Talk:Bodyguard (2011 Hindi film)

Bodyguard Worldwide Gross

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Scieberking, why are you changing the worldwide gross to 253 when you know the Hindi only version is 230 crores. We used 240 for Ra.one because Box Office India failed to provide figures for the other version of the film, Tamil/Telugu/German/Chinese/etc. We discussed this with many editors and reach a consensus on the Ra.one talk page. Please stop vandalizing the page. Consider this your first warning. Also, if you go by what CNN-IBN says then their LATEST article pegs Bodyguard at 229 crore. Box Office India says 230 crore. Now it's your choice. Because a recent article by CNN-IBN trumps the reference you provided. Asher Madan 00:36, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I do not understand why the figure is written as ₹229 crores right now. I believe it is ₹230 crores. Small difference, but even this should not exist; Ashermadan, CNN-IBN is not a BO webiste, its reporting from some other source most probably. Ans Ashermadan, for the umpteenth time, sign your statements by typing four tildes (~).

Secondly, Raonebest (a rather weird name, I must say :D ), do not pay much heed to what some editors are saying. "Second, the inclusion of 240 crore on the article was the result of a week consensus [Read: Blind fanboyism]" and "Ra.One is the second highest grossing film, only according to bogus claims by its distributors" are statements that warrant ignorance and foolishness, as they sound extraordinarily fanboyistic and are clearly not made with any good sense or intention. "From my years of experience here on Wikipedia, I've seen dozens of fanboys of some stars and their trolling behaviors and disruptions on the articles related to the rival stars. This sort of behavior is just not acceptable." And I'm quite certain the said editor himself is one of these "dozens of fanboys", and he certainly goes about "trolling" pages. You need only a little WP experience to see that. The only reason why the editor is labeling everybody else a fanboy and troll is because the others do not fall in line with his thoughts and opinions; its his only excuse, and he's clearly losing. Let him be. The discussion was about Bodyguard's worldwide gross, and it is ₹230 crores. I hope that clarifies the situation to some extent. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 04:43, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Please assume good faith and avoid personal attacks. It's not about trolling, it's about being fair and neutral to every article. Scieberking (talk) 05:17, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

You are not being fair and neutral. Everyone knows this. Please stop this. BOINDIA is going to be used here as it is used in every other Bollywood article. Everyone except you agrees to this. Zubeidaaslam786 (talk) 08:42, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

CNN-IBN is a third-party reliable source and it's all that counts. Since there's no consensus or restriction to use BOI on any film article (inlcuding Ra.One), anything from a reputed source as BO collections can be used. Scieberking (talk) 05:04, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

The same can be said for you : "[Read: Blind fanboyism]" isn't civil or a part of assuming good faith. Personal attacks, refer to the talk page of List of highest-grossing Bollywood films. Not a very great record in not attacking, is it?

There has already been widespread discussion on this, and you should note with immediate effect that the Hindi version of Ra.One is ₹202 crore, and as such it has been mentioned in the Box Office section. What you are not trying to understand is the fact that Ra.One was a multi-language release. The common practice, especially among Hollywood films, is to take the combined gross of all versions (this includes re-release, dubbings, 3D etc.) A good example is The Lion King. The same should apply for all film articles. Bodyguard had only one language version, no 3D etc. and hence BOI is most notable. To quell any misgivings, it is possible to separately mention Ra.One's Hindi version gross along with all-language gross in the infobox, but that's about it. ₹230 crores is reported by the most reliable source (for Hindi films), so {India Rupee}}230 crores it will be. Hopefully you will try to understand this time. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 06:34, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

This is your first warning Scieberking. We always use BOI UNLESS the film has released in multiple languages and BOI does not provide figures AS THE CONSENSUS THAT WAS REACHED EARLIER. Please do not put 253 or you will be reported. Asher Madan 06:23, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

We rely on a reliable third party when we dont have any information from the main source BoxofficeIndia in the case of boxoffice collection for Bollywod films. IMHO, it should be ₹230 crores. Hey Ashermadan, there is no need for any warning while a doubt is discussed and as said earlier, please use four tildes ~~~~ to sign your comment in talk pages or discussion pages. -- Karthik Nadar 06:39, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying Karthikndr. I know that and that is what I told Scieberking. But he keeps on reverting the edits. Can you please explain it to him? Thanks in advance. Asher Madan 06:48, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Excellent; we are nearing consensus. Ashermadan, I have already commented on your talk page, and you should follow up on it. I think ₹230 crores is the perfect number for BG. I am not under-reporting or being "paid by SRK", "being a blind fanboy" or "being a diva", so all excuses to attack me will be in vain. Thank you. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 06:55, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Ankitbhatt, first off Ra.One collecting 40 crore from dubbed versions is highly illogical, since there've been numerous media reports that discussed the low collections from dubbed versions. Secondly, 240 crore is official and "first-party" data. Many editors, including Karthik, have agreed that it is a promotional figure and "any publication put out by an organization is clearly not independent of any topic that organization has an interest in promoting." Regarding personal attacks, "Blind fanboyism" was not directed towards any specific editor, and even I did not say "the said editor", or use harsh language. Secondly, there's no, repeat no, consensus anywhere to use BOI for Hindi film articles. In fact, the notability and assessment process of BOI is highly disputed and controversial. BOI is not even considered "third-party" as it "estimates its data". In this case, CNN-IBN is a highly reliable third-party, independent source: "A third-party source is one that is entirely independent of the subject being covered, e.g., a newspaper reporter covering a story that they are not involved in except in their capacity as a reporter." Third, this is not WP:VOTE and a clear consensus must be established. Please provide valid reasons if you want to revert my edits again. Thanks. Scieberking (talk) 07:01, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

