Talk:Amitabh Bachchan

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Peer review Amitabh Bachchan has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

Contents

[edit] 2003

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 Conversion script (talk • contribs) 11:51, February 25, 2002 (UTC)

ABCL didn't produce Bombay and Bandit Queen. Rather it was the distributor. This can be corrected in the main page. Jay 19:31, 10 Aug 2003 (UTC)

[edit] Movies list

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)

[edit] Deewar (1975/2004)

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)

[edit] Golden Age/ Angry Young Man

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) (I have signed! heh!)


[edit] Amitabh'S Film missing

Yes one movie missing is called "Wayaltyi Babu" I may have the name incorrect . I do have the movie on VHS, an Punjabi movie!!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.150.61.36 (talk • contribs) 00:16, April 16, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] PLZ add this Movie to Amitabh Filmography

aab tumhare havale vatan sathiyon

[edit] PLZ add this Movie to Amitabh Filmography

[edit] dream house

according to his likes and dislikes where and what type will be his dream house like be. plese let me know . my adress- abhiujeet@yahoo.com from abhijeet

[edit] Major revision

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)

[edit] Oops!

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)

[edit] cleanup

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)

ok, well i'm back in here, starting to work on peakock terms especially. i'd appreciate help, especially from zora.  :) --Yoasif 02:02, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] the picture

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)
I think its from Deewar --{{IncMan|talk}} 03:11, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

The picture is not from Deewar, as Amitabh was much younger then. See Wikipedia's entry on Deewar for more. Another film with the samename was recently made, and it starred Amitabh too, but I'm pretty sure that is not the Deewar in question here.--Fadereu 23:30, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Rumor re Rekha

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)

[edit] Amitabh's early career

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)

[edit] Anon's revison reverted

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)

[edit] Two more films to be added

Golmal (Special Appearance)
Khatta Meetha (Special Appearance)

[edit] Incorrect Name

Movie Haath (1973) should be "Bandhe Haath"

[edit] List of hit films after Mohabbatein

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)

[edit] Miscellaneous businesses and homes..

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)

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)

You are right. Non-Asians do stereotype what 'asians' can get up to! Would be fascinating to re-structure half these hagiographies so that they upend and contradict assumptions. Your first! I am just a beginner ;o) Autumnleaf 12:44, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

If you keep flattering me, I'm going to think that you're a publicist ... Zora 20:56, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
Oh, and any quotable sources for houses and businesses? Zora 20:56, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Bachchan is not a surname. It is the pen name, a usual practice among Hindi poets, taken by Harivansh rai shrivastava- Amitabh's father. Later the family have adopted it as a surname. Made this minor correction.

[edit] Reorg doesn't work

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)


well, the article already reads too much like a story, which may be a reason that you aren't fond of the new organizational scheme.

however, it is supposed to be an encyclopedic article, and it makes sense to separate it a bit more, especially considering that this isn't a biography, it's an article. separating his life is something that is helpful.

if there are issues with the article feeling like snippets, perhaps there could be some additional writing done to patch up seemingly disparate sentences.

besides which, your argument is a bit odd, especially since his early life and family life are pretty much just his "life". the chronological argument doesnt really work either, since his career and public life intertwine in the timeline, and his family life isnt really a different subject from his "early" life, or life in general. --Yoasif 01:27, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

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)

i'd rather deal with the diehards than to accept a worse/less logical organizational scheme and slowly make the same changes i would have made. the edits aren't just organizational, a lot of small cleanup was done too, and you'd lose all of that if it was simply reverted.

if either of you could make specific note of what doesn't work, i'm sure we (or I, since both of you seem indisposoded to the idea) could fix it. it comes down to the old way being a story, whereas i'm looking for an encyclopedia article. the old scheme pales in comparison to other "good" wikipedia pages, and the new scheme emulates good articles much more effectively.

so -- i reiterate, please post specific examples of what doesn't work, and what needs work.

Thanks! --Yoasif 23:10, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] adding character names

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)

[edit] Recent illness, rewriting

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)

Will be returning to the fold shortly! Autumnleaf 01:21, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comments

  • 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)

[edit] puntuality

[edit] Sources please

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)

[edit] cleanup the filmopgraphy section

the filmography section needs to be cleaned up; there are too many films there...

we need to make it a "selected filmography" section and keep only the films that were largest grossing/significant to his career in some way.

this came up in the peer review, and the section could use some trimming; there are other sources for this info (like imdb).


[edit] BBC Poll

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)


[edit] Revision

I far prefer the newer edit I just did. If anyone sees any problems with it, please bring them up here, so that a mutually agreed-upon page may be set. The previous edit strikes me as scanty and biased. Thanks.

(Commando303)

[edit] Picture

How does one go about changing the image of the article? I don't much care for the current one. Thank you.

(Commando303)

[edit] Name

Shouldn't his real name be mentioned in the article? As far as I know late mr Harivanshrai Bachchan's real surname was Srivastava. Bachchan was an "artist name" he used when he published his writings. I guess this imlies that Amitabh Bachchan's real surname is also Srivastava, and that Bachchan is the family's artist name...corect me if im wrong --deep750 15:18, Aprli 23 2006 (UTC)

Although "Bachchan," I believe, was Harivansh Rai Bachchan's "pen name," it is now most likely the "surname" of the family. A typical pen name will be written only by the artist, and not adpoted by the members of his family. I'm not sure whether Amitabh's long-estranged brother writes "Ajitabh Srivastav" of "Ajitabh Bachchan" (or something else), but everyone in Amitabh's immediate family (wife, Jaya; daughter, Shweta; and son, Abhishesk) writes "Bachchan" as his or her last name. I'm not sure as to the answer behind this mystery, but this seems simply to be the case. Perhaps Amitabh's last name, at birth, was, indeed, "Srivastav," but, at this point, for all intents and purposes, his "family name" appears to be "Bachchan."

(Commando303)

The case is simmilar with late mr Kishore Kumar, real name Abbhas Ganguly, but he was known as Kishore Kumar, and rest of his family is also known as Kumar instead of Ganguly. I dont know if both Bachchcan's name are registered as Bachchan in official registrars or not. I also beleive that Ajitabh writes Bachchan, atleast what he is reffered to--Dhirad 11:38, April 30 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Commando's edits

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)

Zora, if others (not just you) are unhappy with the changes I'm making, I'll have no problem stopping; this isn't my Web site, so it doesn't really matter to me what's written here. I've been updating the page in the hopes of making it more informative, and that's all. As I've indicated in my "descriptions" of my edits, I haven't yet finished, which is largely why it looks like one big mess. I'm going to finish to-night, and the entire entry, I hope, is much more concise, readable, and (as you put it) "encyclopædic." I think it's unfair how Indian actors and actresses have horribly scanty pages (though I can't say that Bachchan's was really "scanty"), whereas Hollywood stars have paragraph after paragraph dedicated to them. I understand that this site is an "encyclopædia," and not a biographical resource, but encyclopædias, when they discuss people, are indeed biographical. Just take a look at Wikipedia's pages on Al Pacino: it talks about the films he did at the start of his career, those that made him a star (it even has a quotation from "Scarface," cited as one of his famous lines), his "comeback films," etc. It also talks about his early, non-movie life. Brando's page is similar, but even longer, and more detailed. Opinions regarding talent are scattered throughout both these actors' Wikipedia articles. There religious backgrounds, too, are mentioned. Sylvestor Stallone is discussed in detail on his page. I think Bachchan's page needs a good deal of revising, and that's what I was trying to do. Let me finish, then calmly look at the new page. See what you think, and let's let a few others do the same. If people feel it works, great. If it stinks, of course, it'll be changed. Thanks.

(Commando303)

[edit] Changes -- Clean-Up

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)

Right, I don't care. I find Wikipedia's restrictions regarding information rigid and inconsistent: Whereas certain Hollywood actors can have line after adulatory line, of biased, "personal-life" detail, an Indian actor simply cannot have that. Further, I realize that Wikipedia is meant to be "altered" by "everyone," but some of the changes are insane; it just becomes a back-and-forth game after a while. Hell, even a few of your changes are weak and biased. Anyway, it doesn't matter to me very much. I've decided to just create my own damn site, if it's so important to me that what I have to say be said fully and finally. Thanks.

(Commando303)

[edit] Govinda movie

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)

Which Govinda movie are you guys talking about? I loved "Raghu Romeo," but it was hardly "side-splitting."

We were talking about Bade Miyan Chote Miyan which is a very funny movie and deserved to be Amitabh's first hit since his comeback in 1997. Shakirfan 14:59, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Articles for more of his films

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)

[edit] Link point's to wrong place

The "Big B" link for an artist on Suburban Noize Records wiki article links to this actor, as opposed to the rapper who works with Brad Daddy X and company.



[edit] Zora

I am one of the biggest fan of Big B, living on this planet, Earth. Whatever, I posted regarding "Versus" is based upon reality and myth. Remember one thing, there is always "versus" inbetween ceebrities and all other showbiz personalities, may be you are unaware of.

Anyhow, calling my article's language "Hinglish", I accept, as I used slang. Anyhow, if you are still in doubt, I would like to invite you for a live English competition, so you must know the difference between yourself and me.

One more thing; Always try to dictate the mistakes and errors, except mentioning them. As it seems, that you are willing to hold a title "Pride of Proud".

Remember, I must be taught, as I was someone new here.

Wish you best of luck, with kind wishes.

A M. Khan

[edit] Reversions

I think some people get insanely carried away with reverting, and this might just be from a misunderstanding of how reversions are meant to work. According to Wikipedia, reversions, in general, are to be made to correct vandalism, not to change something because you think it's "not quite right." The goal of an article on Wikipedia is not "stability"; this is a Web site that is founded on plasticity, not concreteness. If you disagree with what someone has done, explain on the discussion page your reasons. Don't start chopping out major parts of an article simply because you "don't like it," or think it's "unnecessary." I realize that Wikipedia suggests that articles be of a certain "maximum length," but, in reality, "big topics" and "big people" almost always (greatly) exceed this suggestion. Amitabh Bachchan — in particular, then — is not one of the people whose page we ought to try to keep "nice and short." ...Thank you for your time.

[edit] Image

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

[edit] Trivia

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)

That "source" for Bachchan's wearing a wig is hardly "reliable"; many of the "facts" stated on it are questionable, and the mere format and language ("Hema malini was about to get married to Jitendra when darmendra went and got her lover back et la Krishna in mahabaratha") indicate that the site is not one to be sited on an on-line encyclopaedia. Unless something more verifiable is out there< I don't think the "wig" thing belongs in the trivia section, as though it were common-knowledge or little-known (but verified) fact. (Commando303)

[edit] Recent springcleaning

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)

[edit] Pratulka

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)

[edit] Formal tone

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)

[edit] feature article

how many people are with me to vote this article for "Feature Article"?

[edit] that's a bad pic

A pic from Sarkar would be better.--D-Boy 06:20, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Yet another cleanup

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)

I've removed the sentence "He is one of the most prominant actors in Bollywood." It is a POV statement. Rainman0187 23:13, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

And the funny thing is that all the information is totally disorganised. The Biography section contains facts about his later life which should be put in the "current" section, and so on. The Bio section is essentially an extension of the Lead. OOh, I smell another cleanup! :) Ekantik talk 06:53, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Funny

I found on a blog full with film extracts with Amitabh Bachchan. It is very funny because one can subtitle these film [1]

[edit] Shah Rukh Khan snubbing?

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)

[edit] Bofors

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)

[edit] he is alive

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

[edit] Main Image

Shouldn't the main image not be one from a film role, but from an "appearance as himself" of some sort? It's currently a shot of Bachchan as "Sexy Sam" (from "Kabhi Alvia Naa Kehna"), which seems extraordinarily inappopriate, as it shows him wearing what looks to be fur (Amitabh is a member of P.E.T.A., I believe).

(Commando303)

[edit] Content

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)

I agree that, perhaps, the article could use a few references more "book" and less "entertainment magazine." It's not that there's not a good deal of "academic" writing concerning Bachchan, it's just that it's obviously not very popular in America, and I think most English-Wikipedia contributors are, indeed, from the United States (of course, I could be wrong about this). Certainly, if someone wants to do the leg-work, scholarly research might be able to strengthen this article. Nonetheless, even tapping into our "common" knowledge of Bachchan, I believe we can churn out a better, fuller, more interesting article than that which we currently have. I've decided to make some minor (I don't care to make major ones, only to have them inevitably wiped out by various users) alterations here and there, and I hope they spruce up this entry at least somewhat. Let's see what happens...

(Commando303)

[edit] Reverting

Here's a little information found on Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Simplified_Ruleset):

"Assume good faith: In other words, try to consider the person on the other end of the discussion to be a thinking, rational being who is trying to positively contribute to Wikipedia. Even if you're convinced that they're Evil reptilian kitten eaters from another planet, still pretend they're acting in good faith. Ninety percent of the time, you'll find that they actually are acting in good faith (and wouldn't you have looked stupid if you'd accused them of being evil)."

More to the point,

"Particularly, 'don't revert good faith edits. Reverting is a little too powerful sometimes, hence the three-revert rule. Don't succumb to the temptation, unless you're reverting very obvious vandalism' (like "LALALALAL*&*@@THIS_SUX0RZsammygoo", or someone changing "4+5=9" to "4+5=30"). If you really can't stand something, revert once, with an edit summary something like "(rv) I disagree strongly, I'll explain why in talk." and immediately take it to talk."

If someone edits the article, please see why he or she might have done so. If it doesn't make the article oddly worse, and isn't obvious vandalism, please refrain from waving the magic wand and reverting someone else's work. If something seems particularly glaring, try to adjust it (not just replace it with older text) to make it better. If something troubles you, and you feel you can't "fix" it without reverting, please take the matter to the discussion page (i.e., to this page). If you do revert, and find that someone undoes your action, understand that it's probably not some stupid act of vandalism to begin with; the person likely genuinely wishes the changes to be made. Wikipedia is built on change and alteration; it can't (and shouldn't) stay the same forever, so please don't fight to keep things "as they are" for nothing but the sake of preservation. Thanks very much.

(Commando303)

[edit] Rekha

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)

I don't know about generally "accepted"; "speculated," maybe (it's not as though either part ever came forth and said, "yeah, we did it"). Anyway, I agree that it's not something that really belongs anywhere in the article, especially as an item under "Family." If anything, maybe it could be placed under "Trivia," but even that's debatable.

(Commando303)

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)

Stardust magazine is not a reliable source. Film magazines will say *anything* to hook readers. If there's a well-researched bio of Amitabh published by a reputable press, with quotes from people who actually knew Amitabh and Rekha, then that might be OK to cite. Zora 06:50, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

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)
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)
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)

[edit] KBC

We miss him terribly on KBC..

Was Shah Rukh Khan no good (I hear that his first episode has aired)?

[edit] Wig

As far as I know, it has never been verified that Amitabh Bachchan wears a wig, and, except where it's "obvious" that he's using one (e.g., in "Armaan," "Boom"), the idea is mere speculation.

Someone added the following:

"He lost his hair when he was young, so when he started his movie career he wore wig. He has tried not to appear in photos without his wig. If you look at his picture from "Zanjeer" that is his early years wig and then he changed the colour as he got older."

It was edited out by Dmanning with the explanation,

"cant find a source, just a rumour. If you re-include provide a non-blog, non-speculative source"

The claim is not even a "rumor"; I'm a pretty big fan of Amitabh Bachchan, and I've never heard this (though I've something similar about Sean Connery, numerous times). Unless there's good evidence that the guy wears a wig, or has worn one over his career, I ask that people please just stop throwing this in the article every now and then.

(Commando303)

[edit] ID Khan

I would say that ID Khan's recent edits are all ostensible vandalism, nothing else. Perhaps an eye needs to be kept out for further edits to this page by this user.

(Commando303)

[edit] This article has been damaged

Many people, including lots of anons, have been working on this article of late and it has turned into a mess. The article is now full of un-encyclopedic film magazine language, tortured English, and unreferenced gossip. I haven't looked at it in detail, but I suspect that various chunks now break our rules for biographies of living people -- nothing without a reference, and especially nothing that could be construed as slanderous. Bofors scandal? Myesthenia gravis? Sheesh! Zora 06:15, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Bofors should be there, explains his quick exit from politics and incomplete term. It is not in violation of BLP, its an article from The Financial Times November 24, 2002; the link there is to the author's website. Would like a source for his exoneration, which of course you'ld look for before deleting, right? Cheers Dmanning 06:54, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
WP has an article on the Bofors scandal, in which Amitabh is not even named. As near as I can figure out, at the time the scandal emerged, one newspaper (not named -- the Hindu?) accused Amitabh of being involved in the scandal, apparently on the basis that he was a friend of Rajiv Gandhi and was therefore guilty. I found one Amitabh interview in which he claimed that he refuted all the accusations and forced the newspaper (unnamed) to print an apology. But I can't find any details. That is why the older version of the article was so vague.
The article as it stands seems to imply that he WAS implicated in the scandal, charged, and later exonerated. Which could be actionable, you must admit. If that bit is going to be in the article, it should be linked to the Bofors scandal. It should also be made clear that accusations were made in newspapers -- not in court.
As for the myesthenia gravis -- what's the source for that? I only read Rediff and Outlook India for Indian news, and I haven't seen anything like that mentioned.
Those are just two things. I couldn't bear to read it all. Zora 08:22, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

The myesthenia gravis is more or less known fact. Just type in the illness and "Amitabh Bachchan" on a search engine, and look through the results. The Bofors Scandal is something commonly brought up when discussing Amitabh Bachchan; it is an important aspect of his political career, and thus one of his life. Whether or not the idea, as it is presented in the article, needs to be revised, I feel the scandal should at least be mentioned therein. Whether the article is "perfect" or isn't (for the record, I don't think it ever can be something so subjective as "perfect"), I think it's decently-written, and not in need of the type of contempt you seem to be showing for it. I'm not saying people "shouldn't" try to improve what they feel could stand to be bettered, but, in my opinion, it is currently not a badly-written article.

(Commando303)

The WP article on the Bofors scandal is not even properly written, just a stub, so whether it mentions Bachchan or not is irrelevant. However, I have some concerns about the site linked to: Wouldn't it be better to look for the original FT article rather than rely on a doubtful-looking site? I appreciate that it is the author's own website but,... hmm... Ekantik talk 02:17, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

: If the myesthenia gravis is a fact, then it should be referenced. As for the style -- if I were to submit that article to the copyeditors on the CEL mailing list, they would tear it to shreds. It's not a matter of disliking a certain style -- there are many prose styles that I do not like but must admit are competent. (Mervyn Peake, for example.) It's a matter of verbosity, misuse of vocabulary, and complete deafness to the rhythm and shape of sentences. Zora 02:20, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

This is a Wikipedia article, and, while that does not exempt it from being "well-written," I feel it does make a compelling case to be more lenient in expectations. Articles will be cohesive and flowing when authored by one or two people, and set as a "final" version. With Wikipedia, entries are constantly changed and updated by myriad different users from many, many corners of the world, where English is used in various different, "correct" ways. Further, Bachchan's is an article on a person the major audience of whom is not "natively English." Sure, problems arise, but I do not see this article as, by any means, "shameful" (not a quotation). The illness, I'm quite sure, is "fact," and, at most, that means it should be cited (sorry, but I'm sick of seeing "reference" used as a verb [just a pet peeve]), not erased.

(Commando303)

[edit] Doctor

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)
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)

[edit] criticism

Is it good to start a menu of criticism of AB? Kittu 11:53, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Depends on whether the criticism can be reliably sourced. What do you have in mind? Ekantik talk 04:37, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I'm not too fond of the seemigly unavoidable "criticism" section that winds up on just about everyone's page. Unless the person has made headlines for something truly "controversial," it makes much more sense to me that information worth incorporating into a "criticism" section be placed directly in the body of the article, instead.

(Commando303)

[edit] Image:Amitabh Bachchan.jpg

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)

[edit] Légion d'honneur

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)

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)
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)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/m/i/Talk%7EAmitabh_Bachchan_d055.html"