Wikipedia

Talk:Amitabh Bachchan/Archive 3

< Talk:Amitabh Bachchan
Latest comment: 9 months ago by AmNaTi200 in topic Line of French director
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

why is there no mention of the 2016 film wazir in the article.

Amitabh Bachan was starred in wazir(2016) but there is no mention of it in the article, please do revise it.<ref>https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0315642/</ref>

Semi-protected edit request on 14 July 2016

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion


76.23.152.23 (talk) 14:42, 14 July 2016 (UTC) I just added a thing

  Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Sir Joseph (talk) 14:51, 14 July 2016 (UTC)


URL Error to be recitified

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I am not able to rectify the URL error on this page. The URL error is in the References which are provided to support the page information.

Can someone do that?

Jn045 (talk) 17:16, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

@Jn045: I think I got it. Please check. Bollyjeff | talk 17:53, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Next film

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Added a statement of his next film pink. --Kskhh (talk) 06:25, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 April 2017

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
223.229.192.70 (talk) 08:01, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
  Not done No request made. 97198 (talk) 10:48, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 May 2017

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

In early and personal life this paragraph Bachchan was initially named Inquilaab, inspired by the phrase Inquilab Zindabad popularly used during the Indian independence struggle. In English, Inquilab Zindabad means "Long live the revolution." However, at the suggestion of fellow poet Sumitranandan Pant, Harivansh Rai changed the boy's name to Amitabh, which means "the light that will never die. is present with a note at the end saying citation needed. Replace it with reference provided below. http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/telugu/movies/did-you-know-/Amitabh-was-initially-named-Inquilaab/articleshow/15889267.cms Blacku22 (talk) 13:52, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

  Done King Prithviraj II (talk) 20:57, 19 May 2017 (UTC)


Punctuation and usage issues: Amitabh Bachchan

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello, fellow and sister editors.

I have noted the following errors and questionable word choices, and have suggested changes.

Article: Amitabh Bachchan

Section - Comeback and retirement: 1988–1992 "After the success of his comeback film however,"... "however" needs another comma in front of it to be punctuated correctly because it is used here in the middle of a sentence. (Re: Punctuation rules for "however")

Section - Humanitarian causes

"Amitabh Bachchan has been involved in many social works." A clearer, more precise way to write this would be: "Amitabh Bachchan has been involved in many social justice causes." Or: "Amitabh Bachchan has been involved in many humanitarian efforts." (However, this may also be a dialectal difference; in American and British English, "social work" cannot be made into a plural. However, I have seen the construction "social works" previously in venues in which Indian English is used.)

"Amitabh Bachchan donated ₹2.5 lakh (US$3,900) to Delhi Police constable Subhash Chand Tomar's family, who died after succumbing to injuries during anti gang-rape protest..."

The correct way to write the last four words would be: "during an anti-gang-rape protest." Or: "during anti-gang-rape protests." (Re: Use of a hyphen with the prefix "anti," rules for article use of "an," rules for plural nouns.)


Section - Awards, honours and recognitions


"Another statue was installed in New York in 2009,[112] Hong Kong in 2011,[113] Bangkok in 2011,[114] Washington, DC in 2012,[115] and Delhi, in 2017.[116]"

This construction implies that the same statue was installed simultaneously in five places. The correct way to write this sentence would be: Statues were also installed in...


"In 2003, he was conferred with the Honorary Citizenship of the French town of Deauville.[117]"

"Conferred" must be used as a dynamic verb. The correct way to write this sentence would be: The French town of Deauville conferred Honorary Citizenship upon him.

Sincerely, FrannieZ FrannieZ (talk) 15:24, 6 September 2017 (UTC)


Problem edits

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I'm worried about a lot of problematic edits submitted by Tyrion Lannister Maniac.

  • Many of them introduce poor references like in these edits, where we see Wikipedia and Talkingmoviez.com being used.
  • Here he removed requests for better sourcing, without providing those sources.
  • Here we get some overlinking, introduction of "cult" fluff (everything's a cult film, dude).
  • Here we get IMDb, Wikipedia and whatever the hell muvyz.com is as references. He introduces puffery like "blockbuster", "mega hit", unsourced "critically acclaimed" and "average grosser" attributed to IMDB. He introduces "overwhelming" in front of positive response. I guess this means what, exactly? That critics were fainting from how good it was? Other poor sources: bestoftheyear.in.
  • Here, he attributes some content to a wordpress blog and juices up Adalat by calling it a "hit".
  • Here he resolves a circular reference complaint literally by adding a link to Wikipedia. Lol. We also get "increasingly good word of mouth" and "resounding success"

Anyway, it just goes on and on. The article needs to be checked for neutrality, as well as having puffery and other POV content scaled back or removed, and sourced if necessary. If anyone can start looking into this, I'd consider it a favor. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:18, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Context of birthplace

Latest comment: 6 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

So someone removed the name of the original place of birth of Amitabh Bachchan, i.e. what it was called at the time of his birth. A similar thing happened at the Aditi Rao Hydari article, although that one could be considered sort of different because it was a more recent, more regional issue. That got me thinking, what's the consensus on stuff like this? Do we generally keep the original name of the birthplace or do we only keep the current name? Smtchahal (talk) 09:46, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

@Smtchahal: I'm only a casual editor of this article. I don't know what the consensus is on this (maybe they know at WikiProject Biography?) But I don't see the downside of indicating what his birthplace was known as when he was born? Maybe in some cases it would provide important context, like if someone had been born in a war-torn region that has since been revitalized. I do see "(present-day Uttar Pradesh, India)" in the infobox. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:50, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Just noticed this edit by esteemed editor Arjayay, who restored the birthplace info. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:01, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
I don't know about the "esteemed editor" Cyphoidbomb, but thanks. I hadn't seen this thread when I reverted the change this morning, the deletion came to my notice simply because the article is on my watchlist. The same editor also removed the real PoB of Harivansh Rai Bachchan who was born in 1908.
British India was added to this article on 10 March 2009 here then later changed to United Province and then United Provinces then United Provinces (1937–50)
"now Uttar Pradesh" was added on 24 July 2017, and changed to "present-day Uttar Pradesh" on 7 August 2017 (both by User:Rattans), so that is relatively recent.
I don't know of a specific consensus, but IMHO, you can't say someone was born in a place that didn't even exist at the time of their birth. This frequently arises in articles about the Balkans, where various nationalities/groups try to "claim" famous people as "theirs".
Equally, I think that adding where the town/city is today, is valid, but only as a bracketed explanation. - Arjayay (talk) 17:16, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Arjayay what do you think about the Aditi Rao Hydari edit? Telangana didn't exist when she was born, so it makes sense to include the original name (along with parenthesized current name), right? It just makes more sense that way to me, but I was curious what the "standard practice" was here at Wikipedia. Smtchahal (talk) 18:41, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Smtchahal - have reverted with an explanation - as stated above, "I don't know of a specific consensus, but IMHO, you can't say someone was born in a place that didn't even exist at the time of their birth." - Arjayay (talk) 19:33, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 July 2018

Latest comment: 5 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

{{subst:trim|1=


He received positive reviews from critics who hailed his performance as his best ever since Black.[1]


in this article i was found a dead link http://oldbh.bollywoodhungama.com/features/2007/09/11/3020 i want replace with http://www.househaunted.info/amitabh-bachchan/ please give me permission to replace with working link.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Buddhi9785 (talk • contribs) 05:12, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

  Not done That is not a reliable source. --bonadea contributions talk 06:14, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
Also, Buddhi9785, assuming the one source you've provided was God, are we supposed to extrapolate from that reference, that the entirety of critical response across *ALL REVIEWERS* was that it was Bachchan's best performance ever since Black? And are we further to extrapolate that Black was his best performance ever? Where is the Godlike reference for that claim? You're basically setting up multiple goalposts of "best"-ness that we'd first have to prove as "fact". Needless to say, the puffery you're attempting to include is not adequately sourced. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 06:58, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Please add this tag to the main page

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Thanks very much. 66.97.20.206 (talk) 19:39, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

  Done Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:21, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Edit request

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

In the final paragraph of "2.7 Return to prominence (2000–present)" the bits about 102 Not Out were apparently written before May as it's phrased in the future tense. I wanted to reformulate the relevant passage as the movie has since been released but then realized that this article is protected. Maybe someone with authorization can update the lines in question.

Thanks, Jens — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.46.90.229 (talk) 13:44, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Film director and music composer ?

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

A reader wrote to Wikimedia ticket:2018101310000806 suggesting that while this actor has many accomplishments, the roles of film director and music composer should not be in the list. There are quite a few supporting references. While I didn't read every word of every reference, I scanned several and did not see any mention of either of these roles. more importantly, beyond the lead in the INFOBOX, I did not find any discussion of a role as a film director or music composer in the article. If this person does have such experience, it needs to be added to the article — if not those entries should be removed from the lead sentence and the INFOBOX.--S Philbrick(Talk) 20:56, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 October 2018

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Section 'Memorials' Spelling of 'Allahabad' is written wrong. Ajjuravi (talk) 03:04, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

  Done ―Abelmoschus Esculentus 04:41, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 December 2018

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Add her Daughter name Shweta Bachchan Nanda in infobox in children's section. Now she has seperate article and should be mentioned there. JukeBoxy (talk) 12:10, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

  Done DannyS712 (talk) 16:36, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 May 2019

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Paradise Papers
He was one among the 714 Indians mentioned in the Paradise Papers tax evasion.

65.28.255.126 (talk) 16:21, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

The Paradise Papers are already mentioned under #Business investments. Here is a source for the 714 number, but I'm not sure mentioning the number is very relevant. – Þjarkur (talk) 17:44, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 July 2019

Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
49.34.6.188 (talk) 10:27, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
  Not done: as you have not requested a change.
Please request your change in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 10:30, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Change the age of Amitabh Bachchan sir

Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

His age is 77. Please update it. Xxx XENON xxX (talk) 16:30, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

  Not done - according to the sources cited in the article, he will be 77 in 15 days time. if you have reliable sources giving a different date of birth, you need to cite them - Arjayay (talk) 18:45, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

when in 1987 did he leave his seat in the Lok Sabha ?

Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The Bofors scandal began in May 1987. --Präziser (talk) 05:28, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

July 1987 according to the Philadelphia Inquirer of 29 July 1987 - Film actor Amitabh Bachchan, a childhood friend of Gandhi's, resigned from Parliament this month after a newspaper published documents appearing to prove that his brother owned an expensive apartment in Switzerland. The Bachchan brothers had denied owning property outside India. - Sitush (talk) 05:49, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Covid test

Latest comment: 3 years ago14 comments2 people in discussion

I have now twice reverted additions of statements saying he has tested positive for covid-19. We are not a news website, literally millions of people have tested positive and many more have or have had it but untested. It is trivia. What would not be trivial would be if he were to die of it, simply because we often do note cause of death. - Sitush (talk) 21:04, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

i agree that "literally millions of people have tested positive". however, i believe what makes this notable enough for wikipedia is that the person in question is a celebrity. for example, tom hanks contracted the virus, and it is referenced on his page multiple times. similarly, narenda modi's page notes that he is a vegetarian, even though hundreds of millions of people are too.
in addition, what makes this instance not trivial to bachchan himself is that he has been hospitalized for it. dying (talk) 13:31, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
We are not Bachchan's PR machine and I really do not care what other articles might say - that is for editors of those articles to determine, although if I was editing the Hanks article I'd certainly not be happy with it. - Sitush (talk) 13:36, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
The one possible saving grace I can see is the sheer irony of it - hasn't Bachchan been used by the government as a conduit to explain their policies and how to limit the spread? As a general point, I've just asked at WP:BLPN. - Sitush (talk) 13:46, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
i don't think noting that someone has contracted the virus is necessarily something that a "PR machine"[a] would report, and i don't think that just because something would have been reported by a "PR machine" means that it should not be mentioned here. for example, i would assume that a "PR machine" would also report on a subject's death, and i see no reason to omit it simply because it was reported by a "PR machine". i feel that whether an item should be included in wikipedia should be determined by what wikipedia has determined, using its own standards, is notable enough for inclusion.
i mention the other articles because i believe consensus has already been reached regarding the inclusion of coronavirus diagnoses in such articles. from what i can tell, the overwhelming majority of articles on highly notable people that have contracted the virus has mentioned it. in addition, i do not believe this is an instance of recentism, since the same practice has been observed for notable survivors of spanish flu, as seen on the page of mary pickford, a notable actress at the time.
i don't disagree that you may be unhappy with the addition, but i believe that it is more of an issue of what consensus has decided. there are plenty of times when consensus has decided something that i was unhappy with, but i understand that this is the way wikipedia works. i believe that it is a good thing that we are discussing the issue here, and would welcome the opinion of others regarding whether it deserves a mention on this article. i am pinging Shrn1611, Geekgecko, Himeshlala, and Dr. Daniel Charles as they are the ones who wrote the edits that you undid, so i know that this discussion may interest them. however, i am aware that this may make the discussion one-sided, and i don't know of a good way to remedy this, since i am currently unaware of which editors take the contrary position, so i am also pinging Maestro2016, a recent non-trivial contributor to this page, and Khoenr, who appears to be the editor who made the most edits amongst the contributors to this article this year, in case they have something to add. i also thank you for bringing up the point at wp:blpn, as i was unfamiliar with that noticeboard until now.
by the way, i'm not sure if you have noticed, but i think you may be in violation of the three-revert rule. dying (talk) 15:12, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Notes

