Talk:Karan Johar

message: I created this many times ago... but someone deleted it... The Tables i inspired from Quentin Tarantino's article.. Its good anyway... May be needed.. Please, Try to Understand.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Surper1988west (talk • contribs) 10:34, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it looks good here. The format seems out of place; its too big.  Why not just s simple list of names? It is something that will need constant updating and grow to an unmanageable size over time.  Besides, its really just trivia.  I say it should be removed. BollyJeff || talk 14:06, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Not only the format, but the existense of such a trivial table looks totally unnecessary in an encyclopedia article. It does not really matter how much he worked with whom. The prose whould reflect everything through the discussion of his work. Shahid • Talk2me 18:13, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I have added a table that regroups his work as producer/writer/director which also includes notes regarding awards/co-producers or other notable remarks. I suppose it looks much better than the one regarding his work with other names of the industry. --Meryam90 (talk) 12:49, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please Do not delete the Recurring collaborators table 

message: Ek Main Aur Ekk Tu
HasaraB (talk) 11:40, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request on 30 November 2011 

message: The  earning shown for the movies,"Kabhi khushi kabhi gham" and "kabhi alvida naa kehna" are wrong they earned 	36,75,00,000 and 44,50,00,000 respectively(in rupees) REF: www.boxofficeindia.com
27.124.12.98 (talk) 10:02, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request on 14 March 2012 

message: An image used in this article, , has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests April 2012 
;What should I do?
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
* If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant 
This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 13:46, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: File:Karan Johar.jpg Nominated for Deletion

message: Karan Johar's next venture should be added to his works!
SOURCE: http://businessofcinema.com/news/exclusive-shah-rukh-khan-siddharth-malhotra-in-karan-johars-next/56481
Vsareen (talk) 02:49, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: please make your request in a "change X to Y" format. —KuyaBriBriTalk 16:06, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request on 8 January 2013 

message: In the 3rd line, it in incorrectly mentioned that "The four films he has directed" , actually Karan Johar has directed 5 films by now-latest being Student of the year . This change would imply another correction , omission of the phrase "all starring Shahrukh Khan"
Vishmjan (talk) 13:48, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I changed it to what I think was meant. BollyJeff | talk 15:19, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request on 13 April 2013 

message: Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:45, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 1 March 2014 

message: In the Early life section, it statings Karan Johar got zero in The Doon admission test. This not true. He got 95 but rejected the Doonz School. I am of the same institution and have researching in the archives. Please remove misreportage of the untrue facts, which not reflect good on an intelligent man such as Mr. Johar. Wikipedia should not carry fake news, he did not got 0 in the Maths test. I am belonging to that school, nowhere I see in his report card. Please change it to facts, he got 95% and but did not want to go away from Mumbai to Doon Institution. No propaganda or fake news should be on the Wikipedia. Please remove I can't edit the page. Thank you kindly — Preceding unsigned comment added by FrictionNeutron (talk • contribs) 12:00, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I took a look at the source, and it does appear to be well sourced. Though, admittedly, it does seem rather trivial for inclusion but I'll leave that to editors who know something about this actor. --regentspark (comment) 19:27, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

text: First of all, take a deep breath. I don't want you to pass out. Now that you're calm, . You should check the reference. The claim that he scored a zero comes from Johar's autobiography. See this.  So if you're upset about the information, you should complain to Johar. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:28, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

text: I didn't reply to you, because I have well over 17 thousand articles on my watchlist, and Karan Johar is not the most important subject of my focus. Please sign your posts with four tildes, by the way, like ~~~~. This will properly sign your posts. As for the matter above, whether or not Johar had a ghost writer, is irrelevant, unless you're trying to suggest that this was an unauthorised autobiography, which seems unlikely. Unless you can substantiate that claim, we would consider an autobiography a suitable source of uncontroversial information, as it is a primary source. That said, I don't care if the content is in the article or not—it seems likely it's a grave exaggeration—so if  thinks it's trivial, I don't mind cutting it. But changing it to 95% would not be an option, since there is no way for anyone to verify that, and the change would constitute what the Wikipedia community calls "original research". Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:37, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry, what on earth is this? I have just seen this exchange. Some random punter claiming to be, first, from Doon and then Dharma Production barges in (and disappears once the mission is achieved), requesting some information to be removed citing personal testimony, and we just go ahead with that? I have reinstated that well-sourced passage about Johar's early education. It isn't trivial. I see it as an important bit of information that not only sheds light on Johar's early failure in life (which will be useful should anyone want to take this to FA - he didn't always get what he wanted), but also reveals his social privilege through the fact that a headmaster of a prominent school felt the need to write a consolatory letter to his mother, something he wouldn't have done for the average Joe. In the current climate of Johar-bashing, the well-sourced information very much belongs in the article, as the well-referenced NPOV fact illuminates his early life, early failure, social privilege etc, and can be read either way, with condescension or pity, depending on where the reader's sympathies lie. If it needs to be removed, we need to have a discussion here and a consensus needs to form. It can't be done simply to pander to some walk-in who has access to "report cards"! With regards, MaysinFourty (talk) 11:39, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  Whoa whoa whoa, the content wasn't removed to pander to anybody. Get your facts straight. It's a somewhat apocryphal tale attributed to a primary source, and  also thought it was trivial, so I removed it. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 13:23, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly. Also, MaysinFourty, your reference to "illuminates his early life, early failure, social privilege etc, and can be read either way, with condescension or pity, depending on where the reader's sympathies lie" is both WP:OR as well as against our biographies of living persons policy. It is original research because you're ascribing meaning to the event rather than providing reliable, independent sources that do so. It is against our BLP policy because it is negative information that is not reliably sourced to independent sources. I've removed it. --RegentsPark (comment) 13:32, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Cyphoidbomb, I stand corrected. My apologies. But, clearly, we differ on what counts as trivial, but perhaps not to the extent that makes arguing here worthwhile. And what you call Original Research was a talk page comment, not something I put into the article -- for which I only relied on a published book, which you in your edit summary patronisingly labelled "poorly sourced". Anyhoo, adios! MaysinFourty (talk) 14:26, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

text: , while I have your attention, I'd like to broach another subject, selfishly. I created an article about a film I loved: Eeb Allay Ooo!, but it still doesn't appear on Google!? Why would that be and what can I do to fix it? With thanks, MaysinFourty (talk) 16:00, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: If it helps, it does show up on google when I do a search. --RegentsPark (comment) 17:36, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fake News about Early Life 

message: Why there is no mention of film Kalank (2019)? 103.60.160.213 (talk) 04:17, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: where do you want it to be mentioned? It’s mentioned in his list of filmography as a producer.defcon5 (talk) 05:04, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 8 January 2021