Jump to content

Talk:Shah Rukh Khan/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5

Name in multiple scripts

User Elyaqim added Urdu notation (presumbly the actor's name) to this article. In the context of Indian politics, this is a provocative act -- rather like saying "Shahrukh is a Muslim!" The same user also annotated Aamir Khan and Salman Khan in similar fashion. I have removed the notation:

(شاه رخ خان)

Either we have the name in both Arabic and Devanagari scripts (for which I really see no necessity) or we have neither.

Zora 01:54, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

You did the right thing. Otherwise on similar lines every article on an Indian would have had Hindi, Punjabi, or Urdu names. --Ankur 02:33, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Sahara One Sangeet Award

Best Actor Singer “Apun Bola” Josh - 2005

added to article xC | ☎ 14:21, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Article too fulsome

I don't have the time to do a rewrite now, but this article is turning into fan worship of SRK. It is not NPOV. If anyone else wants to tone it down, please go ahead.

Zora 22:35, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC) (who loathed him in Devdas and would be happy never to see him cry again)


An anon editor added the "info" that Shah Rukh is the son of Dilip Kumar. Huh? If that had been so, I would have heard. I googled and found an interview with Shah Rukh online. He said that his father was a chief engineer.

Whoever added that bit of misinformation was either a vandal, or just mistaken. Zora 06:50, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Of course, he's not son of Dilip Kumar. utcursch 07:24, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)

Caption for picture

Hi, Rufioo, I did a bunch of copyediting, AND I changed the caption on the picture you supplied. Provenance of picture is relevant only in determining copyright, and the copyright info is stored in the picture database, not in the caption. If the Rufi who took the picture is you, then it's not appropriate to "sign" your contributions to Wikipedia. If readers want to look, the info is there in the history. Otherwise, it's hidden. We're doing a group project. Zora 04:32, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

No horses?

Someone added trivia to the effect that Shah Rukh will never kiss and never ride a horse. True? Didn't he ride in Ashoka? I remember chariots. Zora 06:56, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Absolutely right. In Ashoka's DVD's bonuses, he tells he doesn't like riding horses, but he did it. BernardM 12:19, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Baiju Aur Tansen

This film project has never been confirmed, so I think it should be deleted from the filmographie.

Good idea. I'll do it. Zora 21:06, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Details

I've seen this actors films several times in Canada on multicultural channels. Clearly he is a big star, and this should be reflected in how much he makes, his power and influence in Bollywood. But I don't see any of that in the article. - RoyBoy 800 05:35, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Assessment of an actor's importance is an inherently subjective and POV matter. Often, fans hype their own favorites, and denigrate rival actors. (I've seen pro and anti Shahrukh forces skirmishing endlessly on Usenet.) Those of us working on the Bollywood actor/actress articles usually try to steer clear of fancruft.
No one really knows how much Shahrukh makes. Financial details for Bollywood movies aren't as available as the same details for Hollywood. I suppose it would be possible to comparative box office analyses of his films versus, say, the films of Salman Khan, Aamir Khan, Saif Ali Khan, Hrithik Roshan, Amitabh, Abhishek, etc., but it would be a time-consuming matter. Are you volunteering? <g> Zora 10:52, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
I am mulling over what to spill the beans on - I might put in some details at some point about the 'alleged' details of his financial/renumeration arrangements; this I can dig up on other stars. I am an insider. Meanwhile - pieces should be readable by a complete outsider/disinterested person; less flatter and more facts/context would be good. Autumnleaf 20:17, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm afraid "facts" aren't of much use unless they can be publicly verified. A cite of a movie column speculating about SRK's pay would probably be OK if the column was reputable and it was made very clear that this was just speculation. Otherwise the articles would just fill up with gossip. I know, I've deleted a lot of ugly stuff.