You are right Scieberking. Tough BoxofficeIndia seem to be preferred for the Box office issues, when compared to CNN-IBN, I would prefer the later. CNN-IBN, been a third party, still they would prefer to research the information received by them. If then, would prefer CNN-IBN, but only when the info from BoxofficeIndia seems to be disputed. -- Karthik Nadar 07:10, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

So CNN-IBN is a better source here, as I've stated above there is no consensus on any film-related project or any other relevant noticeboard to strictly use BOI. I don't mean disrespect for anyone, but lame things like a Facebook page and even tweets have been used only to inflate gross of certain films. Thanks. Scieberking (talk) 07:16, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

The latest article from CNN-IBN pegs Bodyguard at 229. It is from December 19 2011. http://ibnlive.in.com/news/bollywood-rediscovered-mega-hits-in-2011/212464-8-66.html BOI is the preferred source in this case. Asher Madan 07:23, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Invalid point. This report is by Indo-Asian News Service (IANS), not by CNN-IBN staff, and not exclusive; therefore aggregated on several other newspapers also. The other source is an exclusive research report by Mihir Trivedi of CNN-IBN. When it was publshed on Nov 04, 2011, the theatrical run of Bodyguard was long over, so WP:RECENTISM is irrelevant. Scieberking (talk) 07:28, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, I disagree. BOI is still the preferred source. Let's have a vote. Asher Madan 07:32, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

See WP:VOTE. Polling is not a substitute for discussion. When conflicts arise, they are resolved through discussion, debate and collaboration. Scieberking (talk) 07:33, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Let's clear the air once and for all, and put a full stop to all this nonsense being stated by Scieberking:-

• Fist off, ₹40 crores is the worldwide Tamil/Telugu dubbing gross. In India itself, the combined had a net total of around ₹10 crores (reported by BOI), which means the gross could be as much as ₹15 crores because tax in Southern states are much higher than the national average. 40 crores is very achievable; the media stated that it underperformed, comparing to the expectations created by Rajnikanth's cameo. They did not say the collections were poor in their own right, and Ra.One actually has a very high net for a dubbed Hindi film. Btw, its ₹38 crores, as Hindi gross is ₹202 crores.

• Secondly, no matter how much you say, the total figure must take up all dubbed versions. The Hindi-only version will not be put in the infobox; it may be put as an aside, but only along with all the language versions. There is no reliable source that states the all-language total, so there is no choice in the matter.

• There is a widespread, repeat widespread, and well-known fact that BOI is the only reliable source for Hindi films, unless Box Office Mojo starts seriously collecting Indian film numbers. There is no need of consensus as there are few BO sites for Indian films, and 80% of them are bogus (a la IBOS). It is generally accepted that BOI numbers are only to be taken, and in all film articles BOI numbers are used. Your excuses to reduce BOI credibility just to push up Bodyguard's numbers is bad. Care to explain why you are so hell-bent on using a BOI figure for Ra.One if BOI is not that reliable, according to you? Btw, BOI is definitely third-person, and the illogical claim of a single person doesn't change that. Non-third person character has been questioned by hundreds of Salman fanatics, who think that SRK pays BOI and hence BOI is not third-party, and that is so stupid that I don't even need to reply to such statements.

• I have not stated that CNN-IBN is unreliable, but they obtain their numbers from other sources (mostly BOI itself). You need not bring up definitions as BOI will stll remain third-party and reliable.

• Lastly, this is a consensus issue as you have been disruptive for long enough. This matter will be sorted out by seeing the consensus; after than we can see whether its a vote or not.

Good day Scieberking. I know you are unwilling to comprehend, but I must do my best so as not to be implicated by you later in some non-neutral discussions. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 07:41, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I do not know why there is discussion going on about this but ANIKITBHATT is right. BOI is reliable source and CNN can not be used here. Scieberking said that BOI is to be used before on other page but he is saying something else here. BOI should be used for Bodyguard (2011 Hindi Film). Zubeidaaslam786 (talk) 07:51, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Btw, what is Scieberking's excuse to explain why a CNN-IBN article states that Ra.One earned 240 crores? I hope its not as lame as "240 crore is a bullshit figure". ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 07:52, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Ah Scieberking, see your double standards are being exposed even by completely non-involved editors. Speaks volumes of Scieberking's tall claims of being neutral. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 07:55, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

