Talk:Rajesh Khanna/Archive 1

Article has been trashed
The English is garbled, personal opinions run wild, much of the material is copyvio -- aargh. This is going to be a nasty cleanup job. I may just revert to an earlier version, before the article was attacked by fans. Zora 19:23, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it is trashed by you
When there is link of very reliable source, then whatis  wrong with you to delete it Zora?

Be nice and calm one, if there is anything come and discuss here. You are well-aware of the policies then why aren't you following them? Don't become "obscure" one, for us.


 * I don't know what policies you think I've violated, Mr. Khan. The text you keep adding seems to a copyright violation, a copy of the newspaper article that you call a "very reliable source." The article was written in sub-standard English to start, and your own shaky command of English has added to the problem. The article is full of the personal opinions of the journalist, which you are just repeating as if they were "true." They're his opinions, nothing more. Now we can cite published opinion, in the form "Journalist X said Y in his Bollywood gossip column of Z date" but in this case, I don't see much point in citing the article. Frankly, it doesn't seem all that relevant to me. We try to deal with verifiable facts, not subjective assessments about "who's hot and who's not." Zora 07:37, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Removed some text
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a film gossip column. We don't classify all movies into hits and flops, and actors into superstars and failures. Actors can be described as popular. If they're adored by fans, give referenced instances of such idolization. I removed some film-column language again. Please, M. Khan, if that's you editing from an anonymous IP -- read some of the better film star articles, like Nargis and Amitabh Bachchan. Zora 04:34, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Why not about Raj Kapoor, Rajesh Khanna or Sanjeev Kumar

Not upto standards
This article reads more as a star struck fans admiration and webblog then as an actual encyclopedia article. Say what you will of the reliable sources, this article requires an intensive cleaning up of it's lack of proper grammar, and terrible POV. When an author of an article actually writes: "And we feel very proud that he has maintained his image here in dirty environment of politics too, as Mr. Clean," you know there is a complete lack of objectivity. You can't actually insert yourself and opinions in an article to blatantly. The writer outright states they feel proud. What sort of encyclopedia actually states that?!? This reads as though it was written on someones web blog, that was dedicated to Rajesh Khana's worship. Cleaning the bad grammar in this article can take hours alone. And then you have to deal with someone's outrage. *sigh* Persianlor


 * I cleaned it up AGAIN. We have a very determined Khanna fan who knows English as a second language and doesn't quite understand NPOV yet. Zora 10:20, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Jatinram
Jatinram, PLEASE don't insist on adding that material. Khanna is not a major star any longer; please stop trying to pretend that he is. Minor celebrity, yes. The FREE OF COST addition should not be in caps and is not the best wording (if it's true -- there's no reference). That list of awards is unreferenced and the "awards" seem to be extremely minor-league. Not worth mentioning in an encyclopedia article. Zora 06:31, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Ssefra's edits
Ssefra, affluent is richer than well-to-do; changing the adjective changes the meaning of the sentence. We probably need some more info about his family before we can decide which is more accurate. Well-to-do has always been there -- let's leave it there until we have more info. Can you do some research?

As for "exceeded all expectations" -- that just doesn't make sense. Who is expecting? What is he/she expecting? Zora 00:47, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Trivial awards
I removed all but the Maharashtra State awards (which Jatinram had gotten wrong -- Khanna had received only one of those awards. The rest of the "awards" come from stage shows claiming to be award ceremonies and hoping to attract stars and paying customers. Those awards are meaningless and worthless. Zora 05:54, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

How come there is special award for special appearance in 1973 for Anurag? Filmfare never gave such awards and there is no mention about this on filmfare awards website or wiki page of filmfare as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.95.62.241 (talk) 06:06, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

One film marked change from Khanna to Bachchan?
Commando303, you inserted a sentence claiming that some unspecified critics traced Khanna's fall from superstardom to a certain film. That sentence wasn't referenced in any way, and it seemed strange to me -- I have always heard that the mad success of Zanjeer started the craze for Amitabh and action movies. In fact, that's what's written in the Amitabh Bachchan article.

I removed the sentence, but if you can come up with a source, and it's a reliable source, we might want to discuss adding it as another view. Zora 05:59, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Zora, though it is true that 1973's "Zanjeer" is the film most commonly cited as Amitabh Bachchan's perhaps most "important" — his breakthrough work — carving out his "angry young man" image (which would follow him for much for his career, thereafter, and become as iconic as the actor himself), it is commonly thought, as well, that it was in Hrishikesh Mukherjee's "Namak Haraam" that Rajesh Khanna's stardom began to wane, as Bachchan's began to rise. The "Namak Haraam" instance isn't so much one of Amitabh's becoming a known name, but of his arguably "replacing" Rajesh Khanna as the reigning megastar of the Indian film industry. The reason for this is partly that, while Khanna and Bachchan had earlier worked together in "Anand" (also Mukherjee's), with "Namak Haraam," Rajesh Khanna — supposed to be the "star" of the film — was largely sleighted (by audiences and critics) in favor of Bachchan (supposed to be in a "supporting role"). I do agree that random instances of what editors of Wikipedia believe (e.g., "everybody loved Bachchan in 'Namak Haraam,' and saw therein the hack that Khanna had been all along") have no place on the site; I do not, however, feel that this claim falls into that category. Here's one example of the view; read the last line:

http://www.planetbollywood.com/Film/NamakHaraam/

Here's another (I'm not sure if it still works, though; last night, the site was down):

http://www.geocities.com/bigbachchan2/namakharaam.html

I don't feel the need to push too hard to include this point in this article, but I feel it might belong and be appreciative, nonetheless.