  1. ^ i'm not sure if this is the best way to phrase it, but admittedly can't think of a better phrase at the moment, so i will use your terminology.
It is being discussed at WP:BLPN. That over-rides anything here. No need for anyone pinged to respond here. I'm not worried about the 3RR in this circumstance. - Sitush (talk) 15:36, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
To clarify, not worried because this BLP has always attracted a great deal of fancruft. You can see it (and me) in the history. - Sitush (talk) 15:38, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
that's fair. i had only tried to bring others to join a discussion on this page because you had stated that inclusion of a positive coronavirus diagnosis "is for editors of those articles to determine". i would be happy to accept whatever wp:blpn decides.
also, i agree that fancruft should not be included in the article. however, i question whether bachchan's positive diagnosis would be considered fancruft, as i do not believe it "is of importance only to a small population of enthusiastic fans of the subject in question", since it has been widely reported by major news organizations worldwide. in any case, i apologize if fancruft is considered an exception to the three-revert rule. i had only been familiar with the seven exemptions enumerated on the policy's page. i thought fancruft might have fallen under the seventh, but since the diagnosis did not seem to be "libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced", i was not sure if such a revert would have been exempt.
in addition, please note that i had no intention of flagging an administrator for this or desiring its enforcement; i only mentioned it because, had fancruft not been considered an exception to the rule, i would have assumed that further reverts would have been looked upon unfavourably. dying (talk) 18:34, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
I'm not sure fancruft is an exception in 3RR itself but, given I had started the discussion and people were ignoring it, IAR also comes into play. Give it 24 hours for some sort of consensus to emerge at BLPN. I suspect it will go in favour of inclusion here because of reports in high quality sources, eg: BBC News website has covered it. - Sitush (talk) 18:52, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
@Sitush: now that it's been over a day and the discussion at wp:blpn seems pretty clear, do you agree that bachchan's positive coronavirus diagnosis should be included in this article? i am not sure of the best way to implement this, but i would suggest reverting one of your reverts to avoid having to resort to ignore all rules to get around the three-revert rule.
by the way, i would also appreciate it if you also reverted your reversion of my edit to Aishwarya Rai Bachchan, since rai's positive coronavirus diagnosis was also reported in numerous high-quality reliable news sources worldwide, and actually is still front page news on a few. dying (talk) 20:27, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
Yes, mentioning it seems to be ok in the case of Amitabh because major foreign news sources covered it, such as BBC. Much less sure about Aishwarya, who hasn't been mentioned in any such sources I have seen and so that may just be the usual slavish Indian media culture. Do whatever you think fit. It is not an IAR issue, nor 3RR, nor indeed anything except the usual V and RS. - Sitush (talk) 03:02, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
bbc reports rai's diagnosis here. the mainichi reports it here. an archived version of dw's front page reports it here. an archived version of cnn's front page reports it here.
would you prefer reverting your reversion or having me add it back to the article myself? i would prefer the former, as i believe it clearly shows the acceptance of the result of a discussion, while the latter may appear antagonistic to a third party without prior knowledge of the existence of the discussion. however, i have no desire to force my preference upon you; i merely wished to give you the opportunity to do so should you wish to take it. dying (talk) 04:27, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
THe BLPN thread may be evolving and, no, I don't think the kids are significant. The key to Amitabh is the irony that he was apparently helping spread the word yet caught the thing himself. It's not just the coverage. - Sitush (talk) 04:30, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

i believe novak djokovic, kevin durant, idris elba, donovan mitchell, rand paul, marcus smart, george stephanopoulos, and christian wood are all public figures that have had positive coronavirus diagnoses mentioned on their wikipedia pages, even though they believe they were asymptomatic, and their diagnoses have had not much impact on their lives aside from being placed in quarantine if they weren't already. dying (talk) 05:30, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 September 2020

Latest comment: 3 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

It is mentioned that Amitabh Bachchan is a trustee of the Rajiv Gandhi Foundation. However, he IS NOT currently one of the trustees of the said foundation. Please remove the line mentioning so. Sajalmaheshwari624 (talk) 15:54, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

  Not done for now. Hi Sajalmaheshwari624 provide a source which says he resigned from that position alongwith the date/month/year. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 17:00, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

I do not have the exact date and the link for the reference. But this can be easily verified that he is not one of the trustees by visiting the website of the Rajiv Gandhi Foundation. http://rgfindia.org/our-board-rajiv-gandhi-foundation/

  Done, Thanks for the link Sajalmaheshwari624. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 13:38, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

GA Review (1)

Latest comment: 3 years ago20 comments3 people in discussion
1st review by Lazman321
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Amitabh Bachchan/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Lazman321 (talk · contribs) 03:24, 1 October 2020 (UTC)


Good Article review progress box
Criteria: 1a. prose ( ) 1b. MoS ( ) 2a. ref layout ( ) 2b. cites WP:RS ( ) 2c. no WP:OR ( ) 2d. no WP:CV ( )
3a. broadness ( ) 3b. focus ( ) 4. neutral ( ) 5. stable ( ) 6a. free or tagged images ( ) 6b. pics relevant ( )
Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked   are unassessed

As part of the October Backlog Drive, I will be reviewing this article for GA status. Lazman321 (talk) 03:24, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

1 - Well Written

a - Clear and Concise Prose

In the second to last paragraph of Early life and family, there are some prose issues. It reads:

Amitabh Bachchan married actress and politician Jaya Bhaduri in 1973 and together they have two children Abhishek, an actor, and Shweta, an author, journalist, and former model. Abhishek married fellow actress Aishwarya Rai and together they have a daughter named Aaradhya. Shweta is married to businessman Nikhil Nanda who is a part of the Kapoor family of Bollywood. Together they have two children Navil and Agastya. The family resides in his two famous houses, Jalsa and Pratiksha, both in Mumbai in the Indian state of Maharashtra.

Change it to:

Amitabh Bachchan married actress and politician Jaya Bhaduri in 1973 and together, they had two children, Abhishek, an actor, and Shweta, an author, journalist, and former model. Abhishek married fellow actress Aishwarya Rai and together, they had a daughter named Aaradhya. Shweta married businessman Nikhil Nanda who is a part of the Kapoor family of Bollywood. Together, they had two children, Navil and Agastya. The family resides in his two famous houses, Jalsa and Pratiksha, both in Mumbai in the Indian state of Maharashtra.

Not agree. They are all still together and alive. So it won't be in the past tense.
User:The9Man, Yeah, the family is still alive and together, but this should still be past-tense because marrying and having a child I.e. giving birth to a child is an action that they did in the past. Plus, past-tense reads better in this case, and the paragraph saying that Amitabh and Jaya "married" does not imply that they later divorced or that Jaya died. Saying Amitabh and Jaya "had" children does not imply that the children later died or were disowned. If any of those things happened, the article would've explicitly said so. Lazman321 (talk) 01:04, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
@Lazman321: Married is an event that happened in the past but 'having' children is a present thing unless the parents or the children die.
Here is a list of 5 GA articles for you to refer.
- The9Man (Talk) 08:55, 13 October 2020 (UTC)


In the sub-section named Early career (located in Acting career), move Many of Bachchan's films during this early period did not do well, but that was about to change. to after His only film with Mala Sinha, Sanjog (1972) was also a box office failure and remove but that was about to change. and replace the comma with a period.

 Y. Done
You sure? I don't see any change. Lazman321 (talk) 17:25, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
I guess there was some mishap. Done now. - The9Man (Talk) 12:03, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

b - MOS Adherence

The MOS guidelines that need to be followed in order to be passed are the guidelines on lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. The lead section looks fine. The layout seems to be consistent. There were no "words to watch". All fiction that is used in this article is attributed to the movie it's from. It follows the guideline of fiction. The only list incorporation that is in this article is in the voice acting sub-section and the awards section. Both are used appropriately as if they were converted into prose, it would be really tiresome to read.

The only MOS guideline not listed that I noticed needed attention was that citation 17 was placed before a period. That one isn't required for a GA pass but is against the MOS.

 Y Changed.

2 - Verifiable with No Original Research

a - Reference List

There is indeed a reference list. This criterion is easy to meet. No action needed.

b - Reliable Sources

Remove citations 35 and 57 as they are citing Wikipedia articles, which is against Wikipedia policy. Citations 62 and 193 are not reliable sources and should be replaced by more reliable sources. Citation 44 is kind of problematic because it is from a blog, but the blog is from a famous Hindi critic so I am not sure. Other than that, the sources seem to be reliable enough.

  Done. The claim using citation 44 is established by other citations already and won't be an issue, it is reliable too.

c - No Original Research

Successes during this period like the crime drama Aaj Ka Arjun (1990) and action crime drama Hum (1991), for which he won his third Filmfare Best Actor Award, looked like they might reverse the trend, but this momentum was short-lived and his string of box office failures continued. This statement is backed up by box office websites that didn't explicitly state that the two films "might reverse the trend" of failures. As a result, this may be original research. Other successful films of this period include Shaan (1980), Ram Balram (1980), Naseeb (1981), Lawaaris (1981), Kaalia (1981), Yaarana (1981), Barsaat Ki Ek Raat (1981) and Shakti (1982), is not backed up by citations. Plus, there are almost no citations backing up the awards that Amitabh won in the acting career section.

  Done except the award citations.

d - No Copyright Violations

This tool that detects copyright violations has a 92.4% confidence that a lot of the information in this article is taken from this webpage. That is alarming. Try paraphrasing the phrases that the tool thinks the article is copying from.

There seems to be some confusion here. I have used the tool and not found anything like that. 92.4 copyvio is a serious issue and this article would not be surviving this long if that was the case. - The9Man (Talk) 08:16, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
Apparently, I had to checkmark the option that clears the cache. It's okay now. Lazman321 (talk) 17:25, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

3 - Broad in its Coverage

a - Main Aspects

I definitely learned a lot from this article and believe that it did cover the main aspects of the topic. No action needed.

b - Stays Focused

The fourth paragraph of Early life and family should be moved to Acting career as the first paragraph in Early career or even its own sub-section.

  •   Removed I don't see any particular section where we can include this. Further, I believe it is not important as well.

A lot of awards are mentioned throughout the acting career section, even though there already is an awards section and a page dedicated to the various awards that he received. You don't see other actors having awards mentioned in their history section.

  •  N Vaguely put. I don't see any issue here as all the information is referenced. Let me know if you want to change anything in particular.
    • I was trying to ask you to remove the awards listed throughout the acting career. Most GA articles and nearly all FA articles don't put awards in the acting career section. Though I discovered that even in FA articles, like William Hanna and Joseph Barbera, not all awards have to be removed. Maybe cut down the number of award statements in the acting career section except for the notable ones like ones for really famous movies by Amitabh Bachchan or ones widely documented by news organizations. Keep the awards section. Lazman321 (talk) 16:31, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Also, the books listed in the awards section will have to be moved to the further reading section.

  •  Y I have re-arranged the whole section.

4 - Neutral

This article is written from a neutral point of view. No action needed.

5 - Stable

There are no edit wars or content disputes going on right now.

6 - Illustrated

a - Copyright tags on non-free media

Nearly every image is free to use in Wikipedia. However, I am concerned about the image of Amitabh Bachchan with his wife considering every other image from Bollywood Hungama, there is proof that Bollywood Hungama did grant permission to use, but not this image.

  • Please explain why do you think this particular image doesn't have the permission. I have checked the licensing and it looks okay to me.
    • The proof I am talking about is the OTRS ticket that all the other images from Bollywood Hungama have. This image doesn't have one. Lazman321 (talk) 16:31, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

b - Relevant media

All media used in this article are relevant to the topic. No action needed.

7 - Overall

This article could use some improvements but is decent overall. This review will be   On hold for 14 days. Good luck. Lazman321 (talk) 06:01, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Because I have put another request on this review, I will be extending this review to another 4 days for a total of 18 days. 3 days have passed, meaning you have 15 days left now. Lazman321 (talk) 01:05, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
@The9Man: Where are you? You haven't done any more of the suggestions that I have brought up. Lazman321 (talk) 18:20, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
I can see that you have put 18 days time to work on the article. Why the hurry now? - The9Man (Talk) 08:23, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
I will be requesting a   Second opinion from other reviewers soon. Lazman321 (talk) 16:31, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
  Second opinion requested
Hi Lazmanif321. What aspect of this review would you like a second opinion on? If it's about the use of this image: File:BigB N JayaB.jpg, I would agree that the licensing is insecure as it is a crop of a copyrighted image without an appropriate license. It is also concerning that it was uploaded by a blocked user. I have removed the image from the article, and listed it on Commons for deletion. SilkTork (talk) 12:18, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, SilkTork. I was concerned about the insecure copyright of the image. I guess the main thing I want is for you to see if there are any more problems in the article that you can find. Look at the rebuttal towards making a paragraph in present tense and see if you agree with it. (I am fine if you agree with the rebuttal.) Make sure you notify The9Man once you are done reviewing the article and have put it on hold. Lazman321 (talk) 15:30, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
Hi Lazmanif321. Would you like me to finish the review for you? There are times when I get fed up with a review and don't want any more to do with it. I can take over and deal directly with the nominator and then pass or fail it myself, and you can get on with other things. If you prefer not to have your name involved, then you can either fail it, and User:The9Man can nominate it again, or I can simply delete this review as housekeeping and start over. Up to you. SilkTork (talk) 15:45, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
Yes, I would like you to finish the review for me. I fine with having my name involved. Thanks if you can. Lazman321 (talk) 15:52, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
No probs. SilkTork (talk) 15:53, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

GA review (2)

Latest comment: 3 years ago32 comments2 people in discussion
Closed as fail. SilkTork (talk) 10:13, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

I'll start reading over the next few days and then begin to make comments. I am normally a slow reviewer - if that is likely to be a problem, please let me know as soon as possible. I tend to directly do copy-editing and minor improvements as I'm reading the article rather than list them here; if there is a lot of copy-editing to be done I may suggest getting a copy-editor (on the basis that a fresh set of eyes is helpful). Anything more significant than minor improvements I will raise here. I see the reviewer's role as collaborative and collegiate, so I welcome discussion regarding interpretation of the criteria. SilkTork (talk)

Tick box

 

</noinclude>

GA review – see Wikipedia:Good article criteria for detailed criteria

  1. Is it well written?
    A. Prose is clear and concise, understandable, without spelling and grammar errors:  
    Prose is mostly fluid, articulate and enjoyably readable. There are places where use of short, almost elliptical, sentences hinders readability and understanding (example: "He was also one of the trustees of Rajiv Gandhi Foundation."); and the Television appearances section contains several one sentence paragraphs impeding reading flow, and giving the article a poor appearance. This should be adjusted as part of ongoing editing, though are not significant enough to hold up a GA, unless several other minor matters start to accrue. SilkTork (talk) 16:07, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
    B. Complies with MoS guidance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists: 
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. Has an appropriate reference section:  
    This is almost always a pass. SilkTork (talk) 16:08, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
    B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:  
    C. No original research:  
    D. No copyright violations nor plagiarism:  
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:  
    B. Focused:  
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:  
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:  
    There's been some non-vandalistic reverts recently. These are, however, very minor, and I don't expect them to continue, so this is a pass. SilkTork (talk) 16:13, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
  6. Does it contain media such as images, images, video, or audio to illustrate the topic?
    A. Media are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:  
    File:Amitabhbachchan28529.jpg appears to be an unauthorised crop of a copyrighted image: [1]. SilkTork (talk) 17:19, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
    B. Media are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:  
    Two images are very similar and are close together. SilkTork (talk) 17:26, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

 Y Already removed.

Comments on GA criteria

Pass
  • Images are appropriately licensed and are relevant. SilkTork (talk) 10:21, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Prose is OK. SilkTork (talk) 13:34, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
  • There is a reference section. SilkTork (talk) 13:34, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
  • No evidence of copyvio or plagiarism, though there is an overuse of quotes that should be looked into. SilkTork (talk) 13:34, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
  • No evidence of original research. Statements where checked are supported by sources. SilkTork (talk) 15:27, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
Query
 YRemoved the second image.
  • Do we need all of this quote?: "Bachchan is pretty terrific as Bhashkor, who reminds you of that oddball uncle that you nevertheless have a soft spot for. He bickers with the maids, harrows his hapless helper, and expects that Piku stay unmarried so she can attend to him. At one point, to ward off a possible suitor, he casually mentions that his daughter isn't a virgin; that she's financially independent and sexually independent too. Bachchan embraces the character's many idiosyncrasies, never once slipping into caricature while all along delivering big laughs thanks to his spot-on comic timing." This seems very specific to one role, which already has two other review quotes. The amount of coverage and use of lengthy quotes here and for his role in Pink, appear to be excessive; see WP:QUOTEFARM for some guidance on the use of quotes, and when their use may be exsessive. If these two films are particularly significant why are they not mentioned at all in the lead, while Shahenshah and The Great Gatsby are mentioned, but have barely any coverage in the main body? My background reading suggests that while Pink and Piku are frequently mentioned, films such as Black, Deewaar, Zanjeer and Don get more coverage. It's always difficult to decide what to give more coverage to, especially when more recent releases tend to monopolise the media, so we tend to use book when developing articles on notable people in order to help put things in context and decide what factors are most important, and which are least important - I don't see any book used here as a source, though there are many: [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9] - I've not read or reviewed those books, just listing them as examples; see WP:RECENTISM for more guidance on this issue. SilkTork (talk) 11:10, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Do we need all of the External links? If any of the websites provide more information than our Wikipedia article, then our article should be improved. Sites such as official websites or blogs, such as [10], are allowed, and sites which provide more media than we could incorporate are also allowed. See Wikipedia:External_links#What_to_link and WP:LINKSTOAVOID for guidance. SilkTork (talk) 11:10, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
  • There are a lot of books in the Further reading section. It would be more useful if those books were consulted and used as sources for the article than merely listed. Unless there is a specific reason why a book has not been used as a source but is recommended to be read, we shouldn't really be listing it. Are you able to justify every entry in that list? If not, then the entry should be removed. The bulk seem to be about Indian cinema in general, and might be suited for Cinema of India rather than here. Why, for example, is "Rao, R. Raj (2008). "Memories Pierce the Heart: Homoeroticism, Bollywood-Style" (PDF). Journal of Homosexuality." listed? The abstract says: "In this essay, I enjoy using Amitabh Bachchan, perennial idol of the Bollywood screen, as a point of departure for ruminations on the construction of male friendship and male love within both Indian cinema and its primarily male audience (which, in a sense, represents in turn Hindi culture at large). Using translations of songs from Amitabh's films interlaced with my own personal experiences, we see how homosexuality thrives in covert yet recognized places in Indian culture, and how subtler forms of homosexuality are actually engendered under the auspices of normative patriarchal culture. Songs were translated by the author in collaboration with Jia Das.", so that appears to be more about male friendship than about Amitabh Bachchan. Would you be ale to revise this list to make it more appropriate? SilkTork (talk) 11:36, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Sources. Not quite a fail as there are plenty of cites, but the sources are almost all media - there doesn't appear to be one book used as a source, even though there are several books published. For readers (and this reviewer at least) to have more confidence in the completeness and balance of the article some books should be consulted and used as more reliable sources than press releases republished in media websites of dubious reliability. There's also one sentence ("Teji had some influence in Amitabh Bachchan's choice of career because she always insisted that he should take centre stage.") tagged as needing citation since last month. SilkTork (talk) 14:32, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Bias. Article tends toward superfluous words in praising Bachchan, but hesitates to detail controversies. It's not a major issue. But article does need a careful copyedit to resolve the tendency toward adoring the subject. SilkTork (talk) 15:25, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
Fail
  • Lead. To meet GA criteria 1(b), which relates to specific manual of style guidelines, the article needs to comply with the advice in WP:LEAD. That is, in addition to being an introduction, the lead needs to be an adequate overview of the whole of the article. As a rough guide, each major section in the article should be represented with an appropriate summary in the lead. Also, the article should provide further details on all the things mentioned in the lead. And, the first few sentences should mention the most notable features of the article's subject - the essential facts that every reader should know. The lead paragraph should be rearranged so that the reader gets to know very quickly that "Bachchan is regarded as one of the greatest actors in the history of Indian cinema." There should also be some detail from sections such as Early life and family, and Other work, particularly that he was a politician for several years, and was involved in a scandal. SilkTork (talk) 11:57, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
I've made a slight adjustment to the lead. More work needs to be done to build it up. SilkTork (talk) 11:59, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
The near fatal injury should be mentioned in the lead. SilkTork (talk) 12:25, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
"he acquired a large overseas following in markets including Africa (South Africa and Mauritius), the Middle East (especially UAE and Egypt), the United Kingdom, Russia, the Caribbean (Guyana, Suriname, and Trinidad and Tobago), Oceania (Fiji, Australia, and New Zealand) and parts of the United States." - This list is too detailed for the lead. Also, those markets are not mentioned in the main body as far as I can see. The lead could have a sentence such as "he acquired a large overseas market"; and then a section (or sub-section) created for his Popularity, in which information is presented for his popularity in India and abroad, and the whole of that text could be included in that section. SilkTork (talk) 12:31, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Focus. There is rather too much focus on his later films, while information regarding his earlier films could be more developed. In general the article could do with a proper copyedit to resolve various imbalances in information, such as that we get more information about his name than we do about his three year political career which included a notorious scandal. SilkTork (talk) 15:12, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Coverage. There are various gaps in coverage. There is nothing about his theatre career before he moved into film, nor about his time as a business executive in Kolkata/Calcutta. I have added a filmography section, quickly merging in information from the excellent filmography article, but other sections need creating, such as one on his acting style and/or popularity, such as Laurence_Olivier#Technique_and_reputation. The article at the moment has accumulated information (from rather superficial sources), but now needs an editor or group of editors to take hold of it and fully research the man's career and organise the material into a reasonably informative coverage of his life and carer, enough to satisfy the curiosity of the general reader. The topic deserves better than it has got so far. SilkTork (talk) 15:20, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

General comments

Two images you have raised already resolved a while back. Can we finish it anytime soon? - The9Man (Talk) 10:10, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I tend to be slow. If that is an issue for you please let me know, and I'll withdraw and let someone else finish. SilkTork (talk) 12:45, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
Hi. If you want me to continue and finish this off, please let me know. I should have some time on Monday to finish looking through and letting you know what I feel still needs to be done, or if the article is OK for GA. If you're OK with that, or prefer to ask someone else to finish it off, let me know. SilkTork (talk) 17:35, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
I am okay to wait till Monday. Please do it. - The9Man (Talk) 05:52, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
  • "briefly entered politics in support of a long-time family friend, Rajiv Gandhi." What does this mean? Did Gandhi ask Bachchan to support his election, or did he ask him to stand in the election as part of Bachchan's party? A few more details would be useful. SilkTork (talk) 14:48, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
  • "Renowned film director Satyajit Ray was so impressed with Bachchan's voice that he decided to use Bachchan as the narrator in his 1977 film" - sentences such as this need to be toned down a little to make the article appear more neutral and balanced. SilkTork (talk) 15:22, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Pass/Hold/Fail

On hold. A lot of information has been gathered here by various editors over the years, but it appears that nobody has really settled down to organise the material. What is required is a period of research into sources more detailed than magazine stories and press clippings. And then organising the material to present a useful and balanced overview of the man's career. It's a fairly big task, though it can be done fairly quickly if there are one or two experienced, hard-working and willing editors prepared to devote some time to this. I'm OK with keeping this review open for a month (or more) if positive progress is being made. What specifically needs to be done:

  • Research more deeply into Bachchan's life and career.
  • Fill in the gaps in his early life. Develop more information on his early and important films.
  • Create a section on his acting and popularity (both in one section, or a section on each).
  • Reduce fluff and irrelevancy - particularly the long list of Further reading, and the many quotes from reviews of his more recent films.
  • Organise the material so that details are not unnecessarily repeated, or which appear out of sequence. For example. the later family material is conventionally placed in a later section in biographies marked Personal life.
  • Work on the lead so that anything that is mentioned in the lead is also mentioned (in greater detail) in the main body, and so everything important in the main body is summarised in the lead.
  • Copyedit for neutral language, and to avoid short paragraphs which inhibit flow and give the article a scrappy amateur appearance.

I'll put this on hold for the standard seven days. I'm OK with extending this or with closing the review earlier if the nominator feels they would prefer to work on the article over an extended period. SilkTork (talk) 15:41, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Your suggestions are too vague and almost like rewriting the entire article! Sorry to say, but it doesn't make much sense to me. It's like one's opinion over 100+s other editors. You can go ahead with Fail. - The9Man (Talk) 06:06, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
To add to the above, I don't have any problems with your suggestions. But it will be a humongous task for such a major overhaul. Not just editing but also will be facing reverts, different point of views in what to add and what not to add in BLPs etc. I guess it's good to let it go and use my time for more constructive things. - The9Man (Talk)
I'm sorry you felt my suggestions were too vague. I had spent some time looking at the article, and then giving what I felt were detailed reasons for why I feel the article doesn't meet GA criteria, plus a plan for how contributors could work to make the article meet the criteria. I apologise that I wasn't clear enough. I do agree with you, though, that the article does require some work. I have worked on a good number of GA reviews, and in my experience the work that is needed here can be done in two to three weeks. But it would require editors experienced at working to GA standards, and who are keen and energetic. Sadly, most of us don't have that combination of experience, knowledge, skill, energy and commitment. As such I agree that closing the review is the best outcome at the moment. However, I hope the suggestions I have made will prove useful for moving forward with the article. Regards SilkTork (talk) 10:13, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:07, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Further reading

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Moving a list of texts from the article to here. These texts do not appear to directly relate to the subject matter of the article, and are not used to support information in the article. Some may be useful in support of the Cinema of India article. I am placing them here in case there are some texts which others do think would be genuinely helpful to the general reader to gain a further understanding of Bachchan, or which may be useful for the Cinema of India article. SilkTork (talk) 09:48, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Is this a joke?

Latest comment: 3 years ago16 comments7 people in discussion

Is this some sort of a joke that information from Amitabh Bachchan filmography is being blatantly copied right onto this article? Have you heard of plagiarism? Also, this is exactly the purpose of a daughter article, to provide information other than what appears on this article, which should be in the career section. Shahid • Talk2me 09:39, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Your concern is that copying within Wikipedia is not allowed? I understand that. Copying is allowed within Wikipedia as long as attribution is made: see WP:COPYWITHIN. When I merged in material from Amitabh Bachchan filmography I made an appropriate link in the edit summary: [11]. This follows the guidance in Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia :"Copying and translating information from a Wikimedia project other than the English Wikipedia is usually possible, since all Wikimedia projects use the same or compatible licensing for most of their content. The edit summary should provide either a link to the original source or a list of all contributors." If you feel that such attribution is not enough, we can put a template on the talkpage. SilkTork (talk) 09:52, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
We can use this template: {{Copied|from=|from_oldid=|to=|to_diff=}}. Would that then allay your concerns? SilkTork (talk) 09:58, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
This is a clear misrepresentation of the guideline because it clearly says "Copying and translating information from a Wikimedia project other than the English Wikipedia is usually possible". Secondly, as I said, the idea of a the filmography page is to include information not included in Amitabh Bachchan. And everything you've copid should be within the article itself in the career section - see how it's done in featured articles of the sort. Shahid • Talk2me 10:14, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
Ha. My bad, I copied the wrong text! Here's the nutshell from the guideline: "This page in a nutshell: When copying content from one article to another, at a minimum provide a link back to the source page in the edit summary at the destination page and state that content was copied from that source. If substantial, consider posting a note on both talk pages". So, I did the part that says "provide a link back to the source page in the edit summary at the destination page and state that content was copied from that source". So where we are at is if we should now do the "If substantial, consider posting a note on both talk pages" bit. There are templates we can use for that. I assume from your comments that you feel it would be appropriate to use those templates on the talkpages of both articles. Shall we do that? SilkTork (talk) 10:25, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
As regards not having a filmography section. Well, most articles have such things. It is awkward here because Bachchan made so many films. There really isn't space to include them all. Sometimes editors chose to make a selection of the more important films, but I am not an expert on this topic so I couldn't do that. When I looked at the filmography I saw that a selection had already been made, along with explanations for why those films had been chosen. This seemed like a good solution, so I merged that information into this article, with some minor editing. SilkTork (talk) 10:30, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
No, we're in disagreement here, the link to the filmography page should be provided without the text, which is merely a lead summary of the filmography table. If you need to copy, it just means the article of Bachchan is very lacking in information, because the text you've copied is a a summary of what should be in the career section. We can have an RfC on it if you like; I have no doubt WP editors will not approve of it. Shahid • Talk2me 10:32, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Wouldn't it be a good idea to also cut down on the "Career" section of this article, which includes a lot of names of the different movies he has appeared in, and duplicates much of the filmography info? In general, I think it is a bad idea to list too many movie titles in the running text, when the movies are not specifically important – that's what the filmography table is there for after all. (It is a very common thing in articles about actors, where every single movie they have been in is added to the Career section, sometimes with lots of detail about things like other actors appearing in the film, which just serves to overload the text.) --bonadea contributions talk 10:36, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

A filmography section with just a link is acceptable. Though the filmography section should be placed conventionally below the career sections as that is where people expect to find it. But there is still the possibility of having something more than just a link; some Featured Articles have a little more detail, such as Richard_Wagner#Works, William_Shakespeare#Works, and some Good Articles arrange long lists into columns, such as Alfred_Hitchcock#Filmography. There isn't a rule against attempting to provide the reader with information within the Works/Filmography section, unless the information becomes so large it unbalances the article. I'm OK with a RfC. That seems a good idea. SilkTork (talk) 10:42, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

RfC on a Filmography in this article

Should there be a Filmography in this article on Amitabh Bachchan? And if so, what form should the Filmography take:

  1. a link to Amitabh Bachchan filmography, and nothing else;
  2. a list of all his films, sorted into columns;
  3. a selection of his most important/notable films with no commentary;
  4. a selection of his most important/notable films with commentary;
  5. something else.

Currently the article has 4) a selection of his most important/notable films with commentary, but this is felt to be inappropriate because it repeats the lead section from Amitabh Bachchan filmography. SilkTork (talk) 10:53, 15 December 2020 (UTC)


  • I feel there should be a filmography section. My preference, given the amount of films Bachchan has made, is to have a selection of his films with some sort of informed and sourced commentary to indicate why those films have been selected. This could be done either the way it is now, or just with a link to the filmography which has the same information in the lead, and then gives the list of all his films. The advantage of having the selection and commentary here is that readers then don't need to go to another page to read that information, they only need to go to the filmography page if they want more detail about his films. What can be kept here to helpfully inform readers with the least inconvenience seems to me to be the Wikipedia way. SilkTork (talk) 10:58, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
1) - nothing else is needed. The text is redundant as it should already be included in the career section and right now it's a direct word-for-word copy of the filmography daughter page. Remove the text, which adds nothing new, and that's it. We should work to make the career section substantial enough to not have it repeated later again. The lead should be a summary of his life and career. Shahid • Talk2me 11:05, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Oppose addition The filmography already has its own article. The precedent is just to include a link. ~ HAL333 23:22, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

I don't have a strong opinion here, but to your point, there is also precedent to include some details. Ex: at the FA Katharine Hepburn#Filmography and theatre credits. The amount of prose currently in Bachchan's filmography section is needlessly long, repeats content found elsewhere, which I noted before even seeing that Shahid had also mentioned it. The Filmfare wins, for example, are found in various places. But a sentence or two very broadly summarising number of films, genres, maybe languages, doesn't seem crazy to me. I do caution anyone interested in a list that any list will be a cruft magnet. Invariably, people don't see their favourite film or films on the list and will add them. Whatever is decided, the criteria for a film to be added to such a list should be pretty clear, like that it won a major award, and no, that doesn't mean the Dada Saheb Phalke Film Festival Award or some other nonsense. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 00:18, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
  • 1 No need to repeat it here when a link will suffice `Spudlace (talk) 21:10, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
  • 1 or 5 If there's any text, a very short blurb - how long have they been acting, what language/film industry, awards covered below, so nothing here. But basically, it's all about the link. Ravensfire (talk) 21:50, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

good article status

Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

He is a famous big icon in India can someone shape up this article and bring to good article status. Kindly take authority. Dominicoz (talk) 16:51, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Dominicoz, yes it really needs that. How I wish someone was paid to make this a GA. I know that goes in violation of WP:PAIDEDITING, but what other way would there be? Kailash29792 (talk) 07:46, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Infobox image

Latest comment: 3 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion

A slow edit-war has been happening over the past week and half over the lead image. Pinging @Holy Contributor 92, Peter Ormond, and Arimaboss: as the main parties involved. Here's the images that have been in place and the year they are from:

  •  
    Original before the edit-war, from 2019

Changed to:

Of course, there are 141 image in c:Category:Amitabh_Bachchan for further options. Please discuss and work towards a consensus on the image and no more edit-warring over this. Ravensfire (talk) 22:58, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Of the five images, the 2006 image is just terrible. The 2009 is okay, but the mic is a bit distracting. Both 2013 images are fairly similar, slight preference to the first one, the lighting is more even. To me, the 2019 image has good lighting, is the most current and shows the subject well. I'm going to look through the Commons gallery to see if I can find anything else. Ravensfire (talk) 23:15, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

@Ravensfire: The original also wasn't from 2019 this is from 2018. I agree 2006 isn't ideal for the infobox but i think 2009 one looks better than the most.Holy Contributor 92 (talk) 23:29, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

File:Amitabh Bachchan Launches Online And Mobile Game Of Baabul.jpg

How about this one Fox ?? Looks decent too anyway I will go with 2009 one at the London and India event.Holy Contributor 92 (talk) 00:07, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Holy Contributor 92, Again, microphone is distracting and it's from 2005. His focus is away from the reader, looking up and away, not the best expression on his face and his face somewhat blends into the background. It's not a bad image of him, but not as good as others available. In general, infobox images should be reasonably current. 2005 and 2009 are far current, ~12 years?!?! That's way out of date. These aren't "iconic" images either, they are all from promotional events. Ravensfire (talk) 00:29, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

@Ravensfire: He doesn't change drastically in last 20 years atleast and I too don't want to install a image from his younger days that wouldn't be ideal at all. I am looking for better options at IndianFM and till then I will stick to The 2009.Holy Contributor 92 (talk) 00:44, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Sources

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

relation with JLN

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Was he related to PM JLN — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.37.68.154 (talk) 13:10, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 December 2021

Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

In the infobox, in an officeholder insert, include Bachchan's service as a Member of Parliament, Lok Sabha for Allahabad. 2607:FEA8:81F:FB70:A8E7:3181:7897:7C40 (talk) 04:08, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

  Done --Hemanthah (talk) 06:03, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 December 2021

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Heading for 'Voic-acting' heading is wrong. It should be 'Voice-acting' 73.254.178.211 (talk) 09:41, 15 December 2021 (UTC)   Done --Hemanthah (talk) 10:23, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 December 2021

Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Change Allahabad to Prayagraj RamRajya21 (talk) 02:13, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

  Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 02:33, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Director from France

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

In the lead a statement of a film director of France written, is this person is so imp to write his name in lead to validate greatness of Amitabha Bachchan. You can write his this statement in below sub section in particular colourful box.Success think (talk) 19:25, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 February 2022

Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
2409:4063:6E26:19F6:0:0:D448:DD01 (talk) 18:27, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Siblings - Ajitabh Bachchan

  Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:32, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Section on Controversies

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Quite strange that this article doesn't have a section on controversies despite many around him. From major ones like "Khoon ka badla khoon" for which he was summoned by a US court[2] and others too. Will share more as I find. Need to have section on controversies Amitized (talk) 07:40, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "This is Amitabh's best performance after Black".
  2. ^ https://www.firstpost.com/bollywood/us-court-summons-amitabh-bachchan-for-instigating-violence-in-1984-anti-sikh-riots-1775861.html

Kbc lottery

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hamare pese Kon dega jo in logo ko diya he Tex's ke name pr un logo ne liye he or hamne lakho Rs diye he or aese log ke upr complaint Kaun Karega aur inke khilaf action Kaun Lega Ham to Mere Liye Hans Loge aapke naam per Luta hai to aap hi kar hi karwai please help me Hamare paise Wapas karao 157.38.252.152 (talk) 15:16, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 September 2022

Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion

-Ashvin29 (talk) 08:24, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

  Not done – empty request -MPGuy2824 (talk) 11:19, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Is Raju Srivastav a look alike of Amitabh Bachchan

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

There is a dispute on Talk:Raju_Srivastav#Look_alike_of_Amitabh_Bachchan_? where his fans are using claims of Srivastav to add in Wikipedia voice that he is a look alive of AB. Please see. Venkat TL (talk) 16:46, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 October 2022

Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Change Rajesh Khanna to Shashi Kapoor for the movie Namak Haraam as the movie did not have Rajesh Khanna. 2400:ADC1:429:3100:35DC:4074:DFE9:7911 (talk) 21:38, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

  Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:07, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Birth Name of Amitabh Bachchan.

Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion

the real name of Amitabh Bachchan is Inquilab Shrivastava so why anyone hasn't changed it? 111.119.197.127 (talk) 20:00, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

And your WP:reliable sources are? - Arjayay (talk) 20:08, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Amitabh Bachchan Net Worth 2023

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Amitabh Bachchan net worth is approximately $415 million USD as of 2023 and converting it into Indian rupees figure comes to 3395 Crore. Here keep in mind that net worth figures may slightly vary due to Currency rate changes. 203.109.79.198 (talk) 09:20, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Surat History

Latest comment: 10 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Season 8: 2014 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashvin29 (talk • contribs) 11:52, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Amitabh Bachchan sir first time comed in Surat,Gujarat, 1976. second time comed 2014 january Brand Ambassador of Rajgreen Company shoot bigget event Manage by Modern Moviee Pvt.Ltd. shoot by-photographer-Ashvin Board and 2014 third entry September sony tv under prograame Kuan Banega Carorepati 8th season shoot by- Photographer Ashvin Borad

Line of French director

Latest comment: 9 months ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Does we need validation of a foreign director to prove that, how big is Amitabh Bachchan? The whole world knows he is amezing artist. Should we move that line below in other section? Tesla car owner (talk) 06:23, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Helps add some western validation given that a lot of people in English-speaking countries are unaware of Indian cinema 206.163.248.20 (talk) 23:42, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
No I Don't Think So... This Comment Most Probably Was Made When West Didn't Gave Much Importance To Indian Cinema, Hence This Statement Does Carry A Lot Of Weight. AmNaTi200 (talk) 16:51, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Amitabh_Bachchan/Archive_3&oldid=1175721833"