Talk:72 Hoorain

Feedback from New Page Review process

I left the following feedback for the creator/future reviewers while reviewing this article: Great job!

Actualcpscm (talk) 12:33, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

AFD Analysis

72 Hoorain

Pages about this film have been created in both draft space and article space before its release. I thought that I would nominate the article for deletion. On checking the sources, I conclude that there is enough significant coverage of criticism of the film project that it will probably be Kept at AFD. My analysis of the sources is as follows:

Reference Number	Reference	Comments	Independent	Significant	Reliable	Secondary
1	www.aninews.in	Announcement that teaser is out in 10 languages. Article is itself a teaser.	No	No	Yes	No
2	timesofindia.indiatimes.com	Another announcement about the teaser	No	No	Maybe	No
3	telegraphindia.com	A review of the teaser	Yes	Not of the movie. Significant coverage of the teaser.	Yes	Yes
4	www.siasat.com	Article about advance criticism of the movie as anti-Muslim	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
5	www.indiatvnews.com	Another article about advance Muslim criticism of the film.	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes

Robert McClenon (talk) 16:49, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Proposed merge of Draft:72 Hoorain into 72 Hoorain

Draft has cast list Robert McClenon (talk) 16:50, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Observation

Within a span of few days (3 July 23 - 9 July 23), this article content was reduced to 6,647 bytes from almost 15,000 bytes. A quick glance over the edit summaries reveal recurring keywords like clean up and correction. Deletion of content by IP users is evident. Properly cited info in the article is removed under the pretext of misleading edit summary. In one of the edit, wrong attribution to OR is cited as reason for deletion! Someone marked a noteworthy deletion as minor-edit!!

Contributors are hereby reminded that Wikipedia's content is determined by previously published information rather than by the personal beliefs or experiences of its editors. We don't much care who you are. So we don't care if you're neutral. We care about the article being neutral, but not about you. Human beings have biases. Probably most editors have biases that lead them to select which articles to work on and what to add or delete. Those personal biases are fine with us, as long as the result is an article that's neutral and verifiable.

For those who raised the biased-flag, please be informed that Wikipedia articles are (ideally) completely dominated by a sane, adult human perspective. That does not count as bias. If (A BIG IF), any editor feels strongly about this article, kindly bear in mind that of course any article can be "unbalanced" because some contributors have more knowledge of, or are more interested in, particular aspects of a subject than in other aspects. This is not "wrong", but making such an article more balanced is encouraged.

Content deletion is not helpful for article readers when it is done so as to suppress the information or the facts stated as they are. Caution is advised. An editor deeply attached to one view of a subject may have become very knowledgeable about all sides, and even if all they know is the one view they may know its pros and cons quite well. An editor with no interest in a subject may hardly know its substance and may little know how to search for information about it. The passionate editor may therefore be better able to edit accurately, while the disinterested editor may be unable to recognize errors or omissions or to judge the quality of sources. On the other hand, the disinterested editor may be able to report all sides because they don't care who wins while the committed editor may propagandize for one side and against all others. Both kinds of editors can do a great job and both can do a miserable job. We don't care about personal passion. What we care about is accuracy in reporting what sources say.

Jimbo Wales has said of this:

• If your viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with references to commonly accepted reference texts;
• If your viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;
• If your viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority, then—whether it's true or not, whether you can prove it, or not—it doesn't belong in Wikipedia, except perhaps in some ancillary article. Wikipedia is not the place for original research.

Lastly, edits performed by IP addresses are often seen with suspicion. Though not compulsory, such users are encouraged to create an account and register themselves as an editor.

Anand2202 (talk) 04:38, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Then what could be the reason of Far-Left ecosystem of Wiki with Islamic leaning of the article. RW are wrongly misrepresented, I guess probably