Talk:Dard-e-Disco

"In this verse, chhabis ko (on the twenty-sixth) appeared to have been included simply because it rhymes with disco"

I see that this sentence is properly sourced with a reference to the Indian Express website, but I still fail to see why this is legitimate criticism of the song. Of course somebody who writes lyrics that are intended to rhyme (which not all lyrics do, but here it is the case) intentionally chooses words based on the criterion whether they rhyme with what they need to rhyme with. That's the whole point of the exercise: The word wouldn't be there if it weren't for the rhyme. That particular instance is not particular in this respect, all potes who write rhyming poetry do that. SchnitteUK (talk) 09:42, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting lyrics

This is fine if there is actual copyright violation (including all digital samples), but please avoid copyright paranoia and diagnose the signs in yourself - "There is no such thing as "Fair Use," only "No Use". When any room for doubt exists in the copyright status or acceptable use of a particular article, those suffering from copyright paranoia will become overwhelmed with a self delusional fear of ill-defined, future consequences and lash out in self defense by deleting the material without first engaging in discussion." :-) --Hunnjazal (talk) 08:46, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Article misses the entire point of the song. :)

I would love to do the research later when I get a second, but the song dard-e-disco, like much of the movie, Om Shanti Om, from which it was derived, is OBVIOUS SATIRE.

The movie is a love letter to, and send-up of, Bollywood as a whole. One phenomenon of Bollywood which was ripe for parody was the overblown item song. In my opinion, this song is one of the most dead-on parodies of popular culture in history, and only a truly dense person could miss the satire.

The article, however, claims to cite sources in the Indian press which attacked the song for being empty and meaningless.

Indian movie critics are extremely savvy; they are not idiots. They would not en masse attack a satire of stupidity for being stupid. The picture painted cannot possibly be accurate.

Again, I will be happy to do the research later myself; in the meantime, if anyone can change this, that would be great! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.193.25.242 (talk) 16:37, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Everything in the article is referenced. You need to provide verifiable and reliable references for your claim, otherwise it is Original Research, which is disallowed. I haven't heard this before. Not saying no one's said it, but please back it up with refs before putting it in the article. Also, keeping language civil and veering away from terms like 'stupid', truly dense person' and 'idiots' is probably a good idea as well. Thanks! --Hunnjazal (talk) 00:18, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]