Talk:Shah Rukh Khan/Archive 1

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Name in multiple scripts 

message: Best Actor Singer “Apun Bola” Josh - 2005 
:added to article xC | ☎  14:21, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Sahara One Sangeet Award]] 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Caption for picture 

message: 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)
replies: text: Good idea. I'll do it. Zora 21:06, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  No horses? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Baiju Aur Tansen 

message: 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)
thread_title:  No film industry family 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Shahrukh and Rani 

message: 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)
thread_title:  POVs 

message: 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 ! -Arya<FONT STYLE="verdana" COLOR="BROWN">Raj</FONT><FONT COLOR="Magenta">ya</FONT>महाराष्ट्र 04:16, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Highest Paid In India ???? Or Bollywood ? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Movies 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Shahrukh Khan/Salman Khan Filmography is MESSED UP!! Restore to previous entry please 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Name?

message: 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)
replies: text: Reliable sources are needed for this article in accordance with WP:BLP. Ekantik 17:59, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Tone cleanup, copyedit, plea for citations

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: SRK & Preity?

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  References 

message: 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)
thread_title: Name

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: New Section for Future Movies?

message: :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)
thread_title: Survey

message: 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)
thread_title: Are nominations notable?

message: 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)
thread_title:  Filmography Cleanup (1/07) 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Incorrect Reference Link Title 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Why KANK image? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Grandfather? 

message: Smartsarang 1000 19:19, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Added.Thanks for the ref! xC | ☎  05:38, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation for Time Magazine Trivia