Wikipedia

Talk:Bhaag Milkha Bhaag

Latest comment: 3 years ago by 78.83.49.28 in topic Controversy
Learn more about this page

Wrong attribution of Nirmal Kaur

edit
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The article wrongly attributes Sonam Kapoor as Milkha Singh's wife at more than one place. I am editing at the required places.

Dr Satendra (talk) 14:37, 12 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

Removal of material without discussion

edit
Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

I noticed that some of the material was removed without discussing or even without any clue in edit summery as why it is being removed. I request other editors to discuss the matter here. --Abhijeet Safai (talk) 11:34, 1 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

It's rather self evident that the tone of the article, and the inclusion of useless trivia and gossipy quotes is against the content guidelines of Wikipedia. Speaking as an Indian, I see this problem across the site on articles pertaining to Indian topics - unwarranted glorification or promotional tone. Stick to the facts, or look at any other article about an upcoming movie.

Why do we care what the director thinks about one of the actors' interpretation of the character when the movie hasn't been released? And where is the citation for this factoid?

At this stage we don't know jack shit about the movie beyond a one line plot synopsis. Wait for it to release before adding details,and mark this as a stub.

I am removing the entire 'other information' section as it really doesn't add any value to this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wraithful (talk • contribs) 13:03, 1 July 2013

Proper references are given for the material. Please discuss if you have any issue about the sources. --Abhijeet Safai (talk) 16:43, 1 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

Primary source material

edit
Latest comment: 11 years ago11 comments2 people in discussion

There was some primary source material which I have removed. I would like to discuss about it here. --Abhijeet Safai (talk) 11:35, 1 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

Dear Abhijit, Thanks for the wikipedia link. I read the link, as it mentions as following - A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the source but without further, specialized knowledge.
What I felt after reading this is, the page referred to matter is directly a primary source where above conditions are met. What is your opinion ? 1Gmailer (talk) 14:24, 2 July 2013 (UTC)Reply
Wikipedia is written by secondary sources like newspapers, books etc. --Abhijeet Safai (talk) 16:38, 2 July 2013 (UTC)Reply
Times of India has reported about it. http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/bollywood/news-interviews/Hindu-group-wants-screening-of-Bhaag-Milkha-Bhaag-withheld-in-Goa/articleshow/20970380.cms Controversy paragraph can be referenced with a secondary source now. Dear Abhijit, can we restore controversy section now ? 1Gmailer (talk) 10:39, 8 July 2013 (UTC)Reply
Dear 1Gmailer, Good Morning! You are right. TOI is a well known third party source. It is a well known newspaper in India. I cannot have any objection now if the material is added in the article. I am really looking forward to this movie as I like Prasoon Joshi a lot. I can only have a wish that negative material is not present in this article, but I know I cannot refute the facts. You are free to upload the material, I shall have no objection if proper references are given. Thanks and regards. --Abhijeet Safai (talk) 05:21, 9 July 2013 (UTC)Reply
One more thing I will like to bring to your notice is that - There may be defamation of this movie because of this objection, or HJS may be defamed because of this move. I am really looking forward to edit the article of HJS on Wikipedia with proper references related to HJS! Thanks. --Abhijeet Safai (talk) 05:29, 9 July 2013 (UTC)Reply
Dear Abhijit, as such I do not represent HJS officially, but I do admire this move as 'Havan' is basis of Hindu Religion (Dharma). Defaming the traditions that have benefited the mankind for ages at cost of commercial gain is highly objectionable for any devout Hindu. Most Hindus who have participated in online campaign and ground protests may not have any disliking for Prasoon Joshi or even anyone involved in the movie. This is a simple reflection of their faith in Hindu culture which they hold above all. 1Gmailer (talk) 14:57, 9 July 2013 (UTC)Reply
Dear 1Gmailer, Thanks for your views. I do respect the sentiments. But it seems sometimes that we are waiting to get hurt! We can find objection in anything and everything. Let them do what they want to do. I would like to just bring your attention to the comments made by common man at the bottom of TOI article. Thanks. Have a nice day. --Abhijeet Safai (talk) 05:34, 10 July 2013 (UTC)Reply
Dear Abhijit, you have added word 'extremist' with reference to a website which is not a news source. 1Gmailer (talk) 13:25, 11 July 2013 (UTC)Reply
Dear Abhijit, kindly refer another news given by the source that called HJS an 'extremist' writes in this news - http://www.bollywood3.com/movie-news/great-buzz-for-bhaag-milkha-bhaag.html Here the source says '‘Bhaag Milkha Bhaag’ is based on the real life story of Indian Olympic athlete Jeev Milkha Singh.' Jeev is son of Milkha Singh and he is a Golf player. As we can not use 'this' information for our wikipedia article, same goes for all other. In fact, this source is not suitable for wikipedia. Thus the reference to this site should be removed.
But why did you wanted to put that word in first place ? HJS has democratically put forward its stand. For your kind attention, the webpage of HJS http://www.hindujagruti.org/news/16667_bhaag-milkha-bhaag-havan-karenge.html has called for 'lawful' protests. Sending tweets, comments are lawful. When you says 'I do respect the sentiments.' I wonder what may be the reason for your move ? 1Gmailer (talk) 13:51, 11 July 2013 (UTC)Reply
Taking objection on any minor issue is extremism in my opinion which I thought was noted by the source too. But its ok to remove it if all over here feel that that particular source is not so reliable. Anyway. I think that let other people decide what they want to say about it now. I have made my point quite clear. Thanks. --Abhijeet Safai (talk) 05:07, 12 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

