Talk:Hrithik Roshan/Archive2

Photograph
Doesn't anyone have a better picture of Hrithik?

Adityakhanna7 (talk) 17:06, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I concur. He really needs a new photo. This one makes him look really sick. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.106.34.41 (talk) 04:37, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Kites
Hrithiks new movie 'Kites' is coming mid next year. i tried putting up an external link to the hrithik category in the kites page but everytime someone deletes it. care to mention what possible problem can be there if there is a relevant external page added.

-Kites77  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kites77 (talk • contribs) 07:17, 25 May 2008 (UTC)


 * First of all, this link is not relevant in this page. Secondly, it's a spam. Every link added is a spam unless it is an official site, IMDb or some profile page of a person in a reputable newspaper. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  10:41, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for letting me know :) - Kites77 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kites77 (talk • contribs) 09:19, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Request for detail
Section:Controversy

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".[17]

Does anyone know what was the aftermath of the comment? I vaguely remember some protest being held, but any links to the same or other refs would be appreciated.

xC | ☎  15:57, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

New child
There seem to be the makings of an edit war on this page.

First, I don't know any other sources, but the source provided by the anon clearly states Rakesh Roshan saying that Hrithik and his wife are expecting another baby. Putting that much of a line in seems fine by me.

Second, I don't agree with the expected in June part. Whenever the baby turns up, we can add in when he/she was born.

Last, having another independent source which states the same thing as the above would prove that indeed this is wide news and not just a rumour. Verifiability is always a good thing.

Regards, xC | ☎  16:12, 28 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The baby hasn't yet turned up, so no need to write it. I really wish them all the best, but who can guarantee that this expected baby comes to the world eventually? Nobody. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, and writing in an encyclopedia that someone is expecting for a new child is definitely un-encyclopedic.


 * It is no one else's business if they are or are not expecting the joint of a new member to the family. Wikipedia is based on EXISTING facts. AFTER Suzane gives birth with God's help, we can mention it... Mmmm "In October 2007, the couple confirmed that they were expecting a new child and on June ..., 2008 she/they gave birth to... etc".


 * But adding it now is too early. Again, WP is not a news report channel, nor is it a sleazy gossip magazine.


 * If you disagree with me xC, please share.


 * Best regards, Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  09:21, 30 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Unless we have another independent source to confirm it, I would disagree with putting in all of this. I Googled "hrithik roshan new child 2007" and it came up with a lot of pages, but all the blog variety or which had blogs as sources. We can't add it in.
 * Agree with you, and kick out any such info from the page until we have some reliable source.
 * Regards, xC | ☎  19:32, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup critics comments
I've removed the unnamed critics opinions from the page-
 * without knowing the name of the critic, we cannot put it in (see WP:V - there is no way to verify what an anon says)
 * if there is no name, it might be a valid assumption that he/she is one of the hundreds of film critics that write up their own reviews and put it up on sites without some sort of screening for quality. In other words, he/she might be non-notable.

These concerns were raised during the recent Zinta FAC. Do not put back the anonymous critical reviews back into the article without further discussion on this talk page. Thanks xC | ☎  22:23, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Cartelisation of the article
I've been editing for a while now, and i'm not a beginner by any means. This article appears to be run as a private domain by User:Shshshsh.

After i entered information about Early life and Education of Hrithik Roshan, he removed it saying "not a good idea". when i responded to the basis for unilaterally removing the information, for which the user, shahid mentioned incivility on my part. This is really unwholesome, and i was only following the general convention as in all other articles. This cannot be tolerated. Randhirreddy 20:44, 26 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Nonsense. Please go through the history page and see if it was really "not a good idea" - I've never said such a thing. I always explain myself. As to your editing, please first learn to edit properly by familiarising yourself with Wikipedia's policies, and then do your edits. Most of your edits on different WP pages stand in violation of such policies as WP:BLP, WP:LEAD, WP:CITE, WP:MOS and WP:UNDUE.


 * I can't see why we can't have nice "personal life" aection which will cover both Roshan's background and personal life. It is fully acceptable when the amount of info available is small, and as of now, it definitely is. Small sections are discouraged. Also, the lead is here to summarise the entire article, not only mention that Roshan is an actor. I'm not going to explain to you word for word the meaning of each policy, although I'm mostly happy to help new users. You have to familiarise yourself with WP's standards, but for that you will have to read these policies. Period. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  17:49, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Titles
There is absolutely nothing wrong about having titles for headings, and it cannot be considered POV by any means whatsoever. It is a very common standard of many featured articles on actors and filmmakers. The first section is about his work as a child artist, isn't it "Early Work"? The second section discussses his entrance into the film industry as an adult male star, isn't it his "Breakthrough" in the industry? The third discusses his career since 2003, which has been mostly successful (there are sources for it, are there not?), can't it be called "success"?

If it wasn't necessary or was POV, there wouldn't be any reason to split the entire career section into three parts, and it should have remained as one big section called "acting career". And if we have three separate sections, there must be a reason, no? If we have three sections without titles it makes it unclear as to why the sections were divided into these particular years. Shahid •  Talk 2 me  13:49, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Then we go with no divisions- because any analysis needed to determine where the breaks should occur would be the epitomy of original research. --  The Red Pen of Doom  17:54, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Please do not add frivolous tags as you always do. If he came to prominence with his adult debut film, then it's obviously a breakthrough, there's nothing to be unsure about and nothing to accuse of POV. And if his career has been on top since 2003, it's success. It's sourced in the text as being such. There's no OR or POV about adding representative titles for different sections on one article. It's just like we go on expanding the lead. Many leads are not sourced, they summarise the article. In the same way, titles of sections do summarise the content in one or two words.
 * It's a very simple standard. And it's been like this in several FAs. Let m give you the Bette Davis article, will you now go and tag every possible title? Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  10:19, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:LEDECITE, WP:PEACOCK.
 * And if you look at the section titles in Bette Davis, they are NOT the only one that is anywhere near the POV that you insist on in this article is the "Success as the Fifth WB" which should be sourced. They describe WHAT happened "Transition from stage to screen" "Illness and death" but not give adjectival quality to WHAT happened.
 * And just because many articles display improper content in improper ways is not a sufficient excuse to allow it in other articles.-- The Red Pen of Doom  12:47, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Well there are other sections such as "Renewed success", and if you see the Jolie article, there are such sections as "Breakthrough" and "International fame". This is that kind of info that needs no specific sources, just like the lead. It's a summarisation of the entire section, or at least the first phase discussed in the section.
 * Anyway I've added more specific sources. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  13:16, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It is poor style to use POV adjectives. Again, the fact that other crappy style usage exists in other articles is a poor poor argument for justifing the use of crappy style in more articles. -- The Red Pen of Doom  04:47, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Without any relation to other articles, I don't think there's anything wrong about adding positive and correct commentary with sources and proofs. I'm very aware of the famous essay you cite here, but featured articles are generally articles widely considered the best on Wikipedia, and their content is therefore accepted by the community, goes according to WP standards, and does not violate any policy or guideline. As long as these points are followed, no objection should be.
 * I've cited sources so I don't think it's an issue anyway. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  10:24, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * There is very much wrong with adding POV commentary for which you give proofs. We are an encycopedia which the primary function should be giving verifiable facts, not opinions. -- The Red Pen of Doom  16:04, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Saying that someone is successful is not POV. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  16:05, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Calling someone "successful" MOST CERTAINLY is POV]! -- The Red Pen of Doom  13:40, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The policy does not say so. When you sommarise sourced facts it is MOST CERTAINLY not! Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  13:45, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * summarizing sourced facts into something not stated by the sources is indeed not allowed by policy: WP:SYN / WP:ASF and guidelines WP:WTA / WP:PEACOCK. -- The Red Pen of Doom  14:25, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It is sourced - see the sources. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  14:27, 15 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Which source declares the period from 200-2002 a "Breakthrough"? Which source identifies the period from 2003 onward (particularly anything past 2009) "Success"? -- The Red Pen of Doom  15:33, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * All of them. He won awards, praises and commercial success for his first film, and followed it with several notable films. It is properly sourced. Since 2003, all of his films have been either commecially successful or critically successful, or both. This is also sourced throughout. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  16:12, 15 August 2009 (UTC)


 * You are making an analysis from various points of and applying it onto a situation other than what the sources did. That is not allowed. "Success" is, as you yourself have pointed out, a term that has different definitions and meanings depending on who is using it in what situation - it is a subjective term that should not be used without specifically identifying who is declaring "success" and what criteria they are using. --  The Red Pen of Doom  18:11, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Not at all - the sources also call him like that - I'm not making any conclusions. The article cites several articles which discuss the periods in question, and there they mention all of what this article claims. Please reread the policy you cite before starting wikilawyering for no reason. There's nothing WP:SYN about that. WP:CYN says "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." - it is explicitly stated by the sources.
 * Now go down, you have another message(s). Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  20:29, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

TheRedPenOfDoom, arguments in this very section show that there is nothing wrong about adding titles in section headings and that they actually summarise the section. You had nothing to add, that's probably why you stopped the discussion. If you do, then use the talk page, and STOP edit warring. You cannot stop discussing something, wait some time and then do the same clandestinely and deviously. It's not really impressive to say the least. Shahid •  Talk 2 me  15:15, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

BT
I don't really get this. Now are you going to get into the most minute details of these titles, including attempts to reinvent the meaning of the word breakthrough?

Who told you that breakthrough should represent every single word of the section? Where is it written? Any actor in the world has flops and hits and every prolific actor is allowed to fail. "Breakthrough" may be very well used even if it refers only to the first period discussed in the section. "Breakthrough" (break + through) is by nature not something which happens for an extended period of time. You say three flops in a row are not "breakthrough" - by the same token I can say that a debut film which is the biggest hit of the year, for which you get all the best actor awards, and which you follow by two critical successes and one huge hit - is BREAKTHROUGH. During this time, he was considered one of the most popular young stars in Hindi cinema (and it IS sourced in the article, and here you have more sources below) - that's a BREAKTHROUGH. Shahid •  Talk 2 me  20:05, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Here's an evidence of a breakthrough: "Well, without doubt, it was young honcho Hrithik Roshan who stole all the limelight with his phenomenal screen debut with Kaho Naa Pyar Hai... Making him the biggest, instant mega hero since the times of Rajesh Khanna, Vinod Khanna and Amitabh Bachchan." Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  20:20, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Here's another evidence of a breakthrough: "Following his BREAKTHROUGH debut with Kaho Naa... Pyar Hai, he became one of Bollywood’s hottest properties and spent most of the year 2000 being lauded as everything from the heir apparent to the Sexiest Man Alive. So far, so good. Kaho Naa... Pyar Hai, apart from revolutionising box office trends, took the wind out of the sails of all the A-line actors. If a shadow crossed the face of the reigning supernovas, they tried their best to camouflage it. With little or no success. KNPH and the Roshan swept away every existing award in the year 2001. Perhaps in an unprecedented move, he won the Filmfare Sensational Debut Award and the Best Actor Award simultaneously. Leaving all the other contenders (Abhishek Bachchan included) looking askance. Prime time was his. With looks that inspired countless magazine covers, Internet shrines and estrogen surges, Hrithik Roshan’s very name inspired drooling platitudes." Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  20:32, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

RfC on section breaks and titles
Should the section titles in this article contain the descriptors "Breakthough" and "Success"? User:Shshshsh says that the descriptors are summaries of the content in the sections. User:TheRedPenOfDoom says that the section divisions and descriptors are essentially arbitrary, POV commentary, and in violation of WP:SYN. See the above sections for additional discussion.-- The Red Pen of Doom  23:59, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Just a note which User:TheRedPenOfDoom overlooked - all the info, including the titles themselves are sourced properly. Other than that, many BLP FAs about actors use such titles, and it is perhaps not the right place to discuss this issue. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  08:10, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * request for clarification: " all the info, including the titles themselves are sourced properly." Which source has identified the years 2000-2002 as the "breakthrough" years? which source has identified 2003 - present as "success" years?--  The Red Pen of Doom  14:28, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Sources have been there for a long time and yesterday I added more sources. You have sources even in the previous section. And as I explained in this very previous section, breakthrough is by nature not something that happens for an extended period of time, just as "Turning point" for example. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  15:02, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * As you said, there are a number of sources in the sections. I am specifically asking for you to substantiate your claim " all the info, including the titles themselves are sourced properly." by identifying which source attaches the subjective term "breakthrough" to the years 2000-2002 and which source attaches the subjective term "success" to the years 2003 to present/2009? Identifying the specifc sources for the statements will save other editors time.--  The Red Pen of Doom  15:33, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The sources are listed within the section itself. The title itself is a summary. His first role was a breakthrough according to the sources. Section headers should not be sourced. It is not WP:SYN, such summaries are acceptable. No policy on Wikipedia prohibits the use of summary titles. Summarising a well-sourced section is more than acceptable, just like summarising an article into the lead. See Today's FA - no single source in the lead. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  17:12, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * "The sources are listed within the section itself. " you keep saying this. None of the sources that I have read in the section declares the years 2000-2002 "breakthrough". None of the sources I have read declare the years 2003-present/2009 "success". Am I missing something somewhere or is your statement " all the info, including the titles themselves are sourced properly." not actully correct? I am asking to find out which source specifically backs the claim that you have indicated is backed by a source.--  The Red Pen of Doom  18:35, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not a very intelligent claim you know - do you want sources which will say "The Hrithik Roshan's article's section from 2000-2002 is a breakthrough?"
 * Also, where exactly is it said that sources must back up exact phrases and words? Sources must support what the article's text, not quote it.
 * Also, you ignore what I say, but who said that titles should represent every word of the section? "breakthrough" is by nature not something that happens for an extended period of time.
 * For he record, his first film is explicitly described as his "breakthrough" by the sources - it is followed by several commercial and critical successes. From the very beginning of his career he was described as "the biggest, instant mega hero since the times of Rajesh Khanna, Vinod Khanna and Amitabh Bachchan."
 * And let me just ask again - who said titles should be sourced? They are a summary!!
 * In this case, it is an objective summary of a sourced section, and particularly the first paragraph of this section! Such summaries are created by common sense, not POV. That's a Wikipedia standard. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  19:42, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 *  do you want sources which will say "The Hrithik Roshan's [career from] 2000-2002 is [his] breakthrough" [period] Essentially, yes. If we as Wikipedia editors are making a subjective decision / analysis of HR's career and deciding to label certain sections with subjective adjective, then those year breaks and the section titles that go along with them should be backed by a reliable sources' analysis of the time periods of his career, not ours. -- The Red Pen of Doom  11:50, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Well - you replied only to the first paragraph of my message and ignored my other, rather detailed paragraphs and did not answer any of my other sections. Such titles are objective summaries of well sourced sections made by common sense. You clearly have nothing to say - three editors say it is a good standard and there's nothing OR about it. Titling section headings is a standard which is spread all over Wikipedia. No policy prohibits them. Cheers Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  12:16, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment by Dr. Blofeld
Such headers are perfectly acceptable. Why do you think we have many FAs with similar titles exmaining major points in careers. Breakthrough role is mostly obvious for most actors, hardly POV. Clint Eastwood's breakthrough role in film was Fistful of Dollars etc.Let it rest Red Pen and do something constructive. Dr. Blofeld       White cat 10:10, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I have no objection to objective section headings: "Work on the theatrical stage", "Work under Director X", "Straight to DVD films", "Leading roles". My issue is the WP:SYN and WP:NPOV violations that come from Wikipedia editors making subjective analysis that cannot be directly cited to a third party source. Our policies do not allow that. -- The Red Pen of Doom  14:35, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * First, it is perfectly sourced and everything is explicitly stated by the sources. "Success" is not a subjective title for a section heading as long as it is representative, correct and properly sourced. And you throwing policies without specifying the exact reason and saying "our policies do not allow that" without specification to this particular case is in violation of WP:WL. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  15:02, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." Which of the sources has explicitly provided the conclusion that 2000-2002 is "breakthrough"? Which of the sources has explicitly provided the conclusion that 2003-present/2009 are "success"? Requiring content to meet our basic content policies is not wikilawyering.-- The Red Pen of Doom  15:50, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Are you kidding or what? See the sources I added yesterday, the sources that had been there before. His role in KNPH was described as breakthrough. See the above section on this talk page. And there are many sources, including those I added yesterday which describe him as a consistently successful actor since 2003.
 * You misinterpret and misuse the WP:SYN policy (again, WP:WL). It's got nothing to do with what we are discussing here. And even then, if most of an actor's films during a certain period of time are successful, it is not at all a violation of WP:SYN to state that this is a period of success. There is no combination of material made to conclude something. If his films have been successful, and they are proved to be such by sources, then "success" is definitely a sourced claim. WP:SYN would be for example if we said "he starred in many successful films - then he is one of the most successful actors" - the latter claim must be sourced specifically.
 * As for titles, where in Wikipedia is it stated that section headings must be sourced?? Just like WP trusts its editors to be intelligent enough to summarise articles in the lead, there's nothing wrong about summarising a section.
 * I would love to see you trying to remove the titles from, say, Angelina Jolie's FA. See today's featured article Legacy of Kain: Soul Reaver. No single source is cited in the lead. It is a summary. That does not mean the article stands in volation of WP:OR - summarising content is part of Wikipedia's common sense. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  17:05, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Wasting no more electrons on the fact that we disagree comepletely about WP:SYN, Headings do not necessarily need sources, but they do need to be NPOV/structured appropriately.-- The Red Pen of Doom  18:53, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * "Wasting no time"? Probably because you have nothing to say against my long and detailed message. Nothing from WP:STUCTURE stands against using such sections. There's nothing to agree and disagree about when it comes to Wikipedia's policies - you clearly misuse WP:SYN here. And again, you have nothing