Talk:Mughal-e-Azam

message: I think the Persian quotation has been corrupted.  instead of
"Ta Kiyamat shukr geom kardgate khwesh ra, Aah garman bez benaam roo-e yare khwesh ra"
Try
"Tâ qiyâmat shokr dehom kardgâr-e khwash râ
Âh gar man bâz bînam rû-y-e yâr-e khwash râ"  — Preceding unsigned comment added by David chaffetz (talk • contribs) 16:59, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: I won't disagree that Mughal-E-Azam is a noteworthy movie. However, we must keep in mind that we are writing for Wikipedia here, which is not a place for movie reviews. Some liked it and others hated it. There's no movie that absolutely everyone loves. 
The main problem is this paragraph: "The film is excellent on many counts. The acting is top-notch, the score, by Naushad, is memorable, the singing and dancing are well-done, and the cinematography (by R.D. Mathur) is stylish. The film evokes the glorious days of the Mughal empire, with its lavish palaces, Persian-style gardens, jeweled costumes, and courtly dialogue (in poetic, Persian-influenced Urdu)." 
I'm sure there are people who feel the acting isn't "top-notch," that the score isn't "memorable," and that the days of the Mughal empire were not "glorious." (I sense something of a pro-Persian bias in this, as well, since the Persian influences on the gardens and on Urdu are noted twice.) 
I'm removing that paragraph and adding a spoiler warning and that will probably bring this article back into NPOV.
--Hnsampat 13:54, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comment 

message: This article really needs to be expanded. This was the most most famous movie to ever come out of bollywood. It played booked for years! Although this article recognises the importance of the song "Pyar Kiya To Darna Kya" it forgets there were other songs in the movie that made bold statements about love and parents such as "Teri Mehil Main Kismat" and "Zindabad Aaye Mohaddbat." This movie played a very important role in bollywood history and needs more recognition.
: Other people might disagree. They might say that Sholay, or DDLJ, or Mother India was the most important movie. An encyclopedia can't really make judgments about such things. Unless you have new factual material to add, the article should stay as it is. Zora 01:27, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need for expansion 

message: Dieresis 11:23, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Language classification 

message: This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as stub, and the rating on other projects was brought up to Stub class. BetacommandBot 18:48, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject class rating

message: :Image:Mughal-e-Azam.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) 18:30, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Mughal-e-Azam.jpg

message: Hi!
There ia contradiction in the number of years it took to complete Mughal-E-Azam.
In this article it is quoted to be 9 years, but in K.Asif's (Director of the movie) article it is qouted to be 12 years.
Thank You  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.211.91.3 (talk) 12:26, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I changed it to twelve here.  It's kind of hard to define with all the breaks though. BollyJeff || talk 13:12, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contradiction in number of years in making Mughal-E-Azam 

message: I think the soundtrack of Mughal-e-Azam can have a seperate article, the reason that there is a huge history behind it. Particularly in the making of Pyaar kiya to darna kya. Kailash29792 (talk) 04:59, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: In the current state its not needed. If & when it expands, we can have a separate article. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk)  05:27, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Ditto Animesh. The section is under construction. But even after completion, I would not like a section split. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 07:35, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's wait to see how big it gets. BollyJeff | talk 12:37, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Now I believe the soundtrack section is complete, so what do u guys say? create a separate article for it? Kailash29792 (talk) 12:27, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

text:  This film was dubbed into Tamil and released in 1961 with the title "Akbar". The full list of Soundtrack in Tamil is available in Thiraikalanjiyam Part2. I am not sure how to incorporate this in the article.--UKSharma3 00:41, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Are the songs available on Raaga.com or iTunes? I'm travelling till Monday, so I can't check. Kailash29792 (talk)  02:59, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  section split 

message: I must sincerely congratulate user Ankit Bhatt for giving his best efforts to improve this article, all which have ended successfully. Though he's still trying hard to further improve it, I think this article is now itself eligible for a GA nomination. Kailash29792 (talk) 12:34, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: While I'm flattered by this praise, I must say that I am absolutely not satisfied with this article yet. There are at least 20 more references and major chunks of information that have not appeared in the article, not to mention some still-ongoing reference addition requirements. I'm working towards a state where this article can pass GA and FA in quick succession; after all, an article on a film like this deserves more than a GA. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 12:39, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. Though he has done a great job, let's be patient.  I am sure there is much more that can be added.  I want to check all the material now and make sure there are no longer conflicting references.  There needs to be agreement among a couple reliable sources for some of the claims here (ex: 8000 troops, pure gold statues, recreating  Sheesh Mahal, etc.) Also, if it can make FA, didn't we want to wait until 2013 for the anniversary? BollyJeff | talk 15:53, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Some aspects of this article will have conflicting sources; our job is to add all these sources and clearly say that "it is conflicted". That way, we retain comprehensiveness and do not hide information, since missing out any particular conflicting source can be challenged later on. Btw, what anniversary are you talking about? ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 17:00, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Centenary_year BollyJeff | talk 17:21, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but that is not the centenary of this film. The centenary applies for Raja Harishchandra. I was actually planning to make this an FA so that it could appear on the Main Page on August 5, 2012. No particular reason (2010 would have been the best year, but ah well!) ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 17:41, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought the whole point of that discussion was to setup several articles to be promoted in 2013, the anniversary of Indian Cinema.  You are very optimistic, setting an FA date for this, when Ra.One is still not done. BollyJeff | talk 18:05, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

