Talk:Kashibai

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Reverts[edit]

Dharmadhyaksha You should discuss before reverting back to your dud version of the article. First of all, her criticism of clothes and dance dont need to be her because it will be discussed in the film article. The real Kashibai didn't dance or wore clothes. So its obvious. Second, normally we only list the characters portrayed by in certain films in "In Popular Culture" section. Plus, if you will say she was criticised for her clothes then go ask for their comment of how she potrayed Kashibai, as I'm sure they must have seen her 300 years ago. I hope then I will have to add reviews of her porformance and awards she has won.Krish | Talk 07:41, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Calling somebody as 'moron' and 'dumb' definitely constitutes a personal attack. Mind your words! —Vensatry (Talk) 08:23, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. Though you have something notable to say, using words like moron, giving away a barnstar which calls him a jerk is surely close to a personal attack. Please try to control and express your arguments in a matured way. And i request Dharmadhyaksha to add the response of the film's cast and/or crew regarding the controversy to complete it. Without it (if it exists), this looks somewhat improper. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 09:21, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As you can see the articles like Katharine Hepburn only states the fact that she was portrayed by an actress in a film and not the criticism of the film. All wikipedia articles follows this pattern and why its even debatable here? The criticism of film is exclusive to the film article ans not with the this article. This discussion shouldn't have happen in first place. The fact that she had arthritis, should be discussed in the historical accuracy of the article, though the article is based on a novel, Indian Bhakhts have problem with these things.Krish | Talk 13:44, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, the article should not include too much information about the film as the article is about Kashibai. My suggestion is that it should look like this:

  • The 2015 film, Bajirao Mastani, was based on the story of Kashibai's husband, though it has been criticised as being an inaccurate portrayal of Kashibai.

