Talk:Amitabh Bachchan/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.

Semi-protected edit request on 14 July 2016
76.23.152.23 (talk) 14:42, 14 July 2016 (UTC) I just added a thing
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg 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
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)


 * I think I got it. Please check.  Bollyjeff  &#124;  talk  17:53, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

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

Semi-protected edit request on 6 April 2017
223.229.192.70 (talk) 08:01, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
 * ❌ No request made. 97198 (talk) 10:48, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 May 2017
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)
 * ✅ King Prithviraj II (talk) 20:57, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Punctuation and usage issues: Amitabh Bachchan
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
I'm worried about a lot of problematic edits submitted by.
 * 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
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)
 * 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, 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)
 * 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
{{subst:trim|1=

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

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)
 * {{nd}} That is not a reliable source. --bonadea contributions talk 06:14, 7 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Also, {{u|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
Thanks very much. 66.97.20.206 (talk) 19:39, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅ Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:21, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Edit request
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 ?
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
Section 'Memorials' Spelling of 'Allahabad' is written wrong. Ajjuravi (talk) 03:04, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅ ― Abelmoschus  Esculentus  04:41, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 December 2018
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)
 * Yes check.svg Done DannyS712 (talk) 16:36, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 May 2019
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
49.34.6.188 (talk) 10:27, 19 July 2019 (UTC) 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)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: as you have not requested a change.

Change the age of Amitabh Bachchan sir
His age is 77. Please update it. Xxx XENON xxX (talk) 16:30, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * ❌ - 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 ?
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
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" 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, , , and  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  , a recent non-trivial contributor to this page, and , 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)


 * 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)


 * 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 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 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
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)


 * for now. Hi 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/


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

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
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. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:07, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Amitabhbachchan28529.jpg

Is this a joke?
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 •  Talk 2 me  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: . This follows the guidance in 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: . 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  •  Talk 2 me  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 "". So where we are at is if we should now do the "" 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  •  Talk 2 me  10:32, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * 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, William_Shakespeare, and some Good Articles arrange long lists into columns, such as Alfred_Hitchcock. 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: 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)
 * 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.


 * 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  •  Talk 2 me  11:05, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Oppose addition The filmography already has its own article. The precedent is just to include a link. ~ HAL  333  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. 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
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)
 * , 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
A slow edit-war has been happening over the past week and half over the lead image. Pinging as the main parties involved. Here's the images that have been in place and the year they are from:

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)

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)



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)
 * , 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)

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)

relation with JLN
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
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)
 * ✅ --Hemanthah (talk) 06:03, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

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

Semi-protected edit request on 21 December 2021
Change Allahabad to Prayagraj RamRajya21 (talk) 02:13, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg 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
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
2409:4063:6E26:19F6:0:0:D448:DD01 (talk) 18:27, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Siblings - Ajitabh Bachchan
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg 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
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 and others too. Will share more as I find. Need to have section on controversies Amitized (talk) 07:40, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Kbc lottery
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
-Ashvin29 (talk) 08:24, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
 * ❌ -MPGuy2824 (talk) 11:19, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Is Raju Srivastav a look alike of Amitabh Bachchan
There is a dispute on Talk:Raju_Srivastav 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
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)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg 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.
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
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
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
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)