text: We can have as many articles ready as FAs for appearances. We can then choose which one should go on 5th May. Was just watching some makings of this film on Youtube and WOW! i would love this article for 5th May than any other.  All editors do watch those clips. Even if they can not be used as reliable sources it would atleast give you an idea of what you need to search for. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk)  19:27, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Link please. BollyJeff | talk 19:37, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: There should be many more.... playlist, one segment is missing out of 7, K Asif's family speaks 1, 2 and 3, has good on-set and premier day clippings, IBN Live's take on making, has few good speakers, 1, 2, 3, 4. Last 5 links are good. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk)  21:57, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay thanks, I have added them as external links and used a few bits as citations; have not viewed them all yet. I am not sure if this is the best citation format, but it's the same one we used on K3G. BollyJeff | talk 19:50, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA nomination 

message: I suppose many more contradictions in sources would come. One current case i see is below.
;Filmfare Awards
We do not have any good online sources for old Filmfare Awards. Our source of info is usually this pdf and i dont know why. However it contradicts with IMDB's entry. Neither of the two are RS.
Category     	PDF                                                	IMDB                                             	Problem?
Best Lyricist	Shakeel Badayuni   Shailendra    Majrooh Sultanpuri	Shakeel Badayuni   Shailendra    Shakeel Badayuni	Oh yes. However Sujata has won other awards in the previous ceremony. The PDF seems wrong.
Best Film    	Mughal-e-Azam  Masoom  Parakh  Ankur               	Mughal-e-Azam  Masoom  Parakh                    	Not for this article. But we rely on this PDF which mentions some Ankur as nominee. Two films with this title are Benegal's 1974 film and some American Hindi 2010 film.
Rest all awards match, at least for this film. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk)  09:22, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: These sources says 5 crore for the restoration: economictimes, rediff.  I don't have highbeam yet; is that 50 crore source really reliable? Afterall, 5 crore = 50 million, so maybe its a misprint. BollyJeff | talk 13:38, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Its definitely reliable; Highbeam does not research on its own, it simply collects articles. The original source for the 50 crore figure comes from HT, I think. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 15:44, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contradictions 

message: Instead of having a non-free image of Madhubala i would suggest adding a non-free video clip of "Pyar Kiya To Darna Kya". From 4:06 till 6:06 from here. It would cover many important points.
*The start from 4:06 has a long shot showing a good view of Sheesh Mahal. The start of the video from 0:01 would give better view of Sheesh Mahal but alas we cant have full video.
*These 2mins include glimpses of all four main characters of the film. We won't get Nigar Sultana in this, but she is seen in quite early shots and kuch paane ke liye kuch khona bhi padta hai.
*The piece includes the classic mirror sequence.
*Also would be an example of much acclaimed Mangeshkar's singing.
*Includes the important & beautiful line (IMO), "Parda nahi jab koi khudase, bandonse parda karna kya".
§§AnimeshKulkarni (talk)  16:47, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: That would be better suited to the film's soundtrack article (which seems inevitable; I've taken a break from this article to focus on some others, but I'll definitely be back soon.) ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 17:15, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Given the age of this film, are we sure that this stuff is still non-free? What is the copyright length in India?  If you check out articles like Katherine Hepburn, it is full of pictures from 1975 and earlier, but not after. BollyJeff | talk 18:12, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The film's color photos are certainly in copyright, since it came out in 2004. The only doubt remains as to whether copyright exists for the older images; the black-and-white images will be non-free provided that the producers did not renew the copyright on those images in the re-release period.There is one photo I am very eager to upload, which will definitely be free - a photo of Nargis as Anarkali. That is an ideal free image (since in India, copyright age is 50 years). ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 18:34, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: So if we don't know if was renewed...what can be done?? Also, I don't think its normal to use pictures of people who were not in the film. BollyJeff | talk 00:43, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: My plan had been to place it in the development section. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 15:46, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

text: , read this source which is already there: "In real life, Salim was a heavy consumer of alcohol and opium, though these habits did not start until he was 18. It is also true that he was brutal: he castrated one servant, beat another to death, and had a writer who wrote nasty things about him flayed alive while he watched." Kailash29792 (talk)  06:30, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestion 

