| Revision as of 13:20, 5 January 2015 editCosmicEmperor (talk | contribs)2,719 edits →Love Jihad controversy← Previous edit | Revision as of 16:39, 6 January 2015 edit undoJackthomas321 (talk | contribs)126 edits →ATTENTION WIKI MODERATORS. Support from Government, Chief ministers, politicians, film & famous personalities is being deleted constantly by User:Krimuk90Next edit → | ||
| (One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 116: | Line 116: | ||
| Why the sources are not reliable ? | Why the sources are not reliable ? | ||
| I am not asking to use the exact heading or words . But it's related to the article and something can be added to the article . So many references can't be ignored . If I want I can put more references from news websites. ] (]) 13:17, 5 January 2015 (UTC) | I am not asking to use the exact heading or words . But it's related to the article and something can be added to the article . So many references can't be ignored . If I want I can put more references from news websites. ] (]) 13:17, 5 January 2015 (UTC) | ||
| ==ATTENTION WIKI MODERATORS. Support from Government, Chief ministers, politicians, film & famous personalities is being deleted constantly by ]== | |||
| I have added "Support" for the film from the nation including "Government, politicians, film & other famous personalities." here https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=PK_%28film%29&diff=641139537&oldid=641134873#Support and later toned down to a few lines here https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=PK_%28film%29&diff=641226607&oldid=641221574#Reception without even adding a separate SUPPORT section which i did in the first edit. But ] keeps on deleting it stating that "when we don't have quotes from the fundamentalists why have quotes from the supporters." I think he is a part of that extremist group. The "Support" addition is must, since The WIKI article clearly mentions various views & as well as the cases filed against the film. The people who filed the cases are worthless people(vested interests). Everyone including media channels know that. Yet, Wiki is trying to highlight the opinions of those petty people. So, Wiki cares about those people low-life vested interests, and ignores very important people of the nation like public, Government, various politicians, Big Film personalities & even some religious gurus. The article clearly includes the views of vested interests "All India Human Rights and Social Justice Front to ban its release saying it promoted nudity and vulgarity" and also "Activists of the The Vishwa Hindu Parishad and Bajrang Dal protested against certain scenes in the film, which they considered to be hurtful to the religious sentiments of the Hindu community. Subsequently, a Public Interest Litigation was filed against the film for the same." Only to counter this, the government, Chief ministers, film & famous personalities came out in support for the film. They even made the film-tax free. But ] keeps deleting the SUPPORT addition which proves that he is being paid by those petty people to attack the film. My point is.. since views of those vested interests are added in the article, then the views of most important people who are supporting it must be added too. There are many hindu BJP groups, some organistions who are supporting the film. But i haven't added those. I have added only the views of most important people. If I was wiki moderator, i wouldn't even add controversies since they are just created by vested interests which everyone know. Chief ministers, some spiritual gurus, film personalities themselves said that these controversies are rubbish. They are vested interests. Since the film exposes the fraud people, the fraud people are trying to attack the film". Check the sources i added. ] 16:35, 6 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 16:39, 6 January 2015
 | Film: Indian C‑class | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
 | India: Cinema C‑class Low‑importance | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
.svg)
 | This article was nominated for deletion on 18 January 2013. The result of the discussion was keep. |
Dont delete,ample RS have been provided
P.K.(2014 film) been provided ample reliable sources like Hindustan Times,India Today,TOI etc.Even Rajkumar Hirani has also said he is making this film and shooting will begin mid-2013.There is no uniformity and consistency on Bollywood upcomg film. Like Happy New Year (2013 film) has no sources or references,but no one cares about that. Like that so many films article are on wikipedia. Abhinavname (talk) 07:59, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Add the other poster
I know that the first revealed poster was controversial, but it's still valid promotional material, so I think it should be added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.205.191.123 (talk) 17:41, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
Location
Local Belgian media reports that the movie has been recorded in the city of Bruges (Belgium) for the first 15 minutes. Source in Dutch: http://www.hln.be/hln/nl/922/Nieuws/article/detail/2141251/2014/12/04/Kan-Brugge-toeristen-lokken-met-Bollywoodfilm.dhtml — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.117.244.22 (talk) 06:18, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
My material was not copyrighted!
I wrote the whole plot summary for PK taking out time, revising. This whole took me an hour and then they say it is copyrighted and I maybe banned from editing. My 1 hour hard work is a waste? And they claim it to be someone else' work. Please add it, I have written it myself. I don't know how to reply to that edit ban message. Please help! I wrote it fully myself. They should have checked it first. My whole 1 hour hard work for Misplaced Pages in waste. I could have done a better work rather but I chose to contribute to wikipedia for 1 long hour and now they say it was copyrighted? Please help!
