Talk:MSG-2 The Messenger

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles
	This article is supported by the Indian cinema task force.

India: Cinema Low‑importance

	India portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Indian cinema workgroup (assessed as Low-importance).

Disputed: 20 lakh attendees[edit]

In this edit, Jyotimatta added content about "20 lakh" (2 million) people who attended the premiere event. Although sourced with this reference, which says "20 lakh", the article goes on to say that the previous record was 28,442 attendees at a US film, and that MSG2 broke that record "by almost 9 times the number". 9 x 28,442 = 255,978. So there's clearly something amiss here. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:49, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The story is originally from the Indo-Asian News Service, and is not The Statesman's own reporting. The agency's about page fails to clearly distinguish between their news arm and their PR efforts, so considering briefness of the article, the errors on display, and the implausibility of the claim, I would not consider it a reliable source. A world-record breaking premier would surely be covered by more than just this brief news-blurb anyway.

Also noteworthy about that edit: http://www.boxofficeindia.co.in/week-2-collections-%E2%80%93-msg2-the-messenger/ isn't the same as http://www.boxofficeindia.com/Movies/movie_detail/msg_2__the_messenger . The Times of India source previously used cited "boxofficeindia.com" as the source. That site lists a much, much lower box office number. Additionally, the site specifically says that it independantly verifies the numbers, and doesn't accept information from producers or distributors.[1] The .co.in one doesn't emphasize this, and is not being cited by reliable sources. Since Wikipedia favors independent sources, the .com one is preferable, and should be used instead of the much less reliable .co.in source. Grayfell (talk) 04:25, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Grayfell, I'm thankful for your input here. I was having trouble buying the .co.in references, especially since I'd seen another 102.88 crore assertion sourced with this reference, which says rather explicitly that the value came from "Ajay Dhamija, spokesperson for Hakikat Entertainment Pvt Ltd, producer of MSG". With that much similarity between the two references, it would seem to me that the .co.in reference could just be using data passed along to them by the producers, instead of pursuing their own unreliable estimations like anybody else. Got any opinions? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 06:33, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

box office[edit]

Msg 2 the messenger grossed approximately 472 crs.from worldwide Pargat valu (talk) 06:23, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are many sources saying that, but I haven't seen any that are reliable by Wikipedia's standards. The reliable source we have says that the film made Rs 4.02 crore its first week. If it made over 100 times that total, we would need a good source to mention that here. We would also need an explanation, as the difference is very large, and that would be very strange. The discussion above this talks about this problem as well. Grayfell (talk) 07:23, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Box office, again[edit]

This source superficially appears to be from The Times of India, but is almost identical to articles published in many other outlets, such as India Glitz, Tamilnadu Everyday, and many more. This is because they are all derived from a press release issued by Hakikat Entertainment Pvt. Ltd, a company associated with the film. Since no recent reliable sources have commented on the films box office take, the out-of-date sources must suffice until real sources can be found. Wikipedia isn't a platform for promotion or public relations. Press releases from the film republished with only the barest modification are not sufficient for controversial, promotional claims. Grayfell (talk) 20:07, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That is a good point. Almost the same phrasing and format appears in all three references, though with some minor changes.

"After drawing audiences with its unique story line and mass appeal, ‘MSG-2 The Messenger’ has achieved a grand feat." ... "‘MSG-2’ has managed to gross Rs.515 Crores at the Box office and is continuing its spell on screens. Starring Saint Dr. Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh Ji Insan in the lead roles and also in the roles of Director, Singer and touching almost every department with his amazing versatility, ‘MSG-2’ is based on true story on the life of savages and their reforms." Source: IndiaGlitz

vs.

"After drawing audiences with its unique story line, 'MSG-2' has achieved something no other Bollywood film, in recent times has produced." ... "'MSG-2' has managed to gross an estimated 515 crores at the box office and is continuing its winning streak. Apart from playing the leading role in the film, Saint Dr. Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh Ji Insan also played the role of director, singer and also made it a point to venture into various departments of filmmaking. 'MSG-2' is based on the true story of savages and their reforms." Source: Times of India.

The fact that there is no person attributed as the writer of this content at Times of India, and the fact that it is obviously from the same brain as the person who wrote the IndiaGlitz piece, suggests very strongly that it is a press release that Times of India has failed to identify as such. Shame on Times of India. I therefore agree with Grayfell that the source is a poor one. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:54, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]