YES HAVE NOTICED SCIEBERKING SAYING SOMETHING ON OTHER ARTICLE BUT SAYING SOMETHING NEW ON OTHER WORK. Zubeidaaslam786 (talk) 08:02, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand why there's a debate about this. Kartik himself said that box office india should be used unless box office india can't provide the data. Bodyguard is a hindi only film and box office india is used for everything else. Just stick with box office india. Why was this issue brought like right now? Why not before? Plus, 253 crore was reported using 40% entertainment tax that Reliance always uses while others in the industry use 25% entertainment tax if you do the math. 253 is preposterous. Also, the tax for dubbed versions of a hindi film is 50% for dubbed tamil and telugu films. I thought Scieberking was actually confused as first but his double standards are clearly showing through. Even Zuleide agrees. Asher Madan 08:00, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Zubeidaas, please do not speak in caps lock. It means that you are shouting, and nobody wants anybody else to shout. Your point has been well-noted. Ashermadan, you need reading glasses; can't you spell anybody's name properly? Sperrking for Scieberking, Zuleide for Zubiedaas LOL. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 08:10, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for using CAP lock i am not angry. Zubeidaaslam786 (talk) 08:12, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

The reliability of BOI has been disputed several times, and the latest entry was here, or even read this discussion. It has been established that BOI is an SPS and a weak source. Ankitbhatt, don't accuse others of bad faith, and comments like "nonsense" and "double standards". 40 crore is not achievable from any angle from a local net of 10 crore, as the dubbed screenings in overseas markets were very less, and to a very limited effect. CNN-IBN doesn't necessarily take it data from BOI, and as I've noted, this one is an exclusive research report by its staffer. Regarding Zubeidaaslam786's comment, it is useless because she contributes nothing to the discussion and I've already explained why BOI is a disputed source. Ashermadan, there's been no single source about the consumption tax. Everybody knows that all producers, including EROS, currently use 40% entertainment tax. Provide a source to back up your points. Scieberking (talk) 08:13, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I will use "double standards" if I see double standards being used; calling an editor as a "practitioner of double standards" is not an attack, just like "troll" is not an attack. The reliability has not been disputed, but the practice of approximation has been disputed; besides, it is well-known fact that even BOM approximates to a certain extent. It has certainly not been established that BOI is anything such, except perhaps by you. The statement "40 crore is not achievable from any angle from a local net of 10 crore, as the dubbed screenings in overseas markets were very less, and to a very limited effect" is pure original research and obvious POV, and such talk is not worth being given a second look.

Calling other editors "useless contributors" is unacceptable; her views are very much in sync with the truth, and she is an uninvolved editor who is looking at everything from a more distant view; the best view to see things. So your attempt at belittling her view will fail. Regarding tax, I do not know the exact figure for Southern states but the national average is 25% and most reliable sources say that South taxes are "little more than double" of it. Zubeidaas, it should be clarified that BOI is certainly not a disputed source, and Scieberking's multiple back-tracks on usage of BOI (especially regarding Ra.One and this article) have greatly diluted his stand.

Everybody knows Eros takes 40% tax? No, nobody knows and your statements are now bordering on absolute non-notability and pure fanboyism. I have no idea about Reliance/Eros or any other distributor, so I can' comment on individual stuff. But the South tax is 50%, shown by reliable sources.

And I am still waiting to hear the excuse about why the CNN-IBN link cannot be used as a source. Make it a good excuse, please. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 08:25, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Scieberking must be useless as he can not accept BOI is to be used. How do I report his uncivil behavior? He should be banned. Scieberking is rude and uncivil. Zubeidaaslam786 (talk) 08:30, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Also I have read everything Scieberking has said on RaOne. He has made nasty remarks about everyone and he also sends nasty personal messages to other editors regarding certain people who comment here. He is Salman Khan fan who is upset that RaOne broke Bodyguard record. He is not a trade analyst so he does not know what he is talking about. He is two faced and a manipulator. I demand he be blocked for calling me useless. Please tell me how to ban a rude person like him. Zubeidaaslam786 (talk) 08:36, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I've said this once and I'll say it again. Box Office India is used all the time unless there is a problem like them not providing data for all the versions. Bodyguard is a Hindi only release. What Scieberking is saying is just pure fantasy. I do not know where he is getting this information. Box Office India is the right source to use here. The reasons stated above couldn't be more clear. Asher Madan 08:32, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

The article I provided is perfectly acceptable because CNN should not have published it if the numbers disagreed. There is something called consistency. It appeared on the CNN website and they knew that that article said 229 while another said 253. 229 article is newer so it should be used. Ideally BOI should be used.Asher Madan 08:40, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Asher we all agree that BOI is best source. Zubeidaaslam786 (talk) 08:43, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Accusing other of speaking "nonsense" is clearly one. BOI fully operates on the practice of approximation, which doesn't make it a third-party and independent source, but a self-published and weak source. Even the 50% tax in the Southern region can't make 40 crore gross of a 10 crore nett. There were very few, overseas screenings of dubbed versions, it all goes almost on the verge of overlooked. The entertainment tax is around 40 percent in most regions: 1 and 2. Secondly, you don't need to misinterpret my views. Where did I say that Zubeidaaslam786 is a "useless contributor". I only said that her/his comment (not herself/himself) contributed nothing to the dicussion, hence useless. Thirdly, what IBN link are you talking about? Ashermadan, it was an IANS report and therefore also published on other media. It took all its data from BOI, without citing of course. Scieberking (talk) 08:41, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

It was on the CNN website and published by them. Sorry, you can't use that as an excuse. The article I sited was more recent and more valid. Please stop this right now. Everyone disagrees with you. Asher Madan 08:47, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

