Talk:Amitabh Bachchan/Archive 1

message: Oh well! It was a first attempt at anything on Wikipedia so I wasn't expecting it to be perfect. Let me rework it and lets see what comes out. Thanks Rahul 06:07 Feb 3, 2003 (UTC)
You (whoever wrote this) needs to read the wikipedia:Neutral point of view page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pinkunicorn (talk • contribs) 12:52, 5 September 2001 (UTC)
thread_title:  2003 

message: We need to shift Amitabh Bachchans list of movies to a new page. The key ones can be mentioned here with a link to the list of all films. Should I start a list of Amitabh Bachchan films? Sbohra 13:23, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Movies list 

message: These are two diferent films with the same name. In the Filmography they are mentioned separately but link to the same 1975 movie page. The 1975 movie is a classic,and the 2004 one (not a remake, an entirely different film) is a dud. --Fadereu 23:45, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deewar (1975/2004) 

message: There is a clearly defined period of his films where he simply succeeded at whatever he did,and an overlapping one where he always played the "angry young man". I think this should be a separate section. --Fadereu 23:33, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Golden Age/ Angry Young Man 

message: I thought that the article as it stood had too much fawning praise and too few facts, so I rewrote it extensively. I have never been a major Amitabh fan, so I may have missed some crucial points. I hope that my co-editors will fill in where I've faltered. 
He's such a major star and such a big piece of Bollywood history that it's important to have a good article. Zora 15:25, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Major revision 

message: My edit description got truncated by an accidental fingerstroke. Um, I removed the list of films in which Abhishek appears. His filmography really has no place on his father's page. Those interested in Abhishek can go to HIS page. Really, the list of films was starting to overwhelm that section of the article. Zora 08:25, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oops! 

message: I have added a cleanup tag to this article to address some issues that I feel make it less than an ideal wikipedia article. 
The writing often seems a bit too campy, and not scholarly/encyclopedic in attitude.
some examples:
"He acted in several films every year, and never seemed to wear out his appeal."
"While he was a star, none of that mattered, but lack of selectivity may have had something to do with his later career doldrums."
"At the same time, Gandhi's Congress Party government was reeling from accusations of corruption."
the actor's first name is also used too much in subject headings; the whole article is about him, this kind of thing seems a bit much. 
referring to the actor as "big b" also seems a bit colloquial, and not encyclopedic. 
I am working towards fixing it a bit, but i have no expertise on the subject, i would just like a higher quality article. the tag has been placed so that any readers who happen on the page look at it a bit more critically. --Yoasif 23:02, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
: Ah, I see. I've had a go-round on this with editor Merovingian. He set to work on the Madhuri Dixit article, trying to make it sound more scholarly. He and I tussled over it a bit, then, after Merovingian had finished toning it down, a few Madhuri fans arrived and gushed it up again. Way more than it had been previously. 
: I don't necessarily disagree that the writing could be drier. It's just that when most writing about Indian movies is somewhat florid, it's hard for any writer to take a dry tone. Especially when dealing with fans (fanatics!) who believe that their idol is something approaching a divine avatar. So tone it down by degrees, until we get to a level we can sustain against fan assaults <g>. Zora 23:33, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  cleanup 

message: where is the picture from? (what movie, i mean). it should be mentioned, and if an article exists, linked to. --Yoasif 23:15, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
: Dunno. Someone else contributed it. If you can find a better picture, please do! I've never liked this one. Zora 23:27, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think its from Deewar -- 03:11, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  the picture 

message: Someone added a couple of sentences saying that Amitabh had had an affair with the actress Rekha. I removed them. So far as I can tell, they don't explain anything important about the Bollywood movie scene (unlike, say, the Nargis-Raj Kapoor liason) and they reek of gossip-column voyeurism. Zora 20:57, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rumor re Rekha 

message: An anon just put a whole lot of material into the "early career" section -- analyzing Amitabh's rivalry with Rajesh Khanna, discussing various early films, etc. It reads to me like a copyvio, a chunk of material from someone else's book or essay. However, I haven't been able to find a source online. I reverted to an earlier version that I know is non-copy-vio, and I've left a message for the anon inviting him to take a username and come here to discuss his changes. I could be completely wrong, and that could be his own, original essay. We'll be able to tell if and when he discusses the changes; if the writing style is the same, then I'll just have to say, "Welcome new and articulate editor! Please do more!" Zora 21:50, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Amitabh's early career 

message: An anon made a great many changes, none of which, I felt, were for the better. I reverted, but with some sadness, because someone had worked hard. Here's the message I left on the anon's talk page. I don't know if he/she will see it there, if he/she is using an ISP and doesn't have a static IP, so I'm repeated it here:
: Anon, I'm sorry, but I had to revert your work on the Amitabh article. You don't seem to be a native English speaker and many of your edits replaced grammatical prose with mangled English and whimsical capitalization. No new material was added, so far as I could see, other than praise of Amitabh.
I hated to do it, since you had clearly worked hard on the article, but we have to try to keep up a certain standard of quality. However -- there are many many Bollywood movies, actors, producers, etc. who don't have any articles at all. If you're just starting a needed article, it's less important to write standard English and more important to get the facts straight. Other people can clean up the prose. If you're an Amitabh fan, you could make articles for the Amitabh movies that don't already have their own articles. Zora 02:28, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anon's revison reverted 

message: The para re Amitabh's recent film activities said that he had appeared in a number hit films, notably ... and then listed films. Other editors just could not leave this list alone, and insisted on adding every film in which he has recently appeared, turning the sentence into a repeat of the filmography. I removed the names of films and just said that he has appeared in hit films. This may be the only way to prevent the para from bloating. Zora 20:44, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of hit films after Mohabbatein 

message: He seems to have business interests and homes abroad - too trivial to collate and add to the main page? Autumnleaf 01:10, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Possibly not. We've got Hrithik's extra thumb <g>. Wouldn't rate more than a sentence or two in personal life section, however. Praps hook would be educated, cultured man, elite background, fluent English, homes and businesses abroad? Might shake up some stereotypes among non-Asian readers. Zora 02:56, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

text: If you keep flattering me, I'm going to think that you're a publicist ... Zora 20:56, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Oh, and any quotable sources for houses and businesses? Zora 20:56, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Miscellaneous businesses and homes.. 

message: I've lost track of who reorganized the article, but it doesn't work. Separating Amitabh's biography from his career is just not feasible. The new biography section reads like a random assemblage of snippets, which is what it is. Please, let's go back to the old organization, in which we have early life, career, public life, family life. That's a reasonably chronological presentation. 
I can't do it right now. But unless someone convinces me otherwise, I will <g>. Zora 01:10, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I would go along with Zora; I am however sympathetic to where you are coming from Yoasif. I think the 'life, career, public life, family life' thread IS workable (look elsewhere) - we just need to sieve the material to fit. Go ahead Zora - and then we can discuss as she/we go along. But wholesale changes without consultation will draw in the 'Big B' diehards and I don't want to be on duty when they land! Really like your drive though, Yoasif. We need you Autumnleaf 21:57, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reorg doesn't work 

message: i think we should start working on adding the character names of the role that bacchan has played in the filmography section. (from imdb).
it's tedious work, but it should be done for a more complete article. --Yoasif 06:35, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  adding character names 

message: Twice now anonIPs have attempted to insert material re Amitabh's recent bout of colitis and hospital stay. I'm not sure that this article is the place for breaking news. The news bulletins I'm reading say that he's doing well. IMHO, his hospital stay would be news only if he didn't recover (avert! avert!). I could be argued out of this position if one of the regular editors thinks I'm wrong and gives a good argument. 
The article has been going through a period of upheaval and there's lots of clumsy writing there now. I don't have time to copyedit now. Autumnleaf, you still here? Somehow, it should be done. Zora 13:36, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Will be returning to the fold shortly! Autumnleaf 01:21, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent illness, rewriting 

message: *Filmography table can be reformatted so that it occupies less space. 
*Would be great to have more pics. deeptrivia (talk) 23:48, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments 

message: Could editors please bring sources to the discussion page on the following:
Could we have a BBC link substantiating 'he was declared Superstar of the Millenium in 1999 in an international poll hosted by the BBC'
>>>Done<<<
Could we have a few examples of/sources for/names: 'he has appeared in several hit movies. He has also appeared in many ads for commercial products and for various non-profit organizations. He has supported campaigns for eye donations and against polio and AIDS'.
Are we satisfied that widespread hearsay [even in my family!] is okay to back up the following: 'commonly held belief that influential public figures such as Sahara Group chairman Subroto Roy and politician Amar Singh helped bail Bachchan financially out of his debts, the actor also took on visibly more acting and endorsing contracts to pay off his creditors. According to most accounts, with his return the small screen for a second season of Kaun Banega Crorepati, his debts may have been completely cleared in 2005. Some observers speculate that he will try to revive his company'.
Could we have more detail about: 'In 1990, he won the National Award for his portrayal of a mafia don in Agneepath'
Can we have detail on: 'He has also won 12 Filmfare Awards'.
Autumnleaf 13:04, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources please 

message: Amitabh is a great actor and one of my favorites.  He is definitely a legend.  Having said that, should this BBC Poll "Star of the Millenium" be emphasized and included in the first paragraph?  I dont think it was a serious poll at all.  Homer Simpson was voted in at #5 and Govinda made # 10. Fkh82 20:05, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  BBC Poll 

message: Commando, I've been busy in real life (RL) and didn't see what you were doing until now. I don't like it! You are replacing a tight, readable article with something that reads very much like copyvio. The paragraphs are so long as to be almost unreadable. The prose is just full of personal judgements, which, if they're yours, constitute original research. It's OK to quote judgements by critics, if they can be documented, but just speculating about Amitabh being to Khanna what Brando was to Cary Grant is just ... not encyclopedic. The whole bit re the Walter Reade program reads like copyvio and is just too much for one small event. This is, IMHO, a disaster. 
I'm exhausted and cranky now, so I'm not going to edit, but I'd advise you to stop and listen to other people before you go on adding material. You are probably going to find most of what you added edited out. Zora 08:48, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Commando's edits 

message: Wow, I'm glad to see that, after the "clean-up," most of my changes have been retained. Thanks very much. :-D
(Commando303)
: You spoke too soon, Commando. I just finished copyediting. Less words rather than more, and very short paragraphs. What works on a page just doesn't work as well on screen. I hope you can see why I made most of the choices I did. Zora 04:59, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changes -- Clean-Up 

message: I rewrote so that Shakirfan's fave movie appeared, but in a place where it didn't turn the paragraph as a whole into nonsense. However, I do wonder if the Govinda film was in any way a hit of the stature of Mohabbatein. Does anyone know where we can get box office stats now? 
I should perhaps add that I might be prejudiced against Govinda. I made an effort to watch one of his movies and gave up. Of course, a lot of movies that Indians find hilarious I just find off-putting. The only Indian comedy I've seen that had me convulsed with laughter was Raghu Romeo -- which I don't think was a big hit in India. Perils of cross-cultural communication, I guess. Zora 19:13, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Govinda movie 

message: I have created an article for one of his films Sooryavansham and will do Laal Baadshah, Major Saab and other of his 1999 films soon. Everyone else should join in and do articles for some of his other films too. Thanks. Shakirfan 14:59, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Articles for more of his films 

message: Both are almost current, Early Career should have a younder snap of his. Haphar 21:29, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image 

message: AS far as I know Amitabh does not wear a toupee. I am deleting that line, and will keep deleting it, unless someone can back it up with a reliable source.
: That comment was by me, some days ago :D  Anagha 20:40, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trivia 

message: I rewrote and tightened up the argument. I removed the long opening statement, but did replace it with a para that emphasized the length of Amitabh's career and the many years of his popularity. I removed a fair number of personal opinions, repeated items, and some trivia items that were part of the whole "cricket scores" mindset, in which actors are compared in terms of awards won. We're not here to rank actors. We'll just see who is remembered in twenty years! Zora 05:51, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent springcleaning 

message: Pratulka restored his version of the first para as well as the "notable films" in the infobox. 
I removed the notable films again, because picking out SOME films as notable is personal opinion. Pratulka could do some research on box office receipts, and add that to the filmography. Then it would be clear which movies were hits and which didn't do well. Pratulka could also write a para on critical views of Amitabh, with quotes from reputable reviewers re his performances in various movies, so that readers could decide which films the critics liked. Anything other than measurable box office receipts or quotes from published reviews is personal opinion. Suppose I like different Amitabh films than Pratulka does? Who gets to pick which are Amitabh's best or "notable" films? 
As for the prose in the first para -- Pratulka's prose is convoluted and stuffy. I'm not saying that my prose is always perfect. There are some WP editors who can give my prose the once-over and improve it significantly. I just don't think Pratulka is one of them. 
If Pratulka wants to get a mediator to rule on prose style, we can try that. But he can't just forbid me to edit this article on the grounds that I'm a vandal. I haven't spend two years here vandalizing articles, or I would have been tossed out long ago. Zora 04:06, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pratulka 

message: It seems to me that the article is written in a very formal tone. I'm going to remove the notice in the next day unless someone objects. Zora 10:34, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Formal tone 

message: A pic from Sarkar would be better.--D-Boy 06:20, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  that's a bad pic 

message: I removed a lot of fangush that had been added recently, some utterly trivial awards and honors, and corrected many non-standard English locutions. Zora 09:21, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yet another cleanup 

message: Stephen Colbert talked about Amitabh Bachchan having a rivalry with Shah Rukh Khan.  I believe everything Stephen Colbert says should be on Wikipedia, but what do YOU guys think?Bookswinters 19:33, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shah Rukh Khan snubbing? 

message: It seems this section has been here before but was deleted http://www.popstarsplus.com/actors_amitabhbachchan.htm (it seems a copy of a previous version). Can anyone provide legit sources, newspapers? Naming the newspapers concerned and any litigation. This is not libel and explains his leaving politics. I cant find anything from google, hence Im asking. I made the edit but was auto logged out. Dmanning 10:46, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bofors 

message: lot of vandalism. toda he was reported as dead himangshu 06:55, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  he is alive 

message: Amitabh Bachchan's seems to be one of the most under-written, scantily-packed articles of a major celebrity on Wikipedia. People like Marlon Brando and Al Pacino have much, much more information on their pages, while Bachchan's is restricted to a few details and a whole big "filmography." I'm not saying this to try to "compete," but to try to put things in perspective. Yes, Wikipedia is not a "fan Web page," and, as such, ought not to be filled with gushing claims, career updates, and petty trivialities. Nevertheless, Amitabh Bachchan is not a small, fly-by-night star. He's arguably one of India's greatest-ever film icons and personalities, and is even currently headline-news material. At the moment, there's not even a section dedicated to telling of his long-reaching status and image in the Indian film industry, let alone much about how his career has unfolded and evolved. Again, I don't mean to advocate pages and pages singing the praises of the "angry young man," but some more substance would not be an unwelcome, "non-encyclopaedic" contribution to this article.
Also, the style of writing on the page is all over the place. I feel this is inevitable, as Wikipedia is a site created and maintained by the efforts of the "many," and when a lot of people play around with one thing, some "unevenness" is bound to occur. Nonetheless, I think things could be put together more coherently, even if it means adopting a less formal tone. Objectivity — a good thing — does not have to imply formality and coldness, and I think the latter two things are exactly what haunt this piece.
Thanks.
(Commando303)
: We keep removing the fangush, which leaves the article a bit bare. What we could use are quotes from histories of Indian cinema, reviewers talking about his acting style, etc. But that would require some research beyond film magazines! 
: I don't have a very large selection of books on Indian cinema, but I could skim what I have. If you want to do some library research, be my guest! Zora 07:10, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Content 

message: I think it's generally accepted that AB and Rekha did have an affair, but I don't see any need for the article to mention it. Both people are still alive, the sources would all be gossip magazines and "everyone knows," and any affair, if it happened, is not of much relevance to their lives and careers. If an affair ends up in divorce court or a murder charge, then it's newsworthy. Otherwise, I think it's solely the concern of the people involved and their families. Zora 02:13, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not a question of anyone's "opinion" of what should and shouldn't be in the article. Amitabh's affair with Rekha was a notable event in that he was prepared to leave his wife and family over it before he had his accident (see May 1990 issue of Stardust for example). This information ought to be re-included because it is most certainly a hallmark of his life, even as his participation in 'Silsila' was an on-screen playout of offscreen events and achieved notoriety for the same. The only thing you need to worry about is if information is poorly sourced. Remember, this page is an encylopaedia entry, not a fanpage. Ekantik talk 06:46, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Zora, sometimes I wish you wouldn't rake over points that have been discussed in full elsewhere. Stardust/Cineblitz/Filmfare are reliable sources depending upon the particular content; they are also the only sources we have of what goes on in Bollywood. Interviews can be cited whereas gossip columns cannot. You yourself brought up the point about how Bollywood news is little discussed in newspapers/books. In this particular case, the May 1990 issue of Stardust is an interview with Amitabh and thus it is perfectly reliable to cite. As a matter of fact, this particular interview was the defining interview that took place as soon as Amitabh came out of hospital and told all about his health-scare, including telling-all about Rekha, etc. Ekantik talk 02:19, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In which case take direct quotes from the interview and cite those, avoiding speculation from the interviewer. The whole point about BLP is to avoid libel and speculation. Similarly very personal events such as an affair should only be included if it has a very valid reason for inclusion, otherwise it is only the concern of those involved and not suitable topic for an encyclopedia. Dmanning 03:08, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, my point exactly, thank you. The incident (affair) was notable because it was rather a big scandal at the time (possibly warranting a new 'Controversies' section), in which Amitabh was prepared to leave his wife and family for Rekha, and did not do so because he was highly impressed/guilty at the love shown by his wife during his illness. The interview is also a fantastic source for quotes about the illness itself, and is connected incontrovertibly with the affair scandal. So yes, there are valid reasons for inclusion and references for them can be cited I agree. Ekantik talk 03:28, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rekha 

message: Should we refer to him, in the opening paragraph, as "Amitabh Bachchan," or as "Dr. Amitabh Bachchan"?
(Commando303)
:Dr. Amitabh Bachchan. If he's been given the title honorarily, it ought to be used. But honestly I don't know about the conventions regarding this especially since the doctorate was honorary. It might be a good idea to ask around. Try asking User:BostonMA, he's good at that sort of thing. Ekantik talk 05:08, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not Dr Edward Burns, Dr Robert Mugabe or Dr Ken Loach. I think usually its press for the uni and 'good form' not to be used by the recipient. Dmanning 09:24, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Doctor 

message: Is it good to start a menu of criticism of AB? Kittu 11:53, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Depends on whether the criticism can be reliably sourced. What do you have in mind? Ekantik talk 04:37, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  criticism 

message: At long last I've managed to find a reasonable-looking recent picture of Amitabh and got the owner to release the copyright accordingly. So now this article can be improved by having a good illustrative picture. Ekantik talk 03:06, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:Image:Amitabh Bachchan.jpg]] 

message: This article is categorised Category:Légion d'honneur recipients. I have been unable to find any evidence that he has been awarded the Légion d'honneur, including looking through articles in the French Wikipedia on :fr:Amitabh Bachchan and :fr:Catégorie:Légion d'honneur and its sub-cats. If anyone has evidence for this award being made, please provode it and, this being the highest award in France, it should surely be mentioned in the text and not just a category listing. Emeraude 11:09, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: BBC News. I agree about the fact needing to be in the main text. As you can see, the article needs a huge amount of work. Ekantik talk 15:28, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for that. I hadn't noticed that story, beieve it or not, because I was in France at the time! Emeraude 19:36, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Légion d'honneur 

message: This article has a horribly long trivia section that really conains a lot of non-encyclopedic material that needs to be removed. It swamps the article, and in some cases material is plain wrong.
I am moving the entire trivia section here to the talk page. Please incorporate items in the main article text (not as a trivia section) and cross out stuff that has been used. 
Please note that not every detail about a person's life needs to be documented in an article. Only those items that actually enhance the article should be used.
Achitnis 18:32, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trivia Section 

message: This page has almost become a fan page which list only good things about Bachchan.
In addition to Rekha, the above section has been removed, any idea why ?
I wish people editing showed some sense that this is not a fan pace, Bachchan's CV has to have that part as the whole world knows he had a miserable failure with ABCL between 1996-1999
SilverMerc 23:51, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Entrepreneurial setback 1996-1999 (section removed) 

message: The Flag on Amitach Bachchan site is not of India. Please check and change the flag to Indian Flag
 
Amitabh wasn't born in India, he was born in British India, simple as that. 203.214.98.123 15:59, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  the flag 

message: The section "1982 injury during filming" says "The whole world was praying for him." Its sounds ridiculous. 
Suchitraramani 03:48, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Health section 

message: Samrat.bose 23:29, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Health 

message: Recently I found some information regarding the birthday of Shri Amitabh Bachchan [] . Could anyone verify whether the birthday of Bachchan sahab corresponds with the age mentioned in this article.
Guitaristrock (talk) 12:35, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN 

message: Amitabh Bachahan's birth time as mentioned in this article is 12 hours behind his real birthtime. -VJha 16:00, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrong Birth Time 

message: Please add the following newly created category to the artcle:
 Category:National Film Award Winners
--Anoopkn (talk) 13:06, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Declined - not an urgent request, can be done when the page is unprotected. Stifle (talk) 16:59, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit Request - add category 

message: Please correct the spelling of own in the line "offered to sacrifice their won limbs"
Wikivarun (talk) 01:19, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Stifle (talk) 16:56, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit Request - fix spelling 

message: Another sad victim of manic filmographitis. Let's just retain key (important) films in a simple partial filmography section, and leave the rest of the documenting to www.imdb.com shall we? AppleJuggler (talk) 05:41, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Do we really need a mile-long filmography, people? 

message: Substituted at 20:11, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment