Talk:Hrithik Roshan/Archive 1

message: Changed picture, because the old one was very small. --Plumcouch 02:31, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture changed 

message: Changed to new picture, because on the magazine cover, half his head was missing and there was half of an article on the bottom. --Plumcouch 17:05, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Main Prem Ki Diwani Hoon picture 

message: Some of the statements in here could really use a source. Especially "Hrithik is generally regarded as a down-to-earth, hard-working actor, neither an egomaniac nor a playboy." Who regards him this way? DejahThoris 08:01, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Statements have been removed. xCentaur | ☎  17:13, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unsourced 

message: According to the article, and the source, the extra thumb is on his right hand. I can't see it in the Dhoom 2 screenshot - is it the way he's holding his hand or did they airbrush it out? --Sam Blanning(talk) 15:23, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  No, the picture has been mirrored. Here, his second thumb is clearly visible:  --Plumcouch Talk2Me 18:17, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Second thumb

message: 24.12.167.204 19:47, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  dhoom 2 picture 

message: Should'nt this article include the the fact that he has done commercials and endorses brands etc., atleast its more significant than the 'controversy' (i haven't even heard of that). i guess someone needs to expand the cultural impact of Hritik Roshan when KNPH exploded to put it into context. like youngsters look upto him, fashion icon etc.
 i remember one such instance when he played a charity cricket match and got more applause than Sachin or any other cricketer. Now that is big.
::Problem is noting the brands Roshan works for is idirect advertisment, which is a stricted no-no at WP. Also, the so called "Hrithimania" is something that was barely covered by major newspapers (which serve as a reliable source), but more so by gossip magazines (which are an unreliable source). Furthermore, a note on the Hrithikmania has to be written in a neutral way, or it'll waver towards fangush. And a celebrity cricket match is a promotional event, like visiting hospitals and orphanages - not sure that's notable. And who got more applause at what event is a) POV and b) fangush. Best regards, --Plumcouch Talk2Me 20:43, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Advertising 

message: I just updated the references of the page, and was surprised to find we don't have much content related to his film career prior to 2000. His 1986 release Bhagwan Dada (film), redirects to an individual by the same name. His other two movies as a child don't even exist on WP. Does anyone have any content related to these three movies? Also, are there any editors who'd be willing to help out in researching this stuff? xCentaur | ☎  20:33, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Early career? 

message: I propose a re-work of the Awards and Honours sections, which are currently seperated right now.
*Honours has only two items, neither of which are officially called honours.
::The Rajiv Gandhi award is officially referred to as "award" on all its reporting pages. For example:
::The IFFI award being talked about was presented to Rakesh Roshan, not Hrithik. Its clearly written on the page that Hrithik was only presented a momento.
*Popular Awards and Other Awards is subjective. Unless we have clear sources that one award is more popular than the other, then this distinction should not exist.
::(Side note: Trying to decide which award is more popular is a strange task. Informally, prestige might rank the Oscars as the most coveted, but that doesn't in any way reduce the popularity of the Golden Globes or the Film Critics Awards.)
*His debut film "Kaho Na Pyaar Hai" received 102 awards. A seperate sub-section, or sub-page, might be better to list all of them, to reduce clutter on this page, rather than have them here.
I'd like to hear all editors' views on this, and if you have any ideas or comments, please add them here. If there's no objection in 48 hours, then I'll go ahead with the re-work. Happy editing!
xCentaur | ☎  21:01, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Awards and Honours section 

message: As per WP:TRIV, articles shouldn't have trivia sections. Now I know that this isn't followed uniformly, but we might as well start with it somewhere. So I'll be integrating the trivia section in the main article content in 48 hours, unless there are any objections. 
Also, his nickname Duggu doesn't really need to be in the lead para. IMHO, both Duggu and Bholunath should be removed from the article, since (a)we know they're true, but we don't have refs (b)we don't have any quotes of anyone notable calling him that (c)they're unencyclopedic, most kids end up with half a dozen nicknames by the time they pass out of high school, who cares anyway? Again, I'll remove it in 48 hours unless someone objects.
Thanks
xC | ☎  11:46, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  trivia section + nicknames 

message: Does anyone have citations for Delhi 6 and/or Sashank?
Also, all editors please note that Dhoom 3 has been officially scrapped - see this.
I mentioned these because they are recurring additions to this page - any addition of these three movies should be removed.
Thanks
xC | ☎  05:31, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Update: found a ref for delhi 6 this. Sashank still unverified. Thanks xC | ☎  07:35, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  filmography 

message: In 2001, a rumour alleging Roshan to have made bad remarks on Nepal and its people caused outrage in the country. Several newspapers carried the report, leading to student protests, in which four people died. [11] The unrest the protests caused forced the government to cancel a flight from Kathmandu to India.[12]Later the Indian embassy and the actor himself clarified that he had made no such disparaging remarks against Nepal. [13]
In 2006, at the London press conference for his film Krrish, Roshan said that he knew it was time to leave Shanghai and Hong Kong after six weeks of stunt training and go home when his eyes started "turning into little slits like the Chinese".[14]
The comments are against chinese people this article must be banned.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.180.72.220 (talk • contribs) 
:LOL. Sure, whatever you say, Your Highness. xC | ☎  06:22, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  comment 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Hrithik Roshan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170101001354/http://archive.deccanherald.com/DeccanHerald.com/Content/Nov112007/sundayherald2007111034998.asp to http://archive.deccanherald.com/DeccanHerald.com/Content/Nov112007/sundayherald2007111034998.asp
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:33, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hi...
Remove Infidelity, nepotism from this and kangana as a reason for divorce in personal life. Screenshot attached below.
Reasons of HR Divorce ..
Hritik wife has completely cleared that kangana was not the reaason of their divorce. 
Below are the articles which have been quoted for the statements related to  Kangana in HR's wikipedia.
Is it possible to get these articles changed/edited/removed.
This would help expedite changes reflection process.
Though Roshan maintained that they parted amicably,[145] the media reported that the split was due to infidelity on his part, linking him with several actresses, most notably his Krrish 3 co-star Kangana Ranaut.[142] 
Owing to a lack of evidence, the Mumbai Police closed the case later that year.[147] 
 49.126.83.1 (talk) 09:23, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Hrithik Roshan]] 

message: This line Owing to a lack of evidence, the Mumbai Police closed the case later that year.[151]  in Personal information is incorrect. 
The case of Cyber Stalking is still going on as confirmed by Hrithik Roshan in his official statement:
https://www.hindustantimes.com/bollywood/hrithik-roshan-kangana-ranaut-battle-hrithik-issues-statement-to-share-his-side-of-the-story/story-dIt2wAPUcDdTGNwMn4bpgP.html
Also, even his Ex wife, Sussanne Khan has fully supported him and exposed the Stalker more than twice. http://www.dnaindia.com/bollywood/report-this-is-how-sussanne-khan-supported-hrithik-roshan-after-kangana-ranaut-s-latest-allegations-2542959 BlackPanther16 (talk) 06:45, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: Per below. — LeoFrank  Talk 15:51, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 4 May 2018 

message: Please remove: In 2016, he filed a lawsuit against his Krrish 3 co-star Kangana Ranaut, accusing her of cyber stalking and harassment.[149] Denying the charges, Ranaut filed a counter-charge against Roshan, claiming that his lawsuit was an attempt to cover up their affair for the benefit of his divorce proceedings.[150] Owing to a lack of evidence, the Mumbai Police closed the case later that year.[151]
This entire segment is factually incorrect. The case is NOT closed. And there has more than enough evidence that show that Hrithik Roshan was a victim of not only Stalking but also Unsubstantiated revenge slander by a Publicity hungry Stalker. Request you to kindly remove her name from this Personal information section as it is a legal case and not really a personal issue. 
Instead, please mention the following:
Hrithik statement on his Divorce in 2013:
"This is my greatest tribute to love. Sussanne is and always will be the love of my life for the rest of my life. If her smiles are brighter without me my love for her must accomplish that. Unconditional." Source: https://www.indiatoday.in/movies/celebrities/story/sussanne-is-will-always-be-love-of-my-life-hrithik-220792-2013-12-14
Hrithik Roshan and Sussanne Khan are planning to reconcile again. Source: http://www.timesnownews.com/entertainment/news/bollywood-news/article/hrithik-roshan-sussanne-khan-remarriage-after-divorce-ex-couple-reunite/191281 BlackPanther16 (talk) 07:02, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: This is more of a one-sidedness in your claims. As mentioned in the section below, please discuss if you think there are factual errors since all of these have valid sources cited. — LeoFrank  Talk 15:50, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 4 May 2018 

message: PLEASE REMOVE THIS ENTIRE SENTENCE. IT WAS A FAKE NEWS THAT WAS CREATED BY POLITICIANS IN NEPAL TO GENARATE HATE AGAINST INDIA AS HRITHIK WAS GETTING WAY TOO POPULAR THERE AND IN NONE OF THE ONLY TWO TV INTERVIEWS HE GAVE BACK THEN DID HE EVER TALK ABOUT NEPAL. AND THIS DOES NOT EVEN BELONG IN "PERSONAL INFORMATION" SECTION. REQUEST YOU TO PLEASE REMOVE THE WHOLE THING. 
Later that December, he was involved in a controversy when Nepalese newspapers accused him of stating in a Star Plus interview that he hated Nepal and its people. This led to protests in the country, a ban on screening of his films, and four people's deaths after street violence.[152] Nepalese people threatened to "bury [him] alive" if he ever visited the country.[153] Star Plus, for its part, stated that Roshan "did not touch upon Nepal." The violence calmed down after Roshan wrote a two-page rejoinder in which he denied having made any claim against the country. Nepali actress Manisha Koirala helped distribute it to newspapers and a local television station.[154] BlackPanther16 (talk) 10:43, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the  template. The section is well supported by sources. If you think, it should not be there, please discuss and gain a consensus. — LeoFrank  Talk 15:46, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 4 May 2018 

message: Citations 149, 150 & 151 are paraphrased and the verified articles suggests, actually otherwise. The case is not closed as per the records instated by the authorities of the Mumbai Police. I am citing a link for your reference that verifies the fore-mentioned information provided by me: https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/hindi/bollywood/photo-features/hrithik-roshan-kangana-ranaut-everything-you-need-to-know-about-their-controversy/lull-before-the-storm/photostory/61005243.cms 
Hoping to see the information corrected and the paraphrased citations removed. Archietherave10 (talk) 15:49, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 03:49, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 5 May 2018 

message: CHANGE 
In 2016, he filed a lawsuit against his Krrish 3 co-star Kangana Ranaut, accusing her of cyber stalking and harassment.[149] Denying the charges, Ranaut filed a counter-charge against Roshan, claiming that his lawsuit was an attempt to cover up their affair for the benefit of his divorce proceedings.[150] Owing to a lack of evidence, the Mumbai Police closed the case later that year.[151]
TO
In 2016, he filed a lawsuit against his Krrish 3 co-star Kangana Ranaut, accusing her of cyber stalking and harassment. Denying the charges, Ranaut falsely claimed that his lawsuit was an attempt to cover up their affair for the benefit of his divorce proceedings. Further investigations are pending by Mumbai Police and the case is still going on.  https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/hindi/bollywood/photo-features/hrithik-roshan-kangana-ranaut-everything-you-need-to-know-about-their-controversy/hrithik-roshan-kangana-ranaut-everything-you-need-to-know-about-their-controversy/photostory/61005257.cms 
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Archietherave10 (talk • contribs) 12:00, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  Nothing in the article you cite states that the Mumbai Police are still investigating the case, nor does the article you cite prove that Ranaut's claim about the lawsuit was falsely made. Given that the paragraph is on a contentious subject, Wikipedia editors cannot approve your claims if you cannot cite sources to back up your requested edits. Altamel (talk) 22:37, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Verifying, updating facts, reliable sources about the cyber-crime case filed by Roshan against Ranaut which is pending further investigations by Mumbai Police. 

message: In the Personal Life section I have removed " for the benefit of his divorce proceedings" Because 
1) The citation provided does not state anything to suggest that it was a cover up for the divorce proceedings 
2) The first line states that the divorce was amicable and hence if the divorce was amicable then there is no reason for a cover up.
3) The Two statements being contradictory only one can be true or none can be true
4) However there was a divorce which is amicable till date and there is no source to suggest that there had to be a cover up.
5) Hence by simple logic the latter is untrue 
6) Hence I have removed the latter.
If any issues with the edit please talk to me on my talk page (Dpshow (talk) 17:23, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  I have removed a few words that direct the whole paragraph to completely different direction  

message: The previous statement "Owing to a lack of evidence, the Mumbai Police closed the case later that year"  is changes to "Mumbai Police filed a report regarding the case in November 2016 and hence forth nothing has been clearly reported about the case."
1) The Article citation states that Mumbai police Filed a 'NIL Report' and hence case will be closed
2) A 'NIL Report' is like other reports files by Police like 'Summary A', 'Summary B', 'Summary C'. These are all reports filed by Police after an FIR (First Information Report) is file to police. All there reports are submitted in court. 
3) After these reports are filed the court decides whether it wants to accept the report or deny it.
4) Irrespective of these reports court proceedings carry on.
5) Hence stating that because of a 'NIL Report' a case has been closed is factually in correct and against Indian Penal Court.
6) Hence I have changed the statement to a more factual and descriptive statement.
Thank You (Dpshow (talk) 13:43, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  I have changed the statement of the case being closed to a more Descriptive and statement from Mumbai Police handling the case