message: There are currently 4-5 non-free media in the article, with a poster, a DVD cover and three screenshots. While I am unsure if all of them would be necessary to satisfy WP:NFCC, it would be nice if the article had its images reviewed. Secret of success (talk) 16:07, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you know how we can find out if the copyright has expired, at least on the black-and-white one? See above discussion for context. BollyJeff | talk 00:22, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: See Template:PD-India. The work can be considered free only if "In case of a photograph, work of cinema, sound recording, anonymous work, or governmental work, it was published more than 60 years ago". Secret of success (talk) 14:36, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: It's gonna be another boring plain article then. Hopefully the b-w to color comparison is justified. BollyJeff | talk 15:23, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non-free media 

message: this article hasn't been edited in a while, but looks fair and large enough. Is it complete and stable enough to get a GA nomination? Kailash29792 (talk) 14:58, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I think so. Ankitbhatt has been absent for a while now. When he comes back, he can try to acheive FA, but I think it is suitable for GA now, so I am going to nominate it. BollyJeff | talk 15:05, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: all the best. Kailash29792 (talk) 16:00, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: complete?

message: The article claims the film was an official entry for Oscars (only in the lede). I could not find any web/published sources verifying the same. I came across this article which says no Indian film was sent to Oscars in 1960. —Vensatry (Ping me) 13:48, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Claim has been removed. BollyJeff | talk 14:05, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oscar entry 

message: I had included some points needed for the FA in the GA review itself. I missed one such then. 
* The "Critical reception" section gives reviews of the film from the present-day critics. All of those are based on the re-released version. These reviews wouldn't actually change had the colour version been not released because they majorly speak of the whole film and not simply the colours. But lack of reviews from the original release is noticeable here. Only few reviews (Laura Bushell of BBC and Ashis Nandy's book) are based on the original film. More of those are needed. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk)  14:24, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: But if present day critics review the film from the old point of view (without saying terms like "it was the greatest of it's time", but like "it is the grandest i have ever seen") along with technical aspects exclusive to the old film, then thats acceptable. Kailash29792 (talk) 05:32, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Thats right. Present day reviews will stay and they are notable. But surely from 1960 to 2004 something more has been written than the above mentioned two reviews. That is missing. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk)  06:39, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: It is "unfortunate" that "forgettance" is the disease that the nation is suffering from. Not only that, even valuable evidence blows away like sand in wind, so not many old reviews may remain. Kailash29792 (talk) 07:17, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Post GA 

message: The transliteration of the Persian poem could be improved from:
ta Kiyamat shukr geom kardgate khwesh ra, Aah garman bez benaam roo-e yare khwesh ra",
to:
tâ qiyâmat shukr dehom kardgâr-e khwêsh râ, Âh gar man bâz bênom rû-y-e yâr-e khwêsh râ.
It would also be good to know if the abjad for this particular line of poetry gives the Hejirah year of her death?
Thanks for your consideration.
David Chaffetz  December 11, 2016 59.149.193.166 (talk) 13:12, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Improve the transliteration of the Persoan Poem. 

message: I heard there was a stage version.  See http://www.ncpamumbai.com/event/mughal-e-azam and http://www.rediff.com/movies/report/mughal-e-azam-a-world-class-indian-production-at-last/20161027.htm for more about it.  Darci (talk) 03:02, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Added to article, thanks. Bollyjeff | talk 14:13, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: , I found a contemporary review of this film, dated 12 August 1960. It is on page 3. Please see what you can add from it since you appear to be better than me at not violating WP:QUOTEFARM. --Kailash29792 (talk)  14:51, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  In other media 

message: * Production (Hindustan Times) --Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 07:52, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you suggesting that info from this source should be added to the article? What part? Bollyjeff | talk 03:22, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources 

message: Copied from  user's talk page:
You have been reverting edits by others with comments such as "RW 16.1" or "RW 16". Clicking on them takes us to the RedWarn page with no mention of what 16.1 means. I assume it is the software version, in which case that page should mention it as such. In any case, the revert comment does not explain why something was reverted. For example you reverted  as vandalism.  - Jay Talk 11:55, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: It was unsourced, hence I reverted it. But I agree I should have used a different method of reverting. Kailash29792 (talk)  04:47, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reverts with RW 

message: , the translation you  from greatest to emperor, seems to have been there from 2009. Can you provide more details of the FA pass that you mentioned in the revert summary?  Jay (Talk) 03:53, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Page 33 of this book goes with the emperor translation, and it should be considered RS as it is written by a reputed film scholar. Kailash29792 (talk)  03:58, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: You may want to add the citation in case someone changes the translation again. And add the quote from the page that mentions it. I don't have access to the source, so I don't know what is written. In any case, I was not looking for a source, but a possible link based on your comment that said "...this was the translation used during the FA pass..."  Jay (Talk) 05:49, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Behold. Kailash29792 (talk)  08:10, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Translation of the film name

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
* 
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:08, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
* 
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:23, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion 

message: * Dilip Kumar —Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 03:07, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources