Jump to content

Talk:Hindi cinema/Archive 13

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15

Madharchodiet Network

Karan Johar is a member of the madharchodiet network and his movies are based on lives of people in Suriname and he should be prosecuted. Their contact is Faried Pierkhan Madharchodiet, who started stealing babies from India to start film scripts and movies in Suriname. Also medical malpractice, etc to orchestrate murders and other illegal activity awaiting prosecution by federal law enforcement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.53.192.197 (talk) 10:09, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

POV

@Maestro2016: stop edit warring and discuss changes here. SoniaKovind (talk) 08:42, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

'Golden age' section is about trade and prominent actors from one era, not one actors bio and his acting style, everybactor ha a unique acting method and achievement, we do not add all of them, this can be read on their particular pages. SoniaKovind (talk) 08:44, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Again, my edit summary already explains it: Method acting is not just about one actor, but about several actors, including Kumar, Bachchan, Khan, etc. Your are misrepresenting what is written. It is not only about Kumar, but about the Bollywood school of method acting, which includes the likes of Kumar, Bachchan, and Khan, as mentioned in the cited reliable sources. It is significant because it demonstrates that Bollywood had a method acting tradition that developed independently from Hollywood. Why does this bother you so much? Maestro2016 (talk) 09:01, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Are you for real? How can something which is already well recognised in Hollywood can be called independent in Bollywood? Method acting is a global technique, not limited to Bollywood. You are making this section about Kumar's acting abilities and his infliencea rather than the brief summary of Bollywood in that era that it is intended to be. SoniaKovind (talk) 09:08, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

The problem here is your POV-pushing (some kind of bizarre agenda against Kumar) is making you fail to look at this neutrally. The point is to show that method acting is not something Bollywood later copied from Hollywood, but something that Bollywood also developed independently from Hollywood during the golden age, demonstrating that Bollywood was not inferior to Hollywood in this department. The point is to show that method acting was not exclusive to Hollywood, but that Bollywood also had method acting during the golden age. But you're so hell-bent on your anti-Kumar agenda that you'd rather belittle Indian cinema's accomplishments just to take a pot-shot at an actor you dislike. Maestro2016 (talk) 09:20, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
Do you even know what 'POV' means or are you just copying it for argument? You are pushing your POV, I am keeping it neutral, its you, who is being a fanboy of Dilip Kumar, and making everything about him and HIS influence, giving him a preference over his peers from the era. Method acting was not invented by him and calling him India's Marlon Brando is a pure case of POV and fanboyish. I repeat again, it is the section about one era of Bollywood's history not one actor or his acting techniques. It is just to inform about prominent actors and makers from the era. SoniaKovind (talk) 09:26, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
You are not being neutral at all. Your reverts are just blind knee-jerk reactions to anything written about Dilip Kumar, showing you have some kind of agenda against him. You're even going as far as accusing me of being a Kumar "fanboy", which is hilariously ridiculous (since I barely even watch Kumar movies), not to mention I've also contributed things about Raj Kapoor (who I generally prefer over Kumar). The comparison between the method acting of Kumar and Marlin Brando is in the cited source, if you bothered reading it. This is not about giving anyone "preference" (which is ridiculous, since far more is written about Raj Kapoor), but about summarizing Indian cinema's accomplishments during the golden age. One such accomplishment was the development of method acting, which you are blindly reverting simply because you don't want anything positive mentioned about Kumar, showing you clearly have a POV agenda here. Maestro2016 (talk) 09:56, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
'Method acting' is not a Bollywood accomplishment and calling an Indian actor a Bollywood version of a Hollywood actor certainly doesn't deny that. Calling him Brando of India is a POV, i.e. someone's 'Point Of View', you can not add it as gospel truth in a section which is not even about Kumar or his acting. You are just making the whole section about him, giving him preference over his peers to suit your bias. Repeating again, its a section about brief intro to one era of Bollywood, not one particular actor or his influences. Keep it neutral. SoniaKovind (talk) 10:09, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
Again, the article covers Raj Kapoor and Guru Dutt way more than Dilip Kumar, so how can you claim there is some kind of Kumar bias here? If anything, the article is clearly more biased towards Raj Kapoor and Guru Dutt, not Dilip Kumar. The part about Kumar's method acting helps brings some neutral balance to the article, but it's clear that you do not want neutrality. Maestro2016 (talk) 10:31, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
Dilip Kumar is only mentioned twice in the article, whereas Guru Dutt is mentioned five times and Raj Kapoor is mentioned seven times (one of which I added myself). And even with the additions I previously made, Kumar's mentions only came up to four times, which is still less than Dutt and Kapoor. The ones being given "preference" in the article are Kapoor and Dutt, not Kumar. Maestro2016 (talk) 10:36, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
Because it also covers Kapoor and Dutt also as directors not just actors. Kumar was only an actor. You are giving preference to Kumar over his other fellow actors. Keep it neutral, instead of making the whole era and section about Kumar. SoniaKovind (talk) 10:39, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
Out of the seven Raj Kapoor mentions, four of them mention him as an actor (again, one of which I added myself). That's the same number of times that Dilip Kumar is mentioned in the previous version of the article you reverted, whereas now Kumar is only mentioned twice, compared to Kapoor's four mentions as an actor. Your false accusation of "giving preference to Kumar" is completely baseless. Maestro2016 (talk) 10:46, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
Please elaborate how have you come to these numbers as in how you counted them, in case we are going quantitative in the discussion. SoniaKovind (talk) 10:52, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
Ctrl + F. Maestro2016 (talk) 10:56, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
Are you doing that on the source page or the saved page? I think its the former, I didn't get "seven" Raj Kapoor mentions in the section, on the saved page. SoniaKovind (talk) 10:59, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
On the actual page, not the source. You could try using Chrome, which mentions the number of times a term is mentioned on a page (the actual page, not source). Maestro2016 (talk) 11:03, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
Only getting 3 mentions for Raj Kapoor in the section, are you sure you are not counting other sections? SoniaKovind (talk) 11:08, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
I was counting the whole article. Maestro2016 (talk) 11:12, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
So there are 3 mentions in the 'Golden Age' for Kapoor as actor+director and 2 for Kumar as just actor, quite balanced and neutral. SoniaKovind (talk) 11:18, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