You need to control your abuse Scieberking or I will report you. You are uncivil. You must be useless, not me. Everyone except you is neutral and you have agenda. I have read all your message to Kartik and Secret of Success XOne SOS. You did this on purpose because you are upset over the number put on other article. Stop being fanboy and rude to me. I am warning you. Zubeidaaslam786 (talk) 08:49, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I need to go to sleep but I am sure Meryam90 will get involved and support the decision to use Box Office India in the morning. I am sure other editors will support us. Box Office India is the best source we have currently. There were no multiple versions of Bodyguard and there is no need to use contradictory CNN articles. Asher Madan 08:51, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

No, it was aggregated from IANS, and unlike Mihir Trivedi's research report, not by a CNN-IBN staffer; hence irrelevant. Scieberking (talk) 08:53, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

It appeared on their site and is relevant. Sorry. Asher Madan 08:55, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Scieberking it is good source. It show why CNN can not be use here. Zubeidaaslam786 (talk) 08:56, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Hey Scieberking, we have voiced our opinion and you are the only one still pushing your agenda as everyone is saying. I will oppose using that source no matter what. Zubeida, Anikit, Meryam will too. The last thing I will say before I sleep is that you need to stop being a Salman fanboy and think of wikipedia first. You need to be neutral. Asher Madan 09:00, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

It clearly mentioned IANS, while the other one has "Mihir Trivedi, CNN-IBN" on the top. Check this out; a general report and aggregated on a few dozen places. It is not a WP:VOTE Scieberking (talk) 09:03, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for not having commented earlier; I was a bit busy with my user page.

The link provided by Ashermadan is a perfectly reliable source, and if it is used by CNN then definitely it can be used as a source. Sorry Scieberking, that is unfortunately not true; it doesn't matter even if IANS reported (and IANS itself is not unreliable), if the highly reliable sources use it, there is credibility in it. It is definitely not irrelevant.

Zubeidaas, refrain from saying that other editors are useless, even if other editors say so to you. It is best to ignore them or leave them off with a short warning.

Ashermadan, let's top this fan war, its been going on for too long. We know where allegiances lie, so no need to over-publicize the fact. Just concentrate on the issue.

Yes, it is agreed that BOI is the best source if for Hindi alone. I have said this hundreds of times.

BOI approximates to 99% accuracy (it has been backed by distributors) so your attempts to reduce BOI credibility are going down the drain. It is a reliable third-party source. And need I again point out the fact that you were extremely set on using only BOI on the Ra.One article? Come Scieberking, nobody is a fool, so don't treat others like one.

"Ashermadan, it was an IANS report and therefore also published on other media. It took all its data from BOI, without citing of course." LOL, if it took ALL its information from BOI, then they should have reported ₹202 crore for Ra.One as BOI has not reported anything other than Hindi version of it. I'm sorry Scieberking, you are weaving your own trap bit by bit, and your comments are becoming increasingly funny to read. Your stand has been greatly diluted, and your views no longer carry the sort of weight they used to carry before, mainly due to this back-tracking and double-facedness.

Tax is 40-60% in several states, but what Scieberking conveniently forgot to mention is that several states are tax-free, such as major revenue earners like Punjab. The nation-wide average is 25%.

Scieberking, I seriously can't believe you said this : "Even the 50% tax in the Southern region can't make 40 crore gross of a 10 crore nett." LOL, when did I say a 10 cr net form India alone makes 40 cr gross? I said the worldwide gross is ₹38 crore, and that is very possible. it is to be noted that your repeated statement about the negligibility of dubbed versions overseas is a plain lie, as Ra.One gained a considerable dubbed release overseas, especially in Tamil-populated areas such as Malaysia.

Yes, Scieberking has been very silly in Ra.One and he is becoming quite silly here as well. A shame, really. Neutrals have already run down Scieberking's arguments (Karthik), and still he stands defiantly. Clap-worthy. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 09:27, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

There's a fine line between aggregated data and an exclusive report like I've pointed out above a few times already. Secondly, as I've twice stated, the latest entry about BOI has made me skeptic about its practice and it lacks a business face. Let's wait for other established editors' opinion on this. Thanks. Scieberking (talk) 09:42, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Please stop this. Scieberking seemed neutral here. If I have missed out anything, please let me know. And Ashermadan has gone to the extent of canvassing stating that "Meryam90 will support me". I did not have patience to go through the entire discussion, but rubbing on it says that there is something fishy going on here. You better take a break, just like we did in SRK's article, or admin intervention is required. X.One ^SOS 09:32, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your opinion, SOS. Yeah, let's just take a break. Scieberking (talk) 09:43, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

X.One, read through this discussion and then tell me that Scieberking is neutral. Btw, let's take a break, then what? We'll be back to this. Do you think Scieberking is going to stop insisting a higher figure for Bodyguard? You must be very naive if you think "yes". ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 09:45, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) If editors are unwilling to take a break, fine. Let's solve the issue here and now. According to WP:PSTS, primary sources are not reliable enough to override secondary sources. BOI is a primary source, as discussed in a previous RFC, and CNN-IBN is not, if they take material from various other agencies, as they mention in their disclaimer. Regarding the IANS report, it says that the information is from Box office India, yet I see no mention of BOI giving a 240c report for Ra.One. There are some errors in it, no doubt. But as long as we did not have contradicting sources for BOI, we could have used it. X.One ^SOS 09:51, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

And Ankit, please point those incidents where it has taken place. If it is indeed a violation, I'll accept without hesitation. Please keep Zubeidaaslam out of this if they cannot control their extent of pouring personal attacks, and threats. X.One ^SOS 09:55, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

How nice. BOI is a primary source. Great. Anyways, the point is that 240 cr figure can be used. Right or not? Give a plain answer. Keep Zubeidaas out of this? Huh? I don't know what sort of nonsense Scieberking is feeding you, but let me make it clear that I did not bring the editor into this discussion. This has gone far enough. Support Scieberking if you wish, but don't try to pull the wool over my eyes. And go through discussions before jumping in with opinions. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 09:57, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

CNN published two contradictory articles and is not reliable. It cannot be used here because in one newer article is says 229 and other it says 253. Only BOI can be used here. Zubeidaaslam786 (talk) 10:00, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Zubeidaaslam786, please stop adding redundant stuff into the discussion. Your concern has been already answered thrice and the discussion is already getting too lengthy. Thanks for your understanding. Scieberking (talk) 10:14, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

The 240c figure for Ra.One is perfectly fine, as long as other reliable sources, do not contradict it directly. I have no objection for that. BOI had given the data only for the hindi version, and the dubbed versions cannot be ignored. Period. X.One ^SOS 10:17, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

And Ankit, I'm not "supporting Scieberking" by any means. Please don't accuse me of that. My opinions are my own interpretations of Wp rules and regulations. X.One ^SOS 10:23, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

In fact, I'm willing to discuss each and every bit of this conversation with you, if you would lend me your ears and patience for the time-being. X.One ^SOS 10:25, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

So CNN contradicted itself in two different articles so cannot be used. Zubeidaaslam786 (talk) 10:27, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

My concern has not been addressed and you just insulted me instead Scierber. Zubeidaaslam786 (talk) 10:28, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

The fact is that CNN lost it's credibility because it published two articles on it's website, thus giving those reliable status. One said something else and the other said something else. They endorsed the content by making it available on their website. Your source was proven to be wrong because the same publisher published something completely different. There is a contradiction from the same source so it cannot be used here. Stop trying to ignore that and make up your own theories. Zubeidaaslam786 (talk) 10:30, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

First of all, "Bollywood rediscovered mega hits in 2011" is not a direct research by CNN-IBN. The issue is not as simple as you think. News organizations may use reports from other news agencies like IANS, and that means as long as they give an attribution, they cannot be held responsible for that report. If you are a new user, consider reading the guidelines and policies first. X.One ^SOS 10:35, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

253 source cannot be used because publisher contradicted himself! Zubeidaaslam786 (talk) 10:36, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I read the rules and that is my interpretation. Zubeidaaslam786 (talk) 10:37, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Zubeidaaslam786, please read from above. The first source was an exclusive research report by "Mihir Trivedi" of "CNN-IBN", while the other one claiming 229 crore, owned by IANS, has been aggregated on more than two dozen places, and was not CNN-IBN's own work. Scieberking (talk) 10:38, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

BOI is still the most reliable source. I will not change my stance. You are wrong. Zubeidaaslam786 (talk) 10:40, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

The publisher contradicting himself cannot make it an issue. It is the person who has created the work which matters. And Simply saying that a horse has five legs doesn't make it true – you must prove it.. X.One ^SOS 10:48, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Please do not talk to me until you have read all this discussion. You are misinformed. 253 cannot be used. Read AnikitBhatt's explanation. Stop this fanboyism. I have read all the exchanges between you and king so stop pretending to be neutral. Zubeidaaslam786 (talk) 10:50, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I have read your personal attacks against other editors and Ra.One film. Do not deny it. Your talk page is filled with personal attacks and biased statements. Zubeidaaslam786 (talk) 10:53, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

What you say here does not erase what you have said about others on your private talk page. I was shocked and disgusted by those comments. Zubeidaaslam786 (talk) 10:53, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Here is one such comment: "Hey, how can you compare a dumb elephant and an intelligent mouse? :P If Imran had the same fan-following as SRK, this film would have soared to great heights, not to mention the overseas collections. X.One SOS 16:14, 3 February 2012 (UTC)"

You have also abused other editors multiple times here. Zubeidaaslam786 (talk) 10:59, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I was commenting on content, not on any specific user. How is it a personal attack or a disruptive activity then? I discussed it with a user, and that did not interfere with any article or the encyclopedia as a whole. X.One ^SOS 11:29, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Zubeidaaslam786, instead of adding irrelevant allegations, please actually contribute to the discussion. Scieberking (talk) 12:44, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I have received a complaint about edit warring on this article, and I have taken appropriate action by fully protecting the article until some agreement is reached here. It is clear from reading through the discussion that there is more than a disagreement over content, with some comments being less than civil, and others suggesting a battleground mentality. If any clear agreement cannot be reached then alternative options should be considered, such as mediation. I will not unprotect the article until a clear consensus has been formed. CT Cooper · talk 12:23, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, I came here for similar reasons, and see enough incivility and personal attacks to block at least 3 of the editors in the exchange above. Follow WP:DR. Come to consensus wording ("according to sources, it has earned between 229 and 240..."). Seriously, this picking of nits is ridiculous (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:49, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

