Talk:Mumtaz (Indian actress)

Fair use rationale for Image:Mumtaz.jpg

Image:Mumtaz.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 19:01, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Considering the explanation given by the uploader of the image, there does not seem to be any conflict. 212.147.27.54 (talk) 13:57, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Issues with the article

Considering the fact that Mumtaz rose from a mere bit-role 'extra' player to the topmost heroine of Hindi Films in a short carrer span of just 12 years, all narrations about her life sound like fairy tales and fans' views. There is no denial of the fact that Mumtaz is indeed a legend of Hindi Films. All the statements in the article are true, and none of them can be kept in the category undue praise.

All sites/pages on Mumtaz corroborate whatever is written about her in the article, and most of them are not mere fan sites.212.147.27.54 (talk) 14:06, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

The above statements are true. Please have a look also at the link http://www.filmfare.com/features/some-like-it-hot-mumtaz-4685.html, which is by Filmfare, the oldest and most reliable and respectable film magazine of India. It corroborates all the facts stated in the article.arungolas (talk) 11:18, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Mumtaz (actress). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20061115181238/http://in.movies.yahoo.com:80/060922/24/67txm.html to http://in.movies.yahoo.com/060922/24/67txm.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:34, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Mumtaz (actress). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20130224033306/http://movies.ndtv.com:80/bollywood/suraiya-most-enduring-ethnic-beauty-mumtaz-close-behind-334273 to http://movies.ndtv.com/bollywood/suraiya-most-enduring-ethnic-beauty-mumtaz-close-behind-334273

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:59, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

RfC: Are recent edits by Yamaguchi correct?

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.

---

Some of the edits by me have been undone repeatedly by one of the editors, without any discussions. In fact, I do not get any response to my repeated requests for discussions. Should we not call for the views from some Indian editors who are familiar with the life of Mumtaz? Juhi47 (talk) 09:59, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

As noted twice on your talk page, Wikipedia has strict policies in place concerning biographies of living persons. Reliable sources are required for all content changes. We cannot accept original research or material sourced from user-generated websites such as angelfire.com, as neither qualify as a reliable source. Please review Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources for an overview on what types of sources are generally accepted. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 20:55, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Comment Unless the nature of the dispute is clearly stated, no editor is going to want to comment here. Implicitly this appears to be about the quality of sources being used. Pincrete (talk) 20:03, 4 November 2016 (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.

RfC Mumtaz

There is a clear consensus that the sources provided here do not meet Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources so should not be used to verify content in the article. Cunard (talk) 05:08, 19 December 2016 (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.

---

As per the links https://web.archive.org/web/20130224033306/http://movies.ndtv.com/bollywood/suraiya-most-enduring-ethnic-beauty-mumtaz-close-behind-334273 and http://stars.topnews.in/271073-suraiyas-ethnic-look-voted-best Mumtaz was voted the second-most-popular beauty in the poll conducted as part of the celebrations of 100 years of Indian cinema, in association with the International Indian Film Academy (IIFA), in 2012. However, this information has been deleted from her page.

The site http://www.wiseshe.com/2013/05/10-most-beautiful-indian-women.html ranks Mumtaz as one of the 10 most beautiful Indian women. When Mumtaz was active in Hindi Cinema, Internet was unheard of. So, whatever critical information about her professional life is available, is actually in print media. Transcripts of some of the articles are available at www.angelfire.com/celeb/mumtaz/articles.html. Other sources are the sites which have been created with memories of various persons following her life; her interviews; or information from her family members, etc. However the information exchanged in communications would hardly be available in print. It's not only impossible but also unethical to record the conversations. Hence, there would a large amount of information which cannot be cross-referenced tangibly. Anyway, let's have look at a single article where every word, every phrase, every sentence, and every para is cross-referenced!

The statement that "Jeetendra and Mumtaz acted in a number of films together, including unsuccessful films such as Boond Jo Ban Gai Moti (1967), Himmat, Kathputli, and Roop Tera Mastana, as well as successful one such as Jigri Dost (1969), Humjoli (where Mumtaz had a cameo role) and Ek Naari Ek Brahmchari (1971). Mumtaz also acted opposite Feroz Khan in Aag (1967), Aadmi Aur Insaan, Upaasna, Mela, Apradh, and Nagin; and with Sanjay Khan in Upasana, Dhadkan, Mela" does not seen contentious at all.

What's wrong in including the site "www.mumtaz.in" or "www.angelfire.com/celeb/mumtaz" which quotes a number of print media which are the national film magazines of India? Juhi47 (talk) 09:52, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

• The problem is that the sites are not independent, reliable sources. It's a fansite, and therefore completely unsuitable for use as a source on a BLP. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 23:14, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

• https://web.archive.org/web/20130224033306/http://movies.ndtv.com/bollywood/suraiya-most-enduring-ethnic-beauty-mumtaz-close-behind-334273, http://stars.topnews.in/271073-suraiyas-ethnic-look-voted-best, and http://www.wiseshe.com/2013/05/10-most-beautiful-indian-women.html don't seem to be fan sites. Moreover, how can any site be 100% reliable? Hasn't every site been created by some human being on the basis of some information available elsewhere? And for that matter what is the reliability of all the information in wiki pages and the referred links, and rest of the sites on Internet?

And ironically, some of the deleted information is available on the 'acceptable' external links in the article! Juhi47 (talk) 09:39, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

That isn't ironical, nor an indicator that the info originally came from the non-RS source. Nobody thinks thst everything is incorrect on a 'fansite'.Pincrete (talk) 09:51, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

That's what I am trying to say that the information which is available on so many other unrelated sites, is not at all incorrect; so the probability of it being untrue is extremely low. As I said earlier, the sites I referred, are not fansites, but are independent sites and what they state are the facts. Hence, there is no logical reason as to why such text shouldn't be retained? The possibility of transcripts of the printed media with details of the sources (magazines, press reporter, issue of the magazine, etc.) on http://www.angelfire.com/celeb/mumtaz/articles.html, being fake, is also even more improbable. Some issues may appear as fan's admiration description as the career of Mumtaz is almost like a fairy tale. And this fact is also reported in many narrations. Juhi47 (talk) 09:22, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

• WP:RS still applies. Wikipedia does not use fansites or tabloid magazines for good reason. Even if the material is "harmless", it does not meet the "generally reliable for statements of fact" standard which is a high barrier. Collect (talk) 12:51, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
• I agree with Collect that the sources don't appear to be reliable. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 14:40, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
• But the 'news' about the film celebrities is published in tabloids and magazines only! Then how do we consider any news about them to be 'reliable'?Juhi47 (talk) 11:04, 29 November 2016 (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.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Mumtaz (actress). 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/20090207075843/http://boxofficeindia.com/showProd.php?itemCat=175&catName=MTk2OQ== to http://boxofficeindia.com/showProd.php?itemCat=175&catName=MTk2OQ==
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151222074040/http://www.bfjaaward.com/award-winners.php?year=1969 to http://www.bfjaaward.com/award-winners.php?year=1969

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:16, 6 January 2018 (UTC)