Wikipedia:Featured sound candidates/Mamata Banerjee taking the Oath of office

Mamata Banerjee taking the Oath of office edit

2011 - Mamata Banerjee taking the Oath of office

The full audio recording of Mamata Banerjee and Governor M. K. Narayanan in Bengali as Banerjee takes the Oath of Office of the Chief Minister of West Bengal. Banerjee wrecked the world's longest-serving democratically elected communist government in the state assembly election held in West Bengal, India.

Reason: Very notable person, event, and recording. Meets FSC. Even made it to ITN!

Creator: Avenue X at Cicero (talk)
Articles in which this recording appears: Mamata Banerjee, Council of Ministers of West Bengal, West Bengal state assembly election, 2011

Nominate and support. Avenue X at Cicero (talk) 07:56, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
weak Oppose My Lord... ~~the audio quality is poor and~~ the ceaseless applause detracts ~~further~~ from the recording. Compared to Obama's Oath of Office, during which applause stopped when he began reciting the Oath, this is in stark contrast to Banerjee's Oath of Office. —James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 2:49pm • 04:49, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Switching to Support, the EV of the recording and its historical value outweigh the poor quality of the recording, given Avenue's explanation and the confusion amongst the audience while the oath was being taken and the fact that this is one of the highest quality recordings available, that is enough for me to support, I do wish that it was of higher quality, though. —James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 6:43pm • 08:43, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Trust me James, this is the best audio quality you will get in India, check any YouTube video of the oath, or ask any Bengali, they will confirm that this is the best audio recording you can get in 2011 India. Also, you cannot compare the oath of Obama to this. We all know how technologically advanced the USA is (compared to India, that is). USA has HD since I don't know, 2008-09? But HD videos with Dolby 5.1 just started in India in 2010-11. Another reason for the audio being distorted is that the Oath was held in an open hall, with invitees extending to all citizens, rather than having the oath in a closed hall similar to the Ashoka Hall in Rashtrapati Bhavan like the Cabinet of India. Avenue X at Cicero (talk) 05:14, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My point on the ceaseless chatter and applause in the background still holds, this is the first Oath of Office I've heard where the audience doesn't remain silent... —James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 3:56pm • 05:56, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This, my friend, is my !ncredible India. ;) Avenue X at Cicero (talk) 06:03, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The ceaseless chatter is present because Banerjee wanted to take the oath at exactly 1:01pm (I don't know, maybe she had a strange astrologer come to her house and say, that for the peace and prosperity of Bengal, and for a long term as Chief Minister, you have to take the oath at 1:01pm). And, as usual, the Kolkata Police failed to get the audience seated till 12:45pm. Rather the case was, that even during Banerjee's oath, around 750 people were entering and looking for their seats. Thus, the ceaseless chatter. Avenue X at Cicero (talk) 06:09, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, if this is the highest quality recording we have of a rather historical event, I will, because of the EV of the recording, change my vote to that of one in support. —James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 6:43pm • 08:43, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OPPOSE: Historic event?!? India has 28 states. CMs change every 5 years. (Even before that.) Oath of office isnt that a great thing even if you consider the ruling history of communist government. & add to it this poor audio quality. -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 08:50, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It was a historical and important event. CMs change every five years but there has never been a case like this before. I guess you failed to see this diff I provided before. How many election results of just a state in India have been posted? The fact that is was a historical event remains crystal clear. As far as the "poor audio quality" is concerned, I guess you voted without reading the discussion with James above. Also, you said that Oath of office isnt that a great thing. If you believe and say so, why don't you nominate Obama's Oath of Office for being delisted citing your "concern about the Oaths"? Avenue X at Cicero (talk) 09:35, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Glad that i came in here. Actually this isnt exactly the right place to speak it out. But as you all have been on Wikipedia much longer, you can also point out where i should discuss this. But as it does concern somewhat with this topic, here i go........... Wikipedia is an encyclopedia for all. A featured article (or sound in our case) means that its something better than the non-featured article. So, when a reader finds a certain article as "featured" & the other related article as not, he obviously thinks that this is more important article. (Note: I am talking about just a reader & not an editor. An editor knows that an article becomes featured if it has a certain quality. The importance of the article also matters, but is not the sole criteria.) So when a stranger for Bollywood finds Priety Zinta's article as featured article & doesnt see Madhuri Dixit's, Madhubala's, Lata Mangeshkar's, etc. articles as featured, he assumes Priety Zinta to be someone at a higher level than these other ladies of Bollywood. (Hopefully, 99% Bollywood-familiar people would disagree with this.) So when this sound turns as featured, it registers to listeners that no other Featured Media exists related to India. So it means that this sound piece is important than Nehru's "Tryst with destiny" speech or Vivekanand's "Sisters and Brothers of America" speech or Rakesh Sharma's "saare jahan se accha". Wait a minute! These sounds arent even present on wikipedia. Oh boy! This Mamata Banerjee's speech should be revolutionary than the Independence speech of India. But is it?!?!?!?
And ofcourse her election to CM's post was a huge thing. But having a lengthy article about this election doesnt make it historic. & as wikipedia cant be a source by itself, should it be a means of promotion of this sound to "featured" status? -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 13:48, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Did you oppose just because you thought a Featured Sound is regarded as one of the most important sounds? Oh boy. Please brush up on the Featured sound criteria and I would suggest you list your vote again keeping in mind the criteria. And Featured articles are considered to be the best articles Wikipedia has to offer, as determined by Wikipedia's editors, not articles that determine the importance of the subject. Also, please do not say what the "common reader" thinks. It is just your personal opinion. The importance of the subject is determined by the importance given at the WikiProject related to the article. For example, articles can be listed as Top-, High-, Mid-, or Low-importance articles.

And ofcourse her election to CM's post was a huge thing. But having a lengthy article about this election doesnt make it historic.: You are forgetting one thing, having a lengthy article about the election doesn't make it historic, rather, such a historic event about this election makes it a lengthy article.

So it means that this sound piece is important than Nehru's "Tryst with destiny" speech or Vivekanand's "Sisters and Brothers of America" speech or Rakesh Sharma's "saare jahan se accha". Wait a minute! These sounds arent even present on wikipedia.: As I mentioned, Obama's oath is a featured sound, but not having George Washington's oath doesn't make the Founding Father less "important", does it?

Avenue X at Cicero (talk) 14:23, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, you forget one more thing. This result made it to ITN. Now, we all know how toigh it is to get a news listed at the main page. So, the "importance" criteria of this audio is already satisified. Avenue X at Cicero (talk) 14:43, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thats what my 1st point was. This doesnt necessarily concern with this particular sound. So you can please direct me to a better forum of discussion for this issue. & obviously Washington's speech & Madhuri's contibution dont become of lesser importance. But thats not what the star at the right corner state clearly. & we obviously dont make readers go through the requirements. When we use adjectives, we compare things of same category & thus automatically put other members to a lower level than this one.
And any article on wikipedia doesnt become lengthy just because of its importance. It becomes lengthy if the content on it is not challenged & deleted on grounds of not having sources. So you are likely to find new-age articles to be lengthy than the older ones because internet wasnt that popular, or even existant, then.
Plus, looking at WP:FS?'s clause "The recording should add encyclopedic value to an article, and adds to the reader's appreciation of that subject", this sound doesnt seem to fit here. The content of the sound is a common thing that every CM says in his oath. This sound also doesnt add value to the article Mamata Banerjee or even to the article West Bengal state assembly election, 2011. However, the point of this being historic event can be used to elevate the article West Bengal state assembly election, 2011 to a featured status, but not this sound. -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 15:39, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are opposing this candidature failing to understand what a featured "foo" means. You probably thinks that it gives importance to a particular case but it doesn't. Even Obama's oath was similar to his 43 predecessors, yet it is a featured sound because Obama's election was a historical event. Even this year, India had five elections yet only one result was posted at ITN, and I rarely have seen results of the elections in states (as opposed to countries) being posted at ITN. And yes, the recording does add encyclopedic value to an article, because every office is incomplete without the oath. Also, how can you say that this sound does not add encyclopedic value to an article even when it does? Also, articles on Wiki do become lengthy just because of their importance, because if the subject is not important, reliable sources will not extensively cover the topic. So the importance of an article does determine its length. "Old-age" articles can be featured if they are important, because of the former reasons. Personally, I do not feel your oppose is justified as you have voted saying that "When we use adjectives [in this case the adjective "featured", I suppose], we compare things of same category & thus automatically put other members to a lower level than this one." Even though this is completly false. Once again, FA displays the best articles Wiki and Pedians have to offer because many, many, many Pedians have worked on it. Avenue X at Cicero (talk) 16:09, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While the audio quality is not very good, I would be prepared to forgive that given the EV is high. It does stop very abruptly; is there more which we can use to add a fade out / in? It is a concern that this is an English-language encyclopedia and the sound is in Bengali (is it? I'm not sure) without a translation. The caption should indicate which language / dialect is being used, and there should be a link to a translation / text of the oath of office for WP readers who don't speak Bengali. If this could be rectified I would be happy to Support Ben (Major Bloodnok) (talk) 22:17, 4 August 2011 (UTC) OK, I've just seen the translation; the caption should indicate where the translation can be found, and both the caption and the file description should indicate the language originally spoken. It's great that we are able to have a non-Anglo-American-European-centric piece of media here. Ben (Major Bloodnok) (talk) 22:22, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. It went up on ITN; this is not some event occurring routinely, the Communists went out of power in WB after 34 years, very historic event. Lynch 7 12:44, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Mamata Banerjee Oath of Office.ogg I believe this is the concensus of the discussion. While there was an oppose, with a decent reason. The volume of supports outweighs it. --Guerillero | My Talk 19:48, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]