vedaj89 (talk • contribs)

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedy deleted because... --182.178.102.35 (talk) 12:37, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

luohi'[[u hpki fykuyjukjk

What are you up to ? You yourself tagged the page for CSD A7 and you yourself are contesting it ?

I have removed the CSD tag, as this Article is Notable. Bentogoa (talk) 12:45, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Confusion!

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)

Yeah, this only belongs on those other girls' articles. BollyJeff | talk 13:03, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

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)

Filmography

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)

Yes. Please go ahead. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 12:35, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Please proceed to change the filmography type. Torreslfchero (talk) 12:39, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

 Done BollyJeff | talk 14:37, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

birthdate

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)

Can you help? Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 18:04, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Revert

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)

External links modified

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.

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) 21:36, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Riya-Sen-138.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:51, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Riya sen latest modelling.png

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:22, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Recent edits by Prasunkuls9

Hello Prasunkuls9: 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).

Article mentioned defaming sentence regarding Riya & Ashmit patel which remained unproved . This detail to article appears defaming to Riya Sen.

— The first removal

Changed detailes related to ashmit patel and riya sen MMS. That MMS has nothing to do with Riya sen. It was just a rumour and confirmed by celebrity in various interviews. Content placed on wiki shall attaract legal complications and defame subject to Riya sen. Request u to consider to allow this change . The MMS mentioned here was about some body double nudity that went viral. Its absolute fake information to attach with Riya sen on her Wiki page.

— The second removal

I would also like to remind of the comment I made with my revert.

unproved is not a problem. removing appropriately sourced and cited material material is

— The first 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)

GA Reassessment

Riya Sen

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:45, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

It was assessed 16 years ago and it underwent a lot of edits since then. There are a lot of citation-needed templates, along with unsourced filmography sections, a lot of grammatical, (especially punctuation and wording errors), as well as factual discrepancies and poor sourcing. For example, as of this nom, it incorporates her birthday being on two different dates and years. In the lede and infobox, it is listed as 24 January 1989, but in the personal life section, it is listed as "Born on 24 January 1981." It also does not follow conventional section ordering and manual of styles. Right after the lede, there's the "Acting career" section, wherein, it should've been another section, such as Early life and family. But these details are listed sporadically in the latter sections.

It is also generally not well written.

Anyone with a cursory look can tell this does not meet the standard of Good Article we have set here. X (talk) 05:10, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.