Talk:Amitabh Bachchan

DISSAPPOINT EVERYTIME

GUYS WHY RU ERASING THE INFORMATION Shahrukh Khan 21 october 2008 (UTC).

Why ??

I added the pictures of hime being awarded at the Asian Film Awards and an screenshot from one of his recent movies . Here . Both the images enhance the encyclopaedic information on this article . Why was it removed ?

Anti-Sikh Riots

I see that the links/description added by me has been removed again. At the outset I would like to mention that the purpose of the content is not to malign but to bring forth to the general public facts which ascribe to the life of Mr. Bachchan. He is on record clarifying his position on the matter said and the information is a very important fact of his personal life. I believe hiding this fact from the general public, ostensibly due to the information "not being new" is not in good taste. His alleged involvement in a matter as serious as instigation of riots deserves mention on his public profile and if subsequently exonerated, can also be mentioned. The general public needs to be informed of all aspects pertaining to Mr Bachchans life. Not just those which sing paeans about his stature. This is a user contributed and moderated community and needs the support of all members..

Please find the original text I had published as follows:

Amitabh Bachchan was in the news in 2011 for the wrong reasons. He was accused by certain members of the Sikh community of instigating attacks on Sikhs during the 1984 anti-Sikh riots. The attacks followed the assassination of Indira Gandhi post Operation Blue Star. He is alleged to have made polemic remarks saying “Khoon ka Badla Khoon se lenge” ( “Blood for Blood”) . Several eyewitness have claimed that he made such remarks and wrote to the Akal Takht asking for action against Mr. Bachchan. Responding to the allegations, Mr Bachchan is said to have written to the Akal Takht , which is the highest temporal body of the Sikhs, pleading his innocence. The Akal Takht has not taken a decision yet exonerating Mr Bachchan of the charges. Following the controversy, few members of the Sikh community protested by chanting slogans against Mr Bachchan as he carried the Olympic torch during the 2012 Summer Olympics in London.

Proposing new image

I do propose following new image for article infobox.

• If users prefer black and white image, I will upload black and white version of this image. Thanks! neo (talk) 20:13, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

I really like the one that's there now. It's a professional picture; very clear. Yours is dark and the wrong shape. Maybe you could fix yours up a bit, but the one that's there now is clearly superior, if a couple years old. He looks about the same. BollyJeff | talk 20:16, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

He is also facing the "wrong way". We prefer such infobox images to face into the page, not away from it. I think you may find some info about this at MOS:IMAGES - it is certainly documented somewhere. - Sitush (talk) 20:30, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

I've just removed the picture again, this time from within the body text. We do not need multiple images of him that are taken a mere few years apart. Now, if we could find a decent image from, say, the 1970s or 1980s then that would be worthy of inclusion somewhere in the body. - Sitush (talk) 16:31, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Only u seems to have problem. U will not try to get image from 70 or 80s and if someone inclue current image u will oppose it. Almost all articles include current images in infobox and body text. Almost impossible to get images existing before internet and OTRS stuff. Now I am going to link high quality image. Let other users decide. If one or two users try to exercise control on article I will take this issue to Admin board. neo (talk) 18:02, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Amitabh Bachchan at the promotion of Aarakshan at Mehboob Studio, Mumbai

Well, it was not only me, was it? We have literally hundreds of thousands of articles with images dating from before the existence of the internet, so that particular argument carries no great weight. As a rule, we do not show multiple images of a person from around the same period. It is beginning to seem as if you dislike the existing photo of Bachchan, although you have claimed that he likes it - I'm not sure what is going on here, or why. - Sitush (talk) 18:08, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

If 'hundred of thousands' of articles have images dating back to internet then it must be easy to get old image of Amitabh. Why waste time? You really don't have any idea what is going on here or why. You contradict yourself. neo (talk) 18:52, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

I have not contradicted myself. I have not looked for older images because I have only limited access to Indian sources and because I'm neither terribly interested in cinema nor in images. You are beginning to veer towards making this personal - I strongly suggested that you do not. - Sitush (talk) 18:56, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

It is absolutely stupid on your part to come on my talk page and give me threat of blocking. I reverted just your 1 edit. Ever heard WP:3RR? Perhaps you panicked while reverting my edit second time, thought that you will get caught in 3RR and in panick attacked me to impress admins. Amitabh made comeback due to KBC. There is nothing wrong in giving KBC related image in that section. As you are not interested in cinema or images, in what capacity you are deciding content of this article? And what 'territory' you need on internet to get India related images? Please, let other users decide content of this article who are interested in cinema and images. You are sounding weird. neo (talk) 20:42, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

And you are sounding rude. Be careful. - Sitush (talk) 20:44, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

You say that you are not interested in cinema or images but still you are trying to decide content of this article. You gave me threat of blocking without any base. As per WP:CIV, your behaviour is incoherent. And you are trying to flame a user who is contributing to wikipedia. I once again state that you should allow interested users to decide content of this article. neo (talk) 21:13, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

I did not threaten you with anything. You added something, I reverted it and left a note here explaining why. You replied to that note and then reinstated, pretty much ignoring my response. Given your recent activity involving the same image for this article, that is a definition of edit warring, is contrary to WP:BRD and is despite comments made by another contributor in this thread who is interested in cinema etc. There are two versions of the edit warring template and I selected the "stronger" one - that may well have been a mistake because I thought you were more experienced with Wikipedia than appears to be the case. For that, I apologise but the net result is the same: please don't do it.

As for your comments concerning interested users, well, I'm afraid that you are missing the point: we can all edit Wikipedia provided that we stay within the bounds set by the community. You were pushing that to the limit and I was not. I have a considerable amount of experience in dealing with articles relating to Indian subjects and that I am not particularly interested in images or cinema is irrelevant. You may have noticed that this article is protected against direct contributions by certain types of contributor. It is protected for a reason and my interest in it long pre-dates yours. Now, can we please get back to discussing why it is you feel it necessary to include two images of this person that originate from around the same period and that fundamentally show the same thing, ie: a portrait picture. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 23:22, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Hm, it seems likely that my selection of template was not amiss after all. I thought that you seemed more au fait than someone with 90-ish contributions. There is, however, no need for you to unwatch this article: if you choose to do so then that is your prerogative but I am merely interested in working out why this apparent desire to show alternate images of Bachchan from around the same period is such an issue for you. It may well be an issue for others also, you see. - Sitush (talk) 23:32, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Another good reason to keep this current image is that it is considered the best available (Valued Image) in the lot. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 03:40, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Dharmadhyaksha. The current picture is the best picture you could have and also that it's not good to just change a valuable picture without any discussion. Tolly4bolly 08:14, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

In fairness to Neo., it should be pointed out that the "valued image" !vote involved two people in 2010 and Neo.'s latest offering is a photo taken in 2011 - it could not have been assessed by those two people. - Sitush (talk) 09:08, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

In such case, neo can go and open a Most Valued Review (MVR) where more than one contesting images are debated on side by side. Its quite common to have such MVRs after new images are uploaded or found. I have been kicked out for keeping VIs in infobox many times giving silly reason like this-is-latest, this-is-high-resolution,-even-if-its-full-profile-and-yours-is-a-closeup-of-face. But now that we are discussing, i would put forth my objection to exclusion of VIs. If new images are replacing better images, just because they are new or because they are uploaded by the editor (which is the most common reason, as in this case), whats the point of running that system of finding valuable images at Commons? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 11:07, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I wasn't even aware of the "most valued" system until you pointed it out. That, of course, is the opinion of contributors at Commons and not necessarily the opinion of contributors to any of the various language editions of Wikipedia. Consensus would need to be achieved locally but, yes, we can take into account what the Commons folks think about it. - Sitush (talk) 16:21, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Please stop wasting so much time on this guys; the present image is best. Now how about improving the article in other ways? BollyJeff | talk 16:55, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Overglorification of Amitabh - as even disasters at box office are shown in wiki as hits!!

Overglorification of Amitabh - as even disasters at box office are shown in wiki as hits!! Following films were disasters Saat Hindustani Gehri Chaal Bandhe Haath Mili (1975) Zameer (1975) Faraar (1975) Alaap (1977) Immaan Dharam (1977) Besharam (1978) The Great Gambler (1979) Jurmana (1979) Manzil (1979) Do Aur Do Paanch (1980) Shaan (1980) Barsaat Ki Ek Raat (1981) Silsila (1981) Bemisal (1982) Pukar (1983) Nastik (1983) Mahaan (1983) Inquilaab (1984) Geraftaar (1985) Aakhree Raasta (1986) Gangaa Jamunaa Saraswathi (1988) Main Azaad Hoon (1989) Toofan (1989) Jaadugar (1989) Agneepath (1990) Ajooba (1991) Indrajeet (1991) Akayla (1991) Khuda Gawah (1993) Insaniyat (1994) Mrityudaata (1997) Lal Baadshah (1999) Hindustan Ki Kasam (1999) Kohram (1999) Aks (2001)

In wiki its written that Silsila, Shakti, Bemisaal etc were successful - Its a wrong information. Infact he has flops right from 1981-1999. Only Shahensahah, Sharabhi, Coolie and Mard and Hum were successful in between 1982-1999 as the lead hero. So please rectify the mistakePrithviSanju (talk) 17:43, 18 April 2013 (UTC)