(Commando303)

Well, then, take a relevant quote from that article on Planetbollywood and say something like, "One online essayist sees Mukherjee's Namak Haraam as the defining moment: XXXXXXX." and then add the link.

That will probably require new paragraphing. Too-long paras are unreadable.

I'm not sure that an online review would be considered notable, but I'm willing to try it and see what other editors think. I hate to say that print journalism always takes precedence over online journalism, but edited, supervised journalism does, and it's not clear to me that PlanetBollywood does edit the reviews put up on the site. Zora 04:48, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

There's no argument to be made that PlanetBollywood is a "good" source; it's not. That said, it's not comparatively terrible, either, and I feel that, for the purpose at hand, it's adaquate. This isn't an obscure, controversial point that should be supported by a peer-reviewed, well-written article in the "Hindustan Times"; it's a common view that many people have (as I've seen in my experience), and all I'm really looking for in making the point is some halfway-decent source that people can go to for verification of the idea's existence. PlanetBollywood'd articles also have "grammatical errors" and all that, but then, so do most "Indian" Web sites'. IndiaFM and Rediff.com are two of the more "established" names in the business, but they, too, have their "problems." Grammar and syntax aren't everything, and, again, for this purpose, I stand by the PlanetBollywood article as an "acceptable" reference.

Perhaps I'll add this point later during the day (I don't feel like doing so right now), but I'm not going to guarantee that it will be "well-written." Sorry, but it's a minor point to be covered in about a sentence's space. If you see it, and wish to adjust it, feel free to.

(Commando303)

ID Khan
ID Khan, it seems obvious to me that you're a huge fan of Rajesh Khanna. That's not at all an inherently "bad" thing insofar as your contributing to and editing this article is concerned: Often, fans make the best, most useful changes to an article, for it is they who are most well-informed about the person they're writing about, and who most care that the person is well-represented in a public sphere. I even support some of your contributions: Informing readers that Khanna defeated fellow actor, Shatrughan Sinha in a political election is certainly not an unnecessary datum to include. Likewise, it is good to let people know the school to which he went, and to inform them that he indeed had a certain name and fame in the Indian film industry during a certain period. Much of what you've written, however, is pure, unadulterated trash: "the film industry went into the gutter" after Khanna stopped working in films? Do you honestly think that's an appropriate assertion to make in an encyclopaedic article? "Glory," "sophistication," "dignity" are the things that Khanna brought to Hindi films... ? These just aren't the types of adjectives one uses when writing an objective article (which is what we should be striving for) about anyone; hell, it's the type of thing the writer of an op-ed. piece might think twice about before printing, from concern that he not expose himself as an utterly mindless "fan-boy." I also feel you go on to list far too many examples of Khanna's works in an attempt to illustrate your adulatory point about him; your "example list" is almost as long as Khanna's filmography for the 1970s and '80s. Again, I find it's good for you to try to expand and enhance the article on someone whom you seem to have a strong liking for, but much of the way in which you go about doing so is just absurd and, by most sensible means, unacceptable.

(Commando303)

Mr./Ms. Zora: Seems you are purely anti Rajesh Khanna mentality. There are so many facts included in Amitabh's wikipedia which in fact really trashed out; but describing the reality about Khanna makes you angry; WHY???????????? Yes, Rajesh Khanna's films brought GLORY, SOPHISTICATION AND DIGNITY IN HINDI FILMS; no body can deny this except Bastard like you. Do not be biased towards that begger Lambu. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.212.61.251 (talk) 05:23, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Reference has this statement
"But even more than that was Rajesh Khanna’s own contribution: his increasing lack of professionalism, his manipulation with scripts that had male co-stars fuming and ganging up in the fast-emerging multi-star film trend, his hangers-on that put off self-respecting associates and his alleged starry tantrums." Haphar (talk) 14:02, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but that quote is not in the reference supplied. Are you sure you don't mean another article ? And the inability to find the quote means it's unverifiable and therefore perfectly liable to be removed. CultureDrone (talk) 14:10, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It is in reference no 8, please do read the reference, and the link to this reference is given in the paragraph itself.

Haphar (talk) 14:13, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * But not after the statement made - the quote was followed by an incorrect reference which is misleading. CultureDrone (talk) 14:17, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * "Unfortunately, Khanna's ego kept pace with his widening girth. When the flops started making their appearance, filmmakers began to shy away" from ref no 4, which was immediately after the statement being discussed, plus ref no 8 is in the same paragraph and at the end of a statement that refers to the statements being discussed.

Also in the statement there are comments on behaviour but no insults for the actor. Haphar (talk) 14:31, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Then check WP:CITE for positioning of references. Saying, "oh this is proved in a reference quoted somewhere in this paragraph, but not necessarily in the one indicated after the statement" is still misleading and bad practice. The quote you added was basically added in the wrong place for the references used. CultureDrone (talk) 07:49, 4 March 2009 (UTC)