• Disclosure: I was directed here from this note. I have read through most of the discussion, and it is not proper to question the reliability of CNN-IBN against Box Office India. There is absolutely no rule that BOI figures have to be used. CNN-IBN is a reliable source. If any consensus was obtained to use BOI figures for Ra.One, it does not extend to other movies. If there was any RfC that was closed with a consensus that only BOI figures are to be used, I stand corrected. Any unfounded argument that CNN-IBN is not "as reliable" as BOI is invalid, because CNN-IBN clearly falls under the definition of a reliable source. I see a repeating pattern; might be worth going for an RfC. Lynch7 12:53, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Pardon me, but the point me and Scieberking have been trying to implement is that CNN-IBN is not a primary source as it gets reports from various organizations whereas BOI is, as they estimate their own research. Hope it is taken note of. X.One ^SOS 13:53, 8 February 2012 (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.

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Fine, we will get consensus. I suggest some administrator to close this discussion; I shall start a brand new one, and prior to everything I shall clearly lay out the matter as it is. I hope that is fine with everybody, and agreeably this discussion's length is going unchecked. Admins, I suggest any new additions to this section be automatically moved to the next section. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 13:57, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

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.

---

I see that a fair bit of consensus has been reached for implementing the range in the article's lead and "box office" section, while at the same time, it also has a consensual support for blanking the infobox. As all parameters in the infobox are optional, the gross field will not appear while reading the article. X.One ^SOS 15:44, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Request For Comment

I totally agree with Bwilkins (talk · contribs)'s suggestion of using a range. How about using this?

• Various sources estimate the worldwide gross of the film at 230 or 253 crore.

Thanks. Scieberking (talk) 14:21, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Comments

Okay, so I think we may have a consensus? Instead of a range, we shall keep all box office stuff out of the leads and infoboxes of all three articles (this, Ra.One and Enthiran), and discuss various source reports in the Box Office section. Is that fine then? Let's wrap this up. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 15:37, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I believe Enthiran already satisfies this part. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 15:39, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

The verdict will be announced a few days later, based on the comments of all editors. Currently, the use of range is being favored by most participants. Scieberking (talk) 15:42, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Is that so? X.One has given ":very weak support", while only Lynch and Karthik have given support. That isn't "most", not yet at least. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 16:08, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Please, enough of this. When Scieberking made this comment, this wasn't the situation. Put it to a rest please. Lynch7 16:10, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

The RFC will continue for a few days. Scieberking (talk) 16:12, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Enough of this? Enough of what? The consensus is definitely not yet in favour of a range, and frankly whoever is opposing the range is being confronted, asked to give reasons, questioned about the reason of voting so etc. As if voting against your opinion is bad. If an editor feels that the range should not be present, see it and keep quiet. Don't go about asking as to why the editor is doing as such. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 16:19, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Enough of misinterpreting others' comments. When Scieberking made that comment, the supports were more than the opposes. Your comment was more than 20 minutes later, when the number of opposes were more. Lynch7 16:52, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Obviously, everyone has their own opinion; it is not wrong to ask the rationale behind their comments. This is not a vote, but a discussion; discussions, are by virtue, interactive. Lynch7 16:55, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

It is upto the closing person to decide what the consensus is. We cannot interfere. X.One ^SOS 16:35, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Asked to give reasons; this is a part of the process. Scieberking (talk) 16:41, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Giving reasons is part of the process; continuously questioning the motive of the editor, asking whether this is as part of consensus/vote, demeaning the value of the editor's stand by "assuming" it to be as a vote and not as "consensus", all of this is not part of process. The editor is required to give the reason of consensus only once; you are to read it and shut your trap. You are not authorized to go about asking as to "why have you posted as this, is it because you are voting?" etc. as it means you are discrediting the consensus. Frankly, I can't care less what you and your gang of buddies say, as you guys are capable only of posting flowery lies and laughable excuses to cover up a horde of shams you carry out in multiple articles. Let this be the last bit of nonsense I hear from you or your gang members. Clear? ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 07:19, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

It's clear to everyone who's being neutral, and who's not. Scieberking (talk) 16:49, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Note to closing editor : I have struck out the comments and opinions of Zubeidaaslam786 as they have been confirmed as a sockpuppet of Ashermadan here. X.One ^SOS 15:53, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

At the moment, there are 5 editors who supported the use of range, and only 2 who opposed it (opinion of a sock doesn't count). Scieberking (talk) 08:15, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Support

• Good suggestion. Might just get rid of the headaches this discussion has been causing. Lynch7 14:29, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
• Very weak Support: The "range" is not wide enough to be placed in the article and I don't see any other Bollywood article having such a thing.Enthiran had a very similar problem and the editors decided to completely remove budget and gross from the infobox because of that. It would be inconsistent to follow a totally opposing thing here. If we wan't to add it here, then it must apply to Enthiran also, because the sources being discussed for giving conflicting opinions are the same for both the films As it has been confirmed that the consensus shall apply for all the three films, its fine with me. X.One ^SOS 14:38, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

An RfC could also be asked for Enthiran on its talk page. One more thing to note here is that the infobox wouldn't, but only the lead and box office sections would mention the worldwide gross. Thanks. Scieberking (talk) 14:50, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Like that will solve the problem. It'll increase the discussion scope by bringing not two, but three films, one of which is not even in the same language as the other two. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 14:53, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Language does not matter Ankit. The sources being the cause of the dispute are the same (BOI and newspapers). And I don't think we need an RFC in Enthiran's talk page. Like Ankit has said, we can finish off three films with one stroke. X.One ^SOS 15:05, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

We can "finish off"? That means we can destroy them :D. I believe you meant that we can get rid of the same problem for all three articles, and yes, that is true. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 15:08, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

"Finish off" means to finish a task completely. Besides, this is not an English forum. Scieberking (talk) 15:13, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Scieberking, it was meant as a joke. A little escape from this rather tension-filled discussion. Is that a mortal crime? I hope you noticed the smiley at the end. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 15:18, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not taking this discussion as "tension-filled" at all, but your recurring personal attacks on me and others have made it so. Scieberking (talk) 15:36, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

My personal attacks? Such as? Oh I see, saying that what you told is "nonsense", according to you, falls under "personal attacks". That is not the definition of an attack, and as of now I'll ignore this statement. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 15:45, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Coward, lost his mind, gone crazy .. and the list goes on. Scieberking (talk) 15:48, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Gone crazy? Lost his mind? LOL if you have to lie, then lie properly. I never stated "lost his mind", it was Ashermadan. Go confront him. It would be better than shamefully lying like this. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 16:15, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

To be more precise, it was "Scieberking has gone crazy". Scieberking (talk) 16:18, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, and that was stated by Ashermadan and not me. Go use your lies on somebody else. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 16:20, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Alright. Then, what about "coward" and others. Scieberking (talk) 17:13, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Can I take it for granted that the consensus here applies to Enthiran as well? X.One ^SOS 15:47, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

You can ask for another RFC on Enthiran talk page. Mainly because this is not a general thing like reliable sources or wikiproject film noticeboard. Thanks. Scieberking (talk) 15:50, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

You seem to have missed out "The sources being the cause of the dispute are the same (BOI and newspapers)." And frankly, no one is interested for discussion on the film. I see no harm in keeping the consensus as common for all Indian films. X.One ^SOS 15:59, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

We can have such a discussion a bit later; certainly not in this talk page, probably WT:IN or the Films Wikiproject. I think the situations are different for different movies, and this discussion has been centred around Bodyguard, so we'll need a formal discussion and RfC for that. Lynch7 17:25, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, it depends on the consensus. If it is to remove numbers from the infobox, Enthiran already satisfies that part. X.One ^SOS 06:51, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

• Support: I would support it, but I'm sure infobox gross will be left blank. -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 14:56, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, as I've stated, gross wouldn't be mentioned in the infobox. Thanks. Scieberking (talk) 15:11, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I would also add that we can add the min gross in the infobox. EX. ₹230 crores in this article, tough we will add in the lead section that ............. Is it possible? -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 17:36, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Why the complication :P . I don't support that. Lynch7 17:39, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

• Drive-by comment I think this could be a good move and will be helpful in avoiding unnecessary problems pertaining to gross like what we have in these kind of articles. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 17:20, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support: I fully support the use of "Range of BO Figures" to avoid these kind of lengthy frustrating discussions in addition of Wiki being neutral towards its articles. --HereToSaveWiki (talk) 07:21, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Oppose

• Strong Oppose. To point out, there are only two sources that state ₹253 crore (Bollywood Life, CNN-IBN), the former is unreliable, the latter is; there are many sources which state ₹230 crore, and one of these sources is CNN-IBN itself. The majority, including BOI, reports the later figure, hence the latter figure it will stay. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 14:31, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

  "One of the sources is CNN-IBN itself". It merely reproduced BOI's figures [1]. Lynch7 14:37, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Talking about contradicting figures by CNN-IBN, this article has been written by its staffer and also says 253 crore. This article, like the other one by Mihir Trivedi of CNN-IBN, is by Rituparna Chatterjee of IBNLive.com, and not an aggregated report by an outside news agency. Scieberking (talk) 14:43, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

MikeLynch, you clearly don't understand what I said; if the report directly reproduced BOI, why the hell is Ra.One figure stated as 240 crore? Think. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 14:45, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't think you understood what I said. Of the two contradicting reports by CNN-IBN, one of the reports mentions a figure that was attributed to BOI (it was not CNN-IBN's figures), and the other is a figure by CNN-IBN itself, not by BOI. Lynch7 14:48, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

No, it was attributed to IANS (as far as I have seen). Has the original source attributed to BOI? ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 14:51, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

The numbers above the picture have been attributed to BOI and the ones below are from IANS. Got it? X.One ^SOS 14:53, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

The IANS report clearly says "According to Box Office India". Besides, two exclusive reports of CNN-IBN staffers now say 253 crore. Scieberking (talk) 14:54, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Fine, I stand corrected. But my opposition remains; it is still to be noted that most sources quote ₹230 crore, as opposed to only one reliable source stating ₹253 crore. Btw, two writers from the same website (CNNIBN.com) does not constitute two different sources, as the sourcing site is still the same. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 14:58, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

But it sure does handle the issue of contradiction well. Yeah, that's the reason it has been suggested to use the range thing, rather than exclusively using 253 crore or 230 crore as worldwide gross. Scieberking (talk) 15:01, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

If you must know, I believe it is policy that "whatever is stated by a majority of reliable sources is taken into Wikipedia". As against two sources, we have many others. Clearly, the majority of sources go by 230 crore. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 15:04, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Where did this, "whatever is stated by a majority of reliable sources is taken into Wikipedia", come from? Scieberking (talk) 15:09, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, please state the relevant policy, and the sources to support your claim (Note, I'm not challenging you or anything, its just for the benefit of readers of the discussion). Lynch7 15:12, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Administrator. There had been a dispute regarding a Sports article, and there the admin had stated that "in case of a content dispute, if a large number of sources quote one thing as opposed to a very small number of sources quoting the opposite, one should always put the majority statement in the article. As an aside, one can quote the minority opinion but only in the article body, not in its lead/infobox". That would be the best thing; quote 230 crore as majorly accepted, and note a 253 crore report in the Box Office section. In all other places, it should be 230 crore. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 15:13, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Provide links please. One administrator's closing remarks about some unconnected (or even connected) article is not a policy. Its merely his observations on that particular discussion, which need not hold good here. Lynch7 15:17, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Some randsom sports article is irrelevant here. Besides, Bwilkins (talk · contribs) too is an administrator. See WP:OSE. Scieberking (talk) 15:18, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Links will be very difficult to provide as the discussion took place over 2 years back. Note that the administrator spoke in the most general terms; he wasn't referring to the article in specific. Yes, its not policy but as far as I'm concerned, the admins are supposed to know policy right? Btw, its not some random sports article, it was a GA. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 15:21, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Largely immaterial. Supposing that such a discussion even took place (I'll take your word here), the closing comments are relevant to that discussion only (unless a mention of policy took place). If you show me a policy, I'll correct myself. Lynch7 15:26, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

See my previous comment. Read WP:OSE. Scieberking (talk) 15:25, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Ankit, if you cannot find the links, then how did you give those quotes above? Also, go through WP:BURDEN. X.One ^SOS 15:28, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

What exactly does BURDEN have to do with this? ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 15:32, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

If you say such a thing happened, you have to provide links for it. The burden of evidence lies with you. X.One ^SOS 15:34, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose. Do not use a range in the infobox, just leave the infobox blank and discuss that Bodyguard has conflicting reports in the appropriate Box office section. Does that sound reasonable? Can we do that and end this now? Please. Ashermadan (talk) 15:53, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Begging editors to do something without proper consensus will not work. X.One ^SOS 15:56, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Even Scieberking agrees to this. Read what is written below. Remove the infobox gross and disucss all this in the artlce in the appropriate area. range is not going to be used. Just remove Bodyguard's. Ashermadan (talk) 15:57, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

A range would be mentioned in the lead, and later eloborated and explained in box office section. As I've already stated, it wouldn't be placed in the gross field of infobox, which would be left blank and erased. Scieberking (talk) 15:59, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes mention two figures but not range like 230-253. Day one source say this other source say this. Zubeidaaslam786 (talk) 16:03, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Do you have read the notice above? I've said that something like "Various sources estimate the worldwide gross of the film at 230 or 253 crore" (and that too in the lead and box office section, not infobox), and not 230-253 crore, would be mentioned. Thanks. Scieberking (talk) 16:06, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose to a range. include both sources in box office area below and empty info box of data as range is not good to put there. This is only for Bodyguard though. Zubeidaaslam786 (talk) 15:55, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Do you have any reasons for this? Or is it just a plain vote? X.One ^SOS 16:02, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I have said reason in below discussion Zubeidaaslam786 (talk) 16:13, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose to the range of course as there is no need at all for a hindi movie like bodyguard. Make Ra.one, Don2, The Dirty Picture, Enthiran infoboxes BLANK or just put hindi boi ww grosses. Bodyguard like any other hindi movie should be 230cr. A range should neither be used in the article nor the infobox. Taran,komal,cnn,bbc,everyone except boi change their figures with passing time.No need to include figures on box-office matters except BOI cos its the only site that provides a uniform level for comparing all movies. The article immediately gets tainted and shady as soon as we use a source like taran or komal or cnn or bbc. ONLY BOI WHETHER IN ARTICLE OR INFOBOX. Dubbed figures for the FOUR movies i mentioned should be added in the article details (under bo-section) that too acc to limited boi articles we have. Thanks. Seeta Mayya Ji (talk) 08:56, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I doubt you've read the entire discussion, including the problem with using BOI, before making this comment. Thanks. Scieberking (talk) 10:12, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

As usual, attempts to curb the discussion into a single editor's favor. Such gross man-handling and arm-twisting is rarely seen in Wikipedia. There is no problem in using BOI figures, but you are free to teach SM as otherwise. I won't be surprised to see SM supporting this editor sometime in the near future. Wonderful tactics. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 10:22, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

This is just a general comment. I'm not asking any editor to vote in my favor or trying to influence their opinion. You must attain a better understanding of what is right and what is wrong, while keeping in view the relevant guidelines and policies, before accusing others of bad faith. Scieberking (talk) 10:34, 14 February 2012 (UTC)