ツStacey (talk) 18:31, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for understanding this. However, the criticism (costume and dance in a song) is the subject matter of film's historical accuracy section and not for Kashibai's article to discuss it. Simply saying Kashibai was portrayed by Chopra in the 2015 adaptation would be enough. Dont you think? and may I ask people like FrB.TG and Pavanjandhyala to comment here as well.Krish | Talk 18:40, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree we don't need all the detail that is currently in the article and it should be just a sentence to explain that she (as a character) featured in the film. I don't think it is criticism of the film - but it needs to be clear that people do not believe it accurately portrays her - especially as the reason people may visit this page is due to watching the film with her (as a character) in it. ツStacey (talk) 18:51, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
More accurate would be saying "A fictional version of Kashibai was portrayed by Chopra in the 2015 film". So, it does feels right.Krish | Talk 18:55, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think that is a good solution. Please give this a couple of days to see what other people think and give them chance to discuss before any changes are made. ツStacey (talk) 19:01, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • We can include the compromised sentence that the portrayal was criticized for inaccuracy, but I see no reason why the two specific points of dressing sense and dancing in public should be skipped. Its not like they are overbloating the article or are undue to mention. And I am also against adding all the fancy goody-goody praises of PC which do not reflect anything about Kashibai. If at all there is any film reviewer with an iota of historical knowledge and who praised the-beloved-PC comparing her with the original Kashibai then we can include that. User:Utcursch has elaborated all those points in a better manner on his talk page here even if they are falling on deaf ears. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 04:15, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So tell me did Chopra did justice to the role, I'm sure you have a movie of Kashibai from that era on your Laptop and you surely know how she acted, walked and talked with her family. Kindly tell us.Krish | Talk 05:47, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Here are some examples: Anarkali, Jahangir, Akbar, Bhagat Singh are some noted historical characters and in Mughal-e-Azam, the historical inaccuracies are listed like every film articles on wikipedia. It's the subject matter of a film article if certain things are inaccurate and not the character. Like every film article, it should be added that she was portrayed by this actress in this film that's it. If you have a problem you can add "the fictional version". People want to know about Kashibai and not if her Sari and dance sequences were correct in her article. More than her, the article talks about the film.Krish | Talk 06:04, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please read WP:OSE and WP:WALLOFTEXT. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 06:20, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Don't distract from the topic and by the way why there is no trace of the criticism on Bajirao I and Mastani's article?Krish | Talk 06:23, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to add it to their articles but it has nothing to do with this article. - Vivvt (Talk) 06:54, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly! Don't distract giving OSE examples and by posting WALLOFTEXT. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 07:11, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have gone through the issue completely, and i understood something which i have decided to say and leave. Since the film is based on Nagnath S. Inamdar's novel titled Raau. So, i suggest to phrase it like this: "A fictional version of Kashibai (based on Nagnath S. Inamdar's novel titled Raau) was portrayed by Priyanka Chopra in the 2015 film Bajirao Mastani directed by Sanjay Leela Bhansali." If you are adamant for retaining the allegations by their descendants and scholars since they are historical inaccuracies, please add the replies (if any) of the director, costume designer, choreographer. It is their fault (if any), not the actress'. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 07:14, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I dont think it was mentioned anywhere in the article that its actress' fault. The fanboy is making it appear that way. None would have come to this article if PC was not involved. - Vivvt (Talk) 07:35, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with you Pavanjandhyala and by the way Vivvt, I had previously edited Bajirao I's article and had removed the crotical stuff from that page becasue it's nowhere Ranveer Singh's fault that he danced all the way with "Malhaari". So don't accuse me of a fanboy. I'm saying the fact which is obvious to find in all historical film and character's article. We only state this character was portrayed by this in this film. That's it.Krish | Talk 07:49, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Current statement: "Her dance sequence in the song "Pinga" and her dressing sense met criticism..."
    Proposal 1: "The dance sequence in the song "Pinga" and the character's dressing sense met criticism..."
    This way our beloved Chopra can stay clear of criticism and all fanboys can steer away too. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 08:40, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This is film's subject matter not her character's. So please don't accuse me of a fanboy. It should be only listed that a fictional version appeared in this film. Her article is no way a right place to discuss her dance, if yes, then please add how her performance was. This is no way neutral and adding the neagtives and removing positives? What an Idea? LOL.Krish | Talk 08:56, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to this is what Utcursch has already stated on his talk page. Reread it once again. LOL! §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 09:18, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Staceydolxx and Pavanjandhyala: This is an article about a historic figure whose images are not available, most probably no portrait of her even exists given the status of women in Indian society then. Of course, historical artistic depictions of her might be available, but that too would be a rare scene to happen. She is not even a subject of any book herself, fictional or non-fictional, and hence little is known about her looks and behaviour and personality. In such cases, widespread depictions in popular arts tend to form the image of person. Head of Christ is an example of such artistic depiction through which Jesus is mostly perceived nowadays. Thomas Nast's sketch has been instrumental in forming the current image of Santa Claus. Bonaparte Visiting the Plague Victims of Jaffa was used to portray him as a healer, like Christ. We are hence being perfectly neutral, and importantly valid, in writing about the criticism that looks and personality of the portrayal received given that no evidence of her looks and personality is available. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 11:28, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for acknowledging my opinion. I agree it is about her and I agree that many people may believe what they see of her in the film is accurate. I agree that the sentence (and I think it should only be a sentence) should in some way state that it is a film and potentially not accurate. However, the level of detail you are suggesting seems to give the film undue weight in the article. I feel that just stating it was fictional suitably meets your need to state it is not an accurate portrayal. ツStacey (talk) 18:52, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Staceydolxx: It would have been undue if it had not received coverage in so many newspapers and social media. We have had a case in recent past where a fake photograph of Rani of Jhansi was circulated in social media. [1] [2] These cases of hoax aren't new with historical figures where no information about them is available in reliable sources. In such situations I don't think we should censor things because of a fanboy who can't digest some criticism or if they seem undue; which is a subjective term that I don't agree with in here. These are 60 words (with a possibility of condensing further) in a 540+ words prose (~11%) that can help prevent hoaxes in future about a historical figure who is shown gyrating in public wearing "inappropriate" dress. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 05:03, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Can I firstly deal with your offensive comment. This is MY opinion and for you to insinuate it is not is insulting - I also don't appreciate you using my comment to make snide remarks at another editor (who I must say is doing well not to bite). I have said my opinion quite clearly and have nothing to add. I am hoping other editors will get involved. By my count, 3 editors have stated that they think there should be a sentence about the film and 2 who feel that there should be more written to include criticism of the films accuracy. ツStacey (talk) 12:06, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I dont see what was so offensive in my above comment. But... as you like it. Thanks for your comments. We dont determine consensus based on vote counts. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 12:44, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter. What you said doesn't make any sense. If she is not widely covered by the historins then its not anyone's fault. So, you are saying just because their is no information available about her, we should fill her article with a film's descrption, according to you is inaccurate? Did you just said "the criticism that looks and personality of the portrayal received given that no evidence of her looks and personality is available."? If this is the case then please tell me how many of the living people had seen Akbar, Bajirao I, Mastani, Jahangir, Bhagat Singh that they thought they were portrayed accurately in the film? In the Interviews, Chopra had said that its Director's version of what had happened in that that era and I'm sure this is the most case with Indian historicals. You are weighing on the criticism, the film received prior to its release of just becasue of a dance sequence and she has been perfectly portrayed in the film as evidenced by the rave reviews she had received. Do one favour, why don't you show the worls, the video you have of Kashibai' walking, talking and working from that era? You have right? Because you are beahaving the way like you have seen her and she didnt look anything like the film's character. LOL this is so funny, just because you think her personality would be different from the film, you are stretching this discussion? Krish | Talk 13:51, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You dont have to talk this much to convey that you havent understood anything above. Because whatever you said itself is not understandable. Keep quiet and let uninvolved editors decide. - Vivvt (Talk) 14:02, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Krish! You need to complete your studies. For our sake. You were not pinged in that message because i knew it would not be easy for you to comprehend it. LOL. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 17:36, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You wish, wouldn't you? I think i can say this about you because if anything was easy for you to comprehend about these kinds of article, this unwanted discussion would have never ever happened in first place. Even a 10 year kid can say what is the correct format for mentioning the character's appearance in a film.Krish | Talk 19:22, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I will reply to others. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 07:29, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

After reading throughly this discussion I agree with you on this Pavanjandhyala A fictional version of Kashibai (based on Nagnath S. Inamdar'snovel titled Raau) was portrayed by Priyanka Chopra in the 2015 film Bajirao Mastanidirected by Sanjay Leela Bhansali. Daan0001 (talk) 19:57, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion is closed now. Daan0001 (talk) 20:00, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kashibai[edit]

Amitabh 45.115.185.84 (talk) 15:26, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kashibai&oldid=1207921749"