Some sources which can be added

edit

Controversy

edit
Latest comment: 3 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

I have several times contributed to the controversy section and have each time had my contribution removed. Would like some explanation as to why? If there is going to be a controversy section then all controversy should be discussed, should it not?

It is a myth that Milkha Singh set a World or Olympic record. Milkha Singh has never held a World or Olympic record. The movie, however, implies that Milkha Singh set a World record with his 400 time of 45.8s. Yes, he beat his personal goal and the very old record of 45.9, but his 45.8s was not a World record or even an Olympic record. This part of the movie has unfortunately generated confusion and controversy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.69.129.170 (talk) 17:29, 22 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

Maybe this is not the proper place to discuss it. The proper place would be the talk page of the article by his name. --Abhijeet Safai (talk) 11:43, 23 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

Milka's page is accurate, but the film is not. This is a factual problem with the film not Milka's wiki page. So, the film page seems the correct place to discuss it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.95.128.120 (talk) 12:18, 25 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

The following single sentence from the "Controversy" section simply doesn't parse: 

   Certain members of the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) boycotted a workshop held in accordance with Information and Broadcast Ministry's wish citing partially of some officials of the censor board particularly regarding the certificate given to Bhaag Milkha Bhaag which, in spite of a sex scene and some violence, got a U certificate[a] lashing out and criticising the decisions of the censor examining member and former actress, Sharmila Tagore accusing CEO Pankaja Thakur along with some other board officials being puppets controlled by film directors and promoting vulgarity.

One can make a vague guess what it means, but someone really must put this in English -- or it should go to the trash bin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.83.49.28 (talk) 18:53, 30 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

The gross revenue of an Indian film should be in rupee

edit
Latest comment: 10 years ago5 comments5 people in discussion

The format of the box office should be written as INR104 crore not INR1.04 billion BECAUSE IT IS AN INDIAN FILM. Wikipedia users are mean bullies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.200.249.204 (talk) 12:08, 7 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

Shut up if you don't have strong reasons for a change in consensus, we are not here to take your orders. Quit bossin' around. Its according to WP:VNE, a section of WP:MOS, moreover you violated one of the five pillars of Wikipedia, remain civil. Soham 12:15, 7 December 2013 (UTC)Reply
Yippeekiyay ***********r. 117.200.242.69 (talk) 05:14, 28 December 2013 (UTC)Reply
Shut up. --Jionpedia ✉ 16:55, 29 December 2013 (UTC)Reply
I am sorry. I mean ***k Wikipedia.117.220.121.85 (talk) 10:23, 4 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

Can be expanded

edit
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

If the article is expanded, perhaps it should remain as a separate article to Bhaag Milkha Bhaag.

Jeevan (talk) 19:47, 20 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Bhaag Milkha Bhaag. 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) 08:59, 19 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bhaag_Milkha_Bhaag&oldid=1206281033"