I have now re-written that part, covering the acting styles of all three leading male actors (Kumar, Kapoor, Anand) to give a more balanced view. Maestro2016 (talk) 19:34, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

This page is not about these actors or their acting style, it is about Bollywood, its trade and notable individuals from particular era. Stop reverting or changing till a consensus is achieved. SoniaKovind (talk) 19:56, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
BTW, what you added about the three actors, as irrelevant as it was to the page, was so childish. All you added was that how all 3 of them were desi knockouts of the original Hollywood versions, Kapoor was Desi Chaplin, Kumar was desi Brando and Anand was Desi Gregory. SoniaKovind (talk) 20:05, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
And it still looks a fanboy post about Kumar, how he influenced other actors, whereas Kapoor and Anand were just copying others. Irrelevant and fanboyish. SoniaKovind (talk) 20:10, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
Did you even read the cited sources? Because you'll find that the above is what's written in the cited sources. Also, your personal attacks against me (e.g. "fanboy") are completely uncalled for. Try to be civil. Maestro2016 (talk) 20:31, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
Why are you still moving in circles? You can write all these things about Kumar, Kapoor etc on their respective pages, attributing it to the author of your source. This is the page of 'Bollywood', the whole industry. It involves everyone, all the actors and technicians, who have ever worked in Bollywood, you can't make a section only about one or two individuals, simple. And I never attacked you, I called your behaviour "fanboyish", to point out your apparent bias. SoniaKovind (talk) 20:37, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
And like I mentioned earlier on, the Bollywood school of method acting is not just about a single actor, but about multiple popular actors spanning several generations, from Kumar to Bachchan to SRK. The article gives plenty of coverage to Amitabh Bachchan, referring to him as one of the greatest and most influential Bollywood actors. Yet when there are sources saying the same thing about Kumar, who Bachchan himself credited as his inspiration and one of the most influential Bollywood actors (which I never went as far as claiming in the article), you refuse to give Kumar any credit at all. Bachchan is mentioned six times in the article, whereas Kumar is only mentioned twice, even though Kumar's influence is comparable to Bachchan. Maestro2016 (talk) 20:58, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
Firstly, 'Method acting' is not an exclusive Bollywood phenomena, secondly, it is about individuals, not the whole industry, you want to add these things about individuals, add it on their respective pages, not here. If any actor considers anybody his/her inspiration, it is also suppose to be on his/her page, not on 'Bollywood' page. All actors have inspirations and followers, I am sure Anand, Kapoor, Khanna, Bachchan, Madhubala, Nargis etc, all have inspired someone, should we write all of that? No, not here, maybe on their personal bio pages, not here, it is a brief summary about all of Bollywood. As far as Bachchan is concerned, he is mentioned a few more times probably because he has an unmatched legacy in terms of stardom. You are probably not from India, being from an English speaking country, you might not follow Bollywood personally, so might not know this but Bachchan is considered to be the single most successful and popular star in Bollywood ever, much of what is written on the page is about his stardom with respect to the whole industry. And their is no competition, where you have to count the exact number of mentions of an individual, it is not about competition, it is about context. SoniaKovind (talk) 21:24, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

I have now reverted the edits by banned user SoniaKovind. Maestro2016 (talk) 02:06, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 July 2017

naveed shafi (talk) 03:50, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
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. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 04:04, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Bollywood. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:50, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Hollywood,Pinewood, etc

should be mentioned in the etymology of Indiwood and Bollywood.126.209.12.35 (talk) 20:13, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Personality centric

Only Bollywood page is crowded with actors pictures as if these are the only ones working in this large industry. Every generation has had prominent directors and actors, who have contributed to the industry. Don't narrow down an era to few faces. And why just male actors, why no directors? NineTimes (talk) 15:21, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Why are there no pictures of legendary actresses, why just male stars? Why no directors from each era. Cinema of USA page has no specific actor's photo rather Spielberg's photo. NineTimes (talk) 15:25, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

I added photos because there were already some, but it is a futile exercise as every generation has many achievers both actors and directors. Vinod khanna was also a big star, why not his photo? Why not Salman's photo or Akshay's photo? Why no Yash Chopra's photo? Why no photo of Madhubala? NineTimes (talk) 15:31, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Palestine

please change ((Palestine)) to ((State of Palestine|Palestine))

Done —KuyaBriBriTalk 15:36, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Bollywood. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:01, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hindi_cinema/Archive_13&oldid=1078909135"