Regards.
Kashisharora11 (talk) 04:36, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 23 December 2014
 | This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the plot summary, please change "After hearing this, Sarfaraz gives PK his device back." to "After hearing this, Tapasvi gives PK his device back." because Tapasvi is the one who challenges PK, not Sarfaraz. Arramees (talk) 15:31, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
Done: . I haven't seen the film, but will AGF and make the change. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 16:45, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 24 December 2014
| This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
There are some mistakes in the article Pk(2014) and it only has a very brief and incomplete description . So please allow me to edit it.
Sanjay921 (talk) 03:33, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
Not done: this is not the place to request changes in protection level. You can either file a request a WP:RFPP or ask Eustress, the protecting administrator. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 15:22, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
How is it correct to say the PK character was inspired from Abraham Kovoor?
The article includes a statement: // Aamir Khan’s character as PK is inspired from a real life character Abraham Kovoor//
That claim is based on just one source article which had mooted that the movie character PK was inspired by the renowned rationalist and atheist Abraham Kovoor. There is no claim or evidence shown in that source article that the writer behind the movie story or the movie maker Rajkumar Hirani having said that the inspiration was from Abraham Kovoor.
I wish to point out that this conclusion in that source article is incorrect and so not valid.
Abraham Kovoor was not only a rationalist but also an atheist throughout his adult life openly known to public. Even after his death his body was donated to the Colombo Medical College as per his wishes and there were no religious funeral ceremonies held by the family.
The PK character in the movie on the other hand, after learning about the gods, the beliefs and the ways of religions in earth starts appealing to each gods for recovering his "remote control" because he took the words of some that only gods can help him. Along the way he gets frustrated, becomes very critical of the gods for not helping him and starts seriously questioning their genuineness. But eventually (in a climatic confrontation with the crooked god-man on live TV) he tearfully and elegantly confesses his belief or faith that the creator of all the universe as the real almighty and that it is only human agents who have created false gods, religions and divisions among people.
The only commonality with Kovoor's life I see is that both had battled in their own ways to expose false god-men. But surely PK does not subscribe to atheism at all and so its an invalid judgement that the character was inspired from Kovoor. (K. Sethu) கா. சேது (talk) 01:39, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
- Hi, the fact that you disagree with a statement made by the source doesn't mean that your opinion trumps the source. If you'd like to call into question the reliability of the source, that's fine, and you can do that at WP:RSN, but there appear to be a number of sources that make similar claims, although I haven't looked too closely into the facts to figure out who originated the statement. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:54, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
Why BOI and domestic box office totals only?
Hi Arjann, with regard to this edit, I'm curious why we are only using Box Office India totals, which so far seem to be limited to domestic gross. Though I understand there are significant problems with overzealous Bollywood box office figures that we have to watch out for, 1) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film, which prefers worldwide gross in Template:Infobox film, 2) Other sources, like Deadline, are reporting bigger numbers. Where can I read the consensus discussion that resulted in the decision to stick only with BOI? Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:15, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
- That was why his edit was reverted. -Sahir 03:45, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
- Clearly we are not only using BOI, but it is one of the sources that is considered better than most.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:04, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
- @Cyphoidbomb: : Always stick to official sources rather than websites which either manipulate figures or borrow the figures from the official source. Koimoi gives accurate figures as far as my encounter tallying the numbers on both sides is concerned. As per current trends, the film is still in the market and its collections are varying. Box Office India will give you the most precise worldwide gross but one needs to hold on. At this moment it will be not satisfactory to put the worldwide gross because several websites report incorrect figures. One of the reliable source I saw says 324 cr other says 401 cr. Which one to believe? Read this discussion on Box Office India. Arjann (talk) 05:11, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
- WP:V / WP:NPOV - when multiple reliable sources report different things, we report that the reliable sources are reporting different things. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 05:53, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
- @Cyphoidbomb: : Always stick to official sources rather than websites which either manipulate figures or borrow the figures from the official source. Koimoi gives accurate figures as far as my encounter tallying the numbers on both sides is concerned. As per current trends, the film is still in the market and its collections are varying. Box Office India will give you the most precise worldwide gross but one needs to hold on. At this moment it will be not satisfactory to put the worldwide gross because several websites report incorrect figures. One of the reliable source I saw says 324 cr other says 401 cr. Which one to believe? Read this discussion on Box Office India. Arjann (talk) 05:11, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
- Clearly we are not only using BOI, but it is one of the sources that is considered better than most.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:04, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
- That was why his edit was reverted. -Sahir 03:45, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 1 January 2015
| This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Section 6) Criticism I don't think it should be called that (Criticism), either break it into 2 sections one critical reception and the second criticism for each of the 2 paragraphs Or rename section to Reception
Its called Criticism but reviews in the first paragraph are giving mostly positive feedback, only the second paragraph is actually Criticism of the film. Stammewar (talk) 08:52, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
Done by this edit Cannolis (talk) 13:16, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
I changed the plot summary
I'm sorry I had to change the plot summary to do justice to the story. Anyway, your hard work is appreciated.
Please include the original writer of the film's story, not only the screen writers.
Thanks and regards,
Bkpsusmitaa (talk) 09:22, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
No Controversy section?
There are massive protests, burning of posters occurred against this film. The controversy is in hike making headlines across national newspapers still there is no separate section or detailed information about this issue on the article? Why? --27.34.84.55 (talk) 17:54, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
- 27.34.84.55 Probably because people such as yourself aren't adding one. Misplaced Pages is run by volunteers who are regular people like you. If you think the section is worth adding, add it. Please be sure to provide reliable sources and present the content in a neutral point of view. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:02, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
Love Jihad controversy
I don't know why I am not able to edit this page . There is no controversy section for love jihad . It's necessary http://www.deccanherald.com/content/449522/pk-supports-love-jihad-hindu.html
http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/comment-on-pk-movie-controversy/article6745645.ece — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frost The World (talk • contribs) 05:06, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
- We are not going to put it in as a "controversy" section". -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:43, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
Why the sources are not reliable ? I am not asking to use the exact heading or words . But it's related to the article and something can be added to the article . So many references can't be ignored . If I want I can put more references from news websites. Frost The World (talk) 13:17, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
ATTENTION WIKI MODERATORS. Support from Government, Chief ministers, politicians, film & famous personalities is being deleted constantly by User:Krimuk90
I have added "Support" for the film from the nation including "Government, politicians, film & other famous personalities." here https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=PK_%28film%29&diff=641139537&oldid=641134873#Support and later toned down to a few lines here https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=PK_%28film%29&diff=641226607&oldid=641221574#Reception without even adding a separate SUPPORT section which i did in the first edit. But User:Krimuk90 keeps on deleting it stating that "when we don't have quotes from the fundamentalists why have quotes from the supporters." I think he is a part of that extremist group. The "Support" addition is must, since The WIKI article clearly mentions various views & as well as the cases filed against the film. The people who filed the cases are worthless people(vested interests). Everyone including media channels know that. Yet, Wiki is trying to highlight the opinions of those petty people. So, Wiki cares about those people low-life vested interests, and ignores very important people of the nation like public, Government, various politicians, Big Film personalities & even some religious gurus. The article clearly includes the views of vested interests "All India Human Rights and Social Justice Front to ban its release saying it promoted nudity and vulgarity" and also "Activists of the The Vishwa Hindu Parishad and Bajrang Dal protested against certain scenes in the film, which they considered to be hurtful to the religious sentiments of the Hindu community. Subsequently, a Public Interest Litigation was filed against the film for the same." Only to counter this, the government, Chief ministers, film & famous personalities came out in support for the film. They even made the film-tax free. But User:Krimuk90 keeps deleting the SUPPORT addition which proves that he is being paid by those petty people to attack the film. My point is.. since views of those vested interests are added in the article, then the views of most important people who are supporting it must be added too. There are many hindu BJP groups, some organistions who are supporting the film. But i haven't added those. I have added only the views of most important people. If I was wiki moderator, i wouldn't even add controversies since they are just created by vested interests which everyone know. Chief ministers, some spiritual gurus, film personalities themselves said that these controversies are rubbish. They are vested interests. Since the film exposes the fraud people, the fraud people are trying to attack the film". Check the sources i added. User:Jackthomas321 16:35, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
Categories:- C-Class film articles
- C-Class Indian cinema articles
- Indian cinema task force articles
- WikiProject Film articles
- C-Class India articles
- Low-importance India articles
- C-Class India articles of Low-importance
- Low-importance Indian cinema articles
- C-Class Indian cinema articles of Low-importance
- WikiProject Indian cinema articles
- WikiProject India articles