I agree that the Bollywood actor/actress articles should have less hype and more facts. It's an uphill battle, however. Fans (most of them anonymous users) are all the time inserting sentences like "Amitabh is the greatest star in the world and a super human being". Those of us who aren't all gaga about stars probably haven't done a good enough job keeping the articles straightforward. Please feel free to jump in and tone things down. Zora 22:53, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Zora - enjoyed reading what you are upto elsewhere. Girl after my own heart! I can only nod away with you. What I might do as a rule is that on occasions that I know material is about to surface in major print media I will leak material into whatever Wikipedia sites are related. Mainly subcontinental. BTW - is there a 'global' Wiki site for subcontinental celebrities? Seems to be crossover between sport, film, music, literature and so on. Autumnleaf 23:30, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Having beavered away elsewhere, this page now seems a masterpiece of economy and balance! Pat on our backs ;o) Autumnleaf 16:19, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

No film industry family

An anon added a bit about Shahrukh making good even though he didn't come from an established film family. I moved the observation and completely rewrote. I hope that other editors could check it for tone -- it may sound too snarky towards film industry families.

Even though I can't stand Uday Chopra ... Zora 04:23, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Have to concur with you Zora - have removed the chunk of embellishment. Autumnleaf 01:29, 2 January 2006 (UTC) Shahrukh Khan is my favorite singer. Elmo12456 00:30, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Shahrukh and Rani

In a para that deals with SRK's online "chemistry" with his heroines, it's not right to list films in which Rani Mukerji appeared but did NOT play SRK's love interest. She did so briefly in KKHH and more extensively in Chalte Chalte, so I left those two films. Zora 01:43, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Pathan

-Shah Rukh Khan isnt Pathan, is he? I dont know too much about him though. User: Afghan Historian

why the urdu?

SRK isn't pak and the other Khans don't have any urdu script on their articles.--Dangerous-Boy 10:05, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

It WAS there. Someone came and put Urdu script by the names of all three Khans; I protested, saying that it seemed to be singling them out as Muslim; there was a vociferous discussion, and most of the editors seemed to be in favor of letting the Urdu stay. Since then, various folks (often anonIPs) have been removing the Urdu and adding Devanagari. I've been staying out of it. Tired of online communal rioting. Zora 11:02, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
I think it should be removed.--Dangerous-Boy 18:27, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Disagree. All the Khans' names are from Urdu/Persian, and most of them probably are more familiar with Urdu than Hindi. Basawala 03:23, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Khan is mongolian and turkish! You're Chinese. Even you should know this. Urdu would be understandable if these were pak actors but they are not. And how do you know what langauge they are familar with?--Dangerous-Boy 23:18, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

It's not as if Urdu and Hindi are all that different. Different alphabets and when you're talking fancy, different big words, but if you're just the guy on the street, you speak Hindustani and don't write much in any case. As for what languages they speak at home -- just as likely to be English. Or a mix of English and Bambaiya Hindi. Zora 00:50, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Mongol and Turkish? The article says Pathan/Pashto. And even I should know what? Until someone gives a source about Khan's native language, i think both nagari and urdu should be kept. And yes, I know, Urdu and Hindi are basically the same language with dif scripts, so why not keep both scripts for the sake of it? And please, Dangerous-Boy no peronal attacks!! "Using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views" 1 -- Basawala 02:25, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
There were no personal attacks in my statement. I see no reason for the urdu because it only cause problems in the future.--Dangerous-Boy 18:15, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
In my opinion, calling me Chinese is kindof a personal attack, but it doesn't really matter. I think Urdu is appropriate after the Hindi until someone gives a source on SRK, Aamir Khan, or any other Khan's linguistic background. Basawala 20:02, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Khan is a surname used by people claiming Pathan or Pashtun origin, they speak Urdu. For futher information read

Pashtun,also read Khan (name)

Devnagri should be kept,atleast, because he is an Indian with Hindi as National Language written in Devnagari.Holy---+----Warrior 16:37, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

POVs

Someone has added --- Favorite Actor Amitabh Bachan Favorite Singer Babbu Mann in the article.Will (s)he give the supporting citation/arguments.Holy---+----Warrior 16:29, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Plz take these words out
a.k.a SRK or King Khan or the Baadshah of Bollywood or the self-proclaimed Ronaldinho of acting,
These sentences would look strange to a person who is not very familiar with SRK or other people mentioned here.Holy warrior 14:38, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Religion

Is the mention that he is a Muslima and his wife a Hindu really needed?, then we might have to redesign all the articles to incluide their religion.vikramji

Highest Paid In India ???? Or Bollywood ?

Why is someone misrepresenting the facts again and again ? Shahrukh is the highest paid actor in Bollywood. Not in India. Clearly, the link provided as citation mentions about Bollywood. Then also, a few users are pushing POV and adding ridiculuos claims. Rajnikanth is the highest paid actor in India and it is cited in his article. Please stick to facts ! I too would've liked if Shahrukh would've been highest in India, but he is not ! So accept it. Why try to mislead others ? Even SRK himself wouldn't like it ! -AryaRajyaमहाराष्ट्र 04:16, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

IMHO, we should be extremely careful with statements re pay. What resources do we have? Gossip columns? The actors and the producers have every reason to either exaggerate, for publicity, or minimize, for tax purposes. As I understand it, the South Indian situation is particularly opaque, since actors have managed to extract payment in the form of box office receipts, which can be "adjusted" to avoid taxes. I think it's OK to state that there are rumors to the effect that X or Y is the highest paid, if we can source the rumors to reputable published source, but we can't state it as a fact. Hence both Shahrukh and Rajnikanth can be rumoured to be the highest-paid actors, and only their accountants would know the truth of the matter. Zora 07:59, 20 October 2006 (UTC)


Movies

An anon has added several movies, where Khan definetely has no part in (at least, I found no reference for them, using IMDb, IndiaFM and RadioSargam):

  • Lagaan II - I highly doubt, this movie exists, and if so, it would be Aamir Khan playing Bhuvan.
  • SS-Care - never heard about, didn't find references.
  • Andaz Apna Apna 2 - no reference as to SRK's involved in this project
  • My Punjabi Nikkah - see above
  • Deewaar remake - see above
  • Kabhie Kabhie remake - has been cancelled
  • Sahib Biwi aur Ghulam remake - According to Salman Khan's homepage, this is *his* movie
  • Shootout at Lokhandwala - no reference as to SRK's involved in this project
  • Mr. Fraud - see above
  • Alibaug - see above
  • London Dreams - According to Salman Khan's homepage, this is *his* movie
  • Bajirao Mastani - see above
  • Krrish 2 - SRK as Krrish ...??

If you can provide references for any of these projects, please re-add them to the filmography and add the corresponding link

Best regards, --Plumcouch Talk2Me 12:39, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Shahrukh Khan/Salman Khan Filmography is MESSED UP!! Restore to previous entry please

Some dumb guy with IP "60.240.126.50" has copied Salman Khan's filmography and pasted it into Sharukh Khan's article. This "60.240.126.50" dumb guy also messed up some of the movie articles of Salman Khan.

What a JERK (60.240.126.50)

Thanks. Please save the articles and if you can then block the articles from editing by unknown people.

I also noticed that in the filmography section, Kuch, Kuch Hota Hai isn't there. You know . . . the really old one with Kajol and Rani Iman S1995 19:17, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Name?

A citation is needed for Shah Rukh's name being listed as 'Shahrukh' in this article. Whereas Shah Rukh is known all over the media as 'Shah Rukh Khan', what is the necessity of shortening his two forenames? This may have to be changed. Ekantik 05:45, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I've seen him referred to as both, but have made changes to the article to highlight and explain this. -- TinaSparkle 12:18, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps we need to consider whether the article should be renamed to the more mainstream 'Shah Rukh Khan', as Wikipedia relies on popularly noted names. Ekantik 18:41, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I thought he was Shahrukh Khan, since 'Shahrukh' is only one name. I personally don't think it matters that much, because he is referred to as both, as long as his name is right. Iman S1995 19:18, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Tone cleanup, copyedit, plea for citations

I've just done a general cleanup of this article. Actually, I think it was a lot less POV than many actor biographies, and has lots of really good information in it. It does lack formal sources for some of the assertions, though. I have removed some that seemed to be opinion rather than fact. I've also incorporated some of the 'trivia' section into the main article - generally this is Wikipedia policy, because trivia sections are annoying to read. It would be great to have a picture, too. -- TinaSparkle 12:18, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Reliable sources are needed for this article in accordance with WP:BLP. Ekantik 17:59, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

SRK & Preity?

Under "Career" they mention his movies with top Bollywood heroines. I think that Dil Se should be removed when Preity Zinta was mentioned because they did not play opposite of each other (and she wasn't a lead role, nor was she in much of the film) therefore I removed the title. Please discuss before adding the movie name back. Sinbihaeyo 13:43, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, I guess then, the same goes for Rani Mukerji and Veer-Zaara, as Mukerji wasn't the lead and wasn't as much in the film as Zinta. --Plumcouch Talk2Me 13:45, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
True. Do you think I should delete that as well then? I'm not sure if I should though; because others might not agree. Sinbihaeyo 08:03, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

References

Hello, everyone, hereby I officially propose to change the references from the version we currently have to the one used in Dia Mirza's article, because the Mirza-version understands when one reference is used twice and incorporates this - it's a bit difficult to understand, but when you compare the the versions to soruce things, you'll know what I mean. What do you think? Best regards, --Plumcouch Talk2Me 16:00, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I've also removed many of the references in the Background section. There's no need to cite references after every sentence. I'll be doing more of a cleanup later on. Ekantik 18:10, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Actually, I'd rather have refs for every sentence. The primary criticism of WP is that it is largely unreferenced/unverifiable and so unreliable. But since its already been done... oh well... xC | ☎ 11:31, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Name

Where is the reference that 'Shahrukh' is the correct spelling? All forms of Bollywood media reference his name as 'Shah Rukh' and not 'Shahrukh' and even the article mentions the 'Shah Rukh' convention. Other pages for actors in WP:INCINE have also been misnamed. What's the deal? Ekantik 05:58, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Shah Rukh Khan is Pashtun

Maybe this can help some wondering people. I'm Pashtun from Afghanistan, and Shah Rukh Khan's father "Mir Taj Mohammad" is purely a Pashtun name, without a doubt. It's a very common name used among the Pashtuns, whos native language is also Pashto. Ask other Pashtuns and they all will agree with this. The Indians and most Urdu speaking Pakistanis say he is Pathan because they call every single Pashtun a "Pathan". I am pure Pashtun and when I travel to Pakistan, I am always called "Pathan" by the Pakistani Urdu speakers. Sometimes they call me "Khan Saab", but never do they call me Pashtun. ---Pashtun Nov. 20, 2006

Yes but we need a reliable source for the claim that SRK is Pashtun in accordance with WP:BLP. Ekantik 01:01, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
There are four references I have found which support this fact. I hope this helps. Thanks, AnupamTalk 02:44, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Rediff just mentions that he is Pathan.
  • Apunkachoice is not a reliable source.
  • Afghanland is a relatively reliable source since it appears to deal with Afghan culture, and mentions that Pathans are a common term for Pashtun. However, there might be an issue with third-party references. I don't want to get nitpicky about this (feel free to check out the Wikipedia policy on this if you want) but it would be a hundred times better if you found a reliable online or printed source that effectively states "Shah Rukh Khan is a Pashtun." But I guess that this Afghanland reference will have to do for now. Does it really matter if he is mentioned in the article as Pashtun or Pathan? What's the big deal? Ekantik 05:15, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Let me explain this in a way so that even little kids be able to understand. The word or name Pathan is limited to Pakistan and India ONLY, unrecognizable to the rest of the world. The word or name Pashtun is used world-wide (in every country). Even in Pakistan, ONLY the Urdu Speakers use the word Pathan but not the Pashtuns.

The Pashto (Pakhto) speakers in Pakistan use the words Pashtun or Paskhtun of which both are directly the same but pronounced differently. One with "SH" sound and the other with "KH" sound. My point is, since this is English Wikipedia (used by people world-wide), why is the word or name Pathan used instead of Pashtun? As I said, Pathan is ONLY something Urdu speakers in Pakistan and people in India understand. Even Afghanistan's people don't know the word Pathan, which is next door to Pakistan.

The Pakistanis and Indians should learn to use the universal name "Pashtun" instead of their locally name Pathan. This is what I'm saying. --- Pashtun Nov. 22, 2006

Right, so find a reputable source confirming that Shah Rukh Khan is a Pashtun and then there is no problem. Otherwise, Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. Ekantik 00:12, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Full Cleanup completed

As promised I've performed a full cleanup of the article. Compare the old version with my last diff. I've removed a lot of redundant sentences and extremely bad grammar, as well as incorrect and redundant information. I've also cleaned up the references, removing poorly-sourced references that are not in accordance with WP:BLP. Editors must remember that to observe the guidelines of WP:BLP, we must be responsible editors to take care of well-sourced information from reliable sources.

I've only put a cleanup-section tag on the trivia section because it needs to be rewritten in a professional manner. As this article has now been properly done according to WP:MS and WP:BLP it should stay like this. Let us try not to make any more irresponsible edits as we want an article we can be proud of. Ekantik 07:00, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Ah, Ekantik, prepare yourself for heartbreak. Tending a popular article on WP is like trying to protect a sand castle from the tide. There are millions of people with opinions about Shah Rukh, and a great many of them show up here to add their opinions -- and rumors from the Bollywood rumor mill -- to the article. We can clean it up today and it will get trashed tomorrow, by a whole new set of anon or new editors.
I think your edits are FINE as far as they go. I think I'd be even harsher in terms of removing unsourced trivia. I'm about to collapse on my keyboard right now, from fatigue, but I'll take another look tomorrow. Zora 07:51, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
What happened to the article? What kind of clean up is that suppossed to be? The filmography now states that Khan plays Krrish in Krrish 2? Also, all the citations for his announced movies are gone, along with tons of citations I added earlier (see here:[1]) Why did that happen? --Plumcouch Talk2Me 08:59, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Cleaned up filmography, re-added citations to it. --Plumcouch Talk2Me 09:02, 21 November 2006 (UTC)


Zora, yes ha ha, as I am now seeing. I think some sort of semi-protection is required. :)
Plumcouch, I have responded to your comments on my talk page but just to sum it up, this article must follow WP:BLP and all unsourced or unreliable information must be removed in accordance with WP:RS. Reliable sources include factual information from filmi magazines (common sense needed here!) and reliable websites like Rediff. Basically its time that articles on WP:INCINE and even Wikipedia in general are edited properly.
I see that since my edits many more have been made and I was expecting objections of course. I'll go through them to see if any reputable sources were cited and remove the unreputable ones. If no new or reputable sources have been provided then I might have to revert to my last version. Of course, any controversies should or can be discussed on this talk page. Ekantik 01:51, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
You only really need references for facts that might be disputed. Nobody is going to dispute the fact that he is married to Gauri and has two children unless there actually is a reason to suspect that he is not related to them. There are too many references here to irrelevant stuff, not to mention that most of them are unreliable. Ekantik 05:19, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Unsourced and Unnecessary Statements

Please stop inserting unsourced and unnecessary statements. There are no reputable sources to be cited for Khan's Pashtun origin, and there is no need for too much detail such as coming from the Kissa Kahani Bazaar. Edit this article responsibly with reference to WP:RS and WP:NPOV or it may be necessary to file a complaint. Ekantik 01:49, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand why sourced information is being repeatedly deleted from this article. I think there should be a discussion on whether Kissa Kahani Bazaar is relevant or not. It is not for one person to single-handedly decide this. You keep on repeatedly mentioning WP:RS which is irrelevant to this particular situation. The fact that Khan's family hails from the area is delineated here. Discussions are a way of ensuring consensus and reliability of an article. The opinions of other editors are also important as well. As a fairly new editor, you may have not known this. Please keep these things in mind next time. Thanks, AnupamTalk 02:06, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

What does 'Kissa Kahani Bazzar' add to the article? The article is about Khan, not his parents. Thanks but I've been on Wikipedia for some long time, registering recently. Ekantik 02:22, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

The section concerns Khan's background. Information regarding his family is relevant to the section. The backgound section already contains a minimal amount of information. I don't understand what is wrong with including this factoid. I also noted that you reverted the edits of Tajik-afghan as well. According to his edit summary, Pathan and Pashtun are synonyms. This fact is true. Please also see Encyclopædia Britannica: Pashtun as a source to buttress this statement. Also take a look at the Pashtun article itself. It's not really that hard to believe. There are around 11,703,000 Pathans in India. For more information, please see the article on the Pashtun diaspora. In light of these facts, I am readding the synonym. Looking forward to hearing your valuable response. With regards, AnupamTalk 02:29, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it's up to WP to decide whether he is a Pashtun or not. It's up to him if he choses to identify as Pashtun. If he doesn't say that he is, then we shouldn't. Please, let's stop the ethnic tagging wars. Zora 02:55, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Zora, thanks for your comments. The synonym was added by one editor, deleted by another, added by another editor and then deleted by the same editor. I went and did my research and found the sources I listed above. The sources were meant to stop an edit war, not to expedite one. I hope this helps. Thanks, AnupamTalk 03:09, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

We can't say that he's Pashtun, as that's debateable. City of origin of father, if demonstrable fact, could stay. However, not everyone from a certain area is necessarily part of the prevalent culture/linguistic group, so speculation about his father's ethnicity is just that, speculation. Zora 03:31, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I understand what you are trying to say. However, there are references that do support the claim: for example, see here and here (Paragraph 15). You might also want to look at the latter part of this article. If the references are still confusing, please let me know. Looking forward to hearing from you soon. AnupamTalk 03:43, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Ok I don't have a problem with 'Kissa Kahani Bazaar' as such as it just seemed to be too much detail, like the other part about him being born in the 'Talwar Nursing Home', who cares about that? But I agree with Zora that the Pashtun reference should stay out.
Apunkachoice.com is not a reliable source, and as for Afghanland, Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought, so you can't establish Khan's "Pashtun" identity by referring to third-party sources that prove the connection. What Wikipedia requires is a statement from Khan himself that is published in a reputable source about his Pashtun identity. Then it can be included. Sorry, but that's just the way Wikipedia works.
An ideal goal for all or any pages that are part of WP:INCINE is to bring them up to Feature-Article status. Why not take a look at today's Feature Article (Weird Al Yankovic) to see an example of how these articles should look like? Ekantik 18:15, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

New Section for Future Movies?

I feel uneasy seeing future movies announced in the Career section. Should we create a separate section for upcoming movies? Or should we leave it to be announced in the Filmography section and delete 'future' references from Careers? Ekantik 19:59, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

No I don't think we need a separate section. Just having a line or two in the career section mentioning the films he is doing in the future is fine in my opinion. Shakirfan 15:29, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree. And then I thought about it and realized that including information about forthcoming movies in both the Career and Filmography section would be repetition. Also, isn't it better to leave forthcoming movies announced by the filmography and refer to Khan's already-released movies in his Career? I think this latter suggestion is consistent with the expectation of what an encyclopedic article should look like. Ekantik 03:39, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm ashamed that wiki is saying Amitabh is a very popular actor and Shahrukh is a popular actor. This is a disgrace.

I think in both terms it really not neutral, as there are people who consider both actors popular and some don't. Why don't we just write "Indian actor working in Bollywood". That's pretty neutral and by reading the awards section one can come up with his/her own conclusion as to an actor's status and popularity. --Plumcouch Talk2Me 14:18, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
And more importantly, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and Rainman's contributions are POV. I agree with PlumCouch's neutral edit but disagree with the way it is worded. There is no need to mention Bollywood and we can just say he is an Indian actor. I'll go ahead and edit it this way, feel free to improve on it if necessary. Ekantik 15:12, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Since in Amitabh Bachchan's article it says: He is one of the most prominant bollywood actors, I felt obligated to add the same sentence in Shahrukh Khan's introduction to be fair. Thanks.

Rainman, please remember to sign your contributions using four tildes (~~~~) as this will help everyone know who is speaking. Again its not a question of obligation or being "fair", Wikipedia articles have to maintain a neutral tone and provide references for statements from reliable sources. I notice that the Amitabh Bachchan article does not cite its references or sources which is a pity, but the least we can do for now is remove all POV-statements. ekantiK talk 01:11, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was PAGE MOVED per discussion below. -GTBacchus(talk) 06:05, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

Shahrukh Khan → Shah Rukh Khan — Subject is referred to as Shah Rukh Khan in all reputable sources including article content. Page title was changed by anonymous editor in 2004 (diff) with no good reason given. Subject of page move was discussed on Talkpage with no controversial response. This is an uncontroversial move for reasons given, but administrator help is required because NewName page contains superficial edit history and talk page. ekantiK talk 04:35, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Survey

Add  * '''Support'''  or  * '''Oppose'''  on a new line followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.
  • Support - for reasons given above, if I am allowed to vote! There is no reason for the Shah Rukh Khan article to be named Shahrukh Khan as he is noted everywhere in reputable sources as Shah Rukh Khan. It is Wikipedia policy to choose an appropriate name for subject articles based on how they are popularly known. ekantiK talk 04:50, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Support, though IMDb lists him with the two-piece name. But then again IMDb is not an authority on Indian cinema and my gut feeling is along Ekantik's lines - the 3piece form seems to be preferred. --Neofelis Nebulosa (моє обговорення) 06:56, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Support I support for moving the page.

Discussion

Add any additional comments:
  • This is an uncontroversial page move that has been registered at WP:RM for the sole reason of administrator assistance in moving the page, due to the careless editing of irresponsible and anonymous editors that has left an edit history at the proposed new location. Please support this move so that Shah Rukh Khan can have a properly-named article about him on Wikipedia. ekantiK talk 04:50, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Are nominations notable?

I'm wondering why there is a difference between awards and nominations; isn't it better for Wikipedia to list awards rather than nominations? Ekantik talk 05:16, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Filmography Cleanup (1/07)

I've noticed that SRK is increasingly making a lot Special Appearances in movies. Would it be better divide the Filmography into two separate wikitables? One for his major roles and another for for is minor (special appearanes)? This way the reader has a better scope for his work. Sohailstyle talk 19:30, January 10, 2006 (UTC)

Two wikitables is a bad idea. Perhaps another sub-section below it would serve the purpose. Ekantik talk 02:38, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

This article has a reference link which is titled "although he has acted as mostly Indian in his movies, he tries to pray and fast according to his religion". Since the term Indian and whatever religion one has are not mutually exclusive, this title is incorrect and agenda driven. Moreover the article linked by it has nothing in it that justifies this title. Therefore I request modification of the link to "Shahrukh Khan's Peshawar connection" to accurately reflect the article to which it links to.

I would have done it myself but I lack familiarity with the way to do it and at present a shortage of time. I will certainly do it later when I've more time if it's not already corrected by then.

59.178.39.68 04:24, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for mentioning this. This was a rather clever attempt to insert POV in to the article undetected, as part of a reference. I've removed it already. Good job for spotting this. :) Ekantik talk 02:43, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Semi protecting this article

I think this article needs to be temporarily protected so that unregistered users can't constantly add rubbish and non-existent films to Shahrukh Khan's filmography. Anyone agree? Shakirfan 19:41, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Yep, I'll support that. Ekantik talk 02:29, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Shah Rukh is not the only Actor that needs protecting. ----Çiddlər 08:03, 21 February 2007 (UTC)


Hindustani Spiderman?

I just googled this and would appreciate it if an admin user could do the same as I have found no evidence indicating Khan is going to be a part of this non existent movie.

Why KANK image?

Why this one image from Kabhi Alvida Naa Kehna keeps reappearing? Shouln't there be pic from SRKs latest film (Don) or KBC? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.237.194.218 (talk) 07:13, 9 March 2007 (UTC).

Such images are actually not allowed unless there is a very good employment of Fair Use. It would be much better if you help us find a free image of SRK (and released under an appropriate license) so that it can be used. Ekantik talk 01:40, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Grandfather?

I remeber reading somewhere that Sharukh Khan is the grandson of Shahnawaz Khan, the Commander of the Azad Hind Fauz.

I have not been able to verify this. --Deepak D'Souza 13:33, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

A google search turned this up, wow! Interesting fact, it is notable and can certainly be added. I noticed that there is also an article on Shah Nawaz Khan, that can be updated too! Ekantik talk 16:38, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
So its true then!. Thanks for verifying. Not that Shahrukh needed to be from some big family to make it big. He is a self-made man. But it was worth noting --Deepak D'Souza 09:46, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Political activism?

This entire section on Political activism needs a re-write. Let me explain why-

  • Shah Rukh Khan has campaigned for the release of Sarabjit Singh, a suspected RAW agent languishing in a Pakistani jail. Pakistani authorities claim that Sarabjit Singh carried out three separate bombings in Lahore, which claimed the lives of 14 people and injured dozens.

Do we have a reference for this?

  • In the hit film Veer Zaara, Shah Rukh Khan played an Indian Air Force officer incarcerated in Pakistan on false terrorism charges. He refuses to fight for his freedom because it would ruin the life of his true love. Now, even before Veer Zaara audiences have stopped packing theatres in India and abroad, a real-life edition has started to roll.

COPYRIGHT VIOLATION Note:copied word for word from here Also, how is this encyclopedic content?

  • The Jammu and Kashmir People's Democratic Party president, Mehbooba Mufti commented that the Centre should pardon Mohammad Afzal if Pakistan accepted the clemency appeal for Sarabjit Singh. [17]

Shah Rukh's views about Afzal is not published by the media. Afzal has been sentenced to death in connection to the attack on the Indian Parliament in December 13, 2001 without any direct evidence and on the basis of dubious circumstantial evidences. [18]

Ridiculous - none of this is related to SRK. the only line with him in it clearly states that his views about afzal are not published by the media. This is also a copyright violation, copied from one of the sites which has been given as a reference.

Keeping all of this in mind, I'm removing this section. To the user who added this - User:Ulukhagra -Please discuss its content on this talk page before putting it back. Thanks xC | ☎ 17:30, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I feel the same. I checked out references of Khan's possible support of Sarabjit Singh and I found this, which is from a reliable source and can be used except that I don't think that "extending support for the family" necessarily counts as "political activism" so it is wrong on that account.
A cached version of this site reveals an item on Khan's supposed plea for clemecy on Singh's behalf (scroll way down) but this information is inaccessible. Ekantik talk 04:10, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Citation for Time Magazine Trivia

Smartsarang 1000 19:19, 6 April 2007 (UTC) Hey Guys i am new to talk pages on wikipedia and don't really know the etiquette so pardon me for any mistakes. The Time Magazine point in trivia which says that "Shahrukh is the most recognizable star" is uncited. I have the citation here so whoever has the authority to change this article, please do it.

http://www.time.com/time/asia/2004/heroes/hshah_rukh_khan.html

Thank you... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Smartsarang 1000 (talk • contribs) 19:16, 6 April 2007 (UTC).

Added.Thanks for the ref! xC | ☎ 05:38, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment

There is no record that any of Shah Rukh Khan's parents are of janjua origin. Even if his mother is of such an origin then this does not make him janjua. I expect this to be corrected as no reliable evidence has been put forward for this assertion - The writer of such edition should make proper citation. We know he is of Pathan origin because he says so and this does not need further proffs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.106.193.143 (talk • contribs)

Point noted. Thanks for pointing that out! xC | ☎ 12:37, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
The article does not call him a Janjua, it states he is the maternal grandson of a famous Janjua freedom fighter, and clearly stated this. The citation for this is clearly in the article, and also Major General Shah Nawaz himself stated openly in his first sentence of his autobiography( The I. N. A. Heroes: Autobiographies of Maj. Gen. Shahnawaz, Col. Prem K. Sahgal by Prem Kumar Sahgal, Shah Nawaz Khan, Gurbakhsh Singh Dhillon, Hero Publ.1946, p15, p60) that he was a Janjua Rajput. There are also many books which also corroborat this too! Such as A Hundred Horizons (by Sugata Bose, 2006 USA, p136) to name but one. These books are in fact available to be viewed in the public domain if one logs on through a very basic procedure to verify this fact. However at this stage the article itself is fine as it is about a great actor, rather than his genetic makeup.--Raja 21:45, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
As per this diff, the article clearly stated that:Shahrukh was born to parents of [[Pathan]] and [[Janjua|Janjua Rajput]] origin, Taj Mohammed Khan and Lateef Fatima,<ref>[http://specials.rediff.com/news/2004/may/31sl02.htm The Shah Rukh Connection]</ref>.
For this, at the time we did not have any references, the reference at the end of the sentence is only for his Pathan origins, so I removed the Janjua bit. If you have refs about his Janjua origin, then you can add it in if you like.
I doubt his genetic make-up really matters, but since we already have a reference for his being part-Pathan, it wouldn't be fair to not mention the other part if we do have a ref. By all means, if you have a ref, do add it in. Thanks xC | ☎ 07:39, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Understood. Have added the references in the article detailing the above references as per each assertion i.e. his mother Latif Fatima sahiba, her father Shah Nawaz Khan, then her father's lineage which he quoted in his autobiography as Janjua Rajput. I agree, if his Pathaan background is mentioned, then it wouldn't be fair to not mention his maternal side also. Thanks for your help, much appreciated.--Raja 09:34, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Shah_Rukh_Khan/Archive_1&oldid=1089788404"