Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Water Fish (talk | contribs) at 11:41, 14 November 2004 (not just virtuosity, but also several decades of brilliance is needed). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Common spellings

Here is a result of Google searches for common misspellings of the name. This will be useful if in future there's a debate on whether this article needs to be redirected to any other spelling. Also if any other titles need to be redirected to this article. Search done on Aug 6. Jay 16:46, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Yahoo search for

Medha Hari

Never heard of this name. Also, why this ugly/advertising image is added here? --Rrjanbiah 09:55, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Dear Rrjanbiah,

You need to learn more about the contemporary Bharatanatyam. And the picture is not at all ugly. -- 219.65.124.189 10:10, 8 Nov 2004

But, it definitely looks like a WikiSpam. The content of the articles and the pages linked to it seems to confirm that. --Rrjanbiah 07:13, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Rrjanbiah,|Medha Hari web site pages provide non-commercial information for FREE Serge56

Hi Rrjanbiah! I looked in major directories (Open Directory, Looksmart, etc) and Medha Hari is listed there. Keep yourself updated. Geosammie 04:20, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

From Tamil Nadu?

Is Bharatanatyam orginated from Tamil Nadu? Someone at Tamil people added so. --Rrjanbiah 10:01, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Dear Rrjanbiah,

It appears that you are not familiar with Bharatanatyam at all - 219.65.124.189 10:07, 8 Nov 2004

AFAIK, Bharathanatyam is a Telugu devadasi dance which was commercialized by brahmins like Rukmani Devi. But, neither this article nor any other artcile seems to say that it is Tamilians' dance. --Rrjanbiah 07:28, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Partisan advertisement and promotional campaign on behalf of medha hari is clearly visible by the link and image of medha hari being put up on the page. In order that neutrality is attained such partisan publicity should not be overlooked. Is wikipedia an advertising platform ? Water Fish 11:37, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

--

For Rrjanbiah: you are Telugu, aren't you? - there is no place for nationalism on Misplaced Pages

For Water Fish: I do not perceive adding relevant content as SPAM. External links are supported for enriching elements (such as the multimedia content). Before deleting anything, you better think of the benefit of the reader: will the photo be a valuable illustration? Will external links be a valuable extention of Misplaced Pages? --User:RalphWWW

I agree with Ralph Serge56

Advertisement vandalism

Hi, 219.65.124.*** also called as User:Geosammie, also called as User:Serge56 also called as User:RalphWWW. It is incredible to make three user pages within a span of 24 hours. People in the wikipedia knows how vandals operate. One is allowed to have multiple id but not to lobby for their own views or advertisement.

By definition, linking to webpages devoted to the promotion of a single dancer is spam. It is surely not helpful and is definitely advertisement. Moreover the wikipedia gives bibliography to textbooks dealing with topics. These Reference textbooks are not spam, they are treatise on a subject.

listing on open directory or Looksmart page or Google and professional directories like Narthaki.com, can be done, it is never taken as a criterion to validate authenticity or to be listed on an encyclopaedia. Misplaced Pages is well aware of such acts by people to legitimise their personal views.

Besides being featured 3 or more times in a newspaper or television is not a criterion to be on an encyclopedia. Many major newspapers and TV channels throughout the world promote young dancers by writing and presenting about them more than one time. if one was to make encyclopedia article about all of them, then they do not even qualify half as much as the virtuosos from conservatories around the world. But wikipedia does not entertain articles even about those virtuosos from great universities.

Medha Hari is probably a young dancer, and definitely not a major dancer. If that is enough criterion to be written about on the wikipedia, then in that case every music student in Julliard School and music conservatories and ballets would have to be written about, and that is definitely not meant for the wikipedia. Water Fish 06:25, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Deleting other users' comments is inappropriate.

Re: "linking to webpages devoted to the promotion of a single dancer is spam"

I guess it is not "promotion": the first link gives an extended overview of the subject matter, and the second link provides the free video illustrations to the article.

I welcome Water Fish to list other 13-year-old Bharatanatyam "virtuosos from conservatories around the world" if he cares to find any: with the details info on their style and online videos.

I would like to say that Water Fish is not familiar with the topic. The classical dance column in the national newspaper the Hindu is similar to the Dance Magazine. Any 13-year-old dancer who is reviewed 3 times in the Dance Magazine would be worthy of being listed on Misplaced Pages.

JuliaJ 09:06, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

There are several or should I say numerous young people far younger than age of 13 who are virtuosos. A lot of the students in Julliard School are below 8 and 9 years old. Several articles about these kids come in the New York Times and other prominent newspapers around the world. To write article in an encyclopedia about a person, the person has not only to be a virtuoso but also stand the test of time. That is the reason one does not find articles written about just anybody who is famous. An encyclopedia article is written about a person who retains brilliance over a long time. If a young talent lasts for several decades with the same brilliance then an article could be written about that person. Just being a prodigy does not qualify. One needs to retain that virtuosity for decades before receiving lasting acclaim.

The wikipedia has artilce about prodigies who retained brilliance over decades. Violinists like Yehudi Menuhin were prodigies. Infact Yehudi Menuhin gave his first performance when he was 7 years old. But his entry into an encyclopedia was made only after several decades of continious performance. Water Fish 11:41, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Promoting young artists is good but refering to them as iconic dancers is Pov. If a picture of ones close ones is put up then it should only be described as a dancer without giving name and without presenting that person as a prominent artist, because that comes about after decades of consistent brilliance. Water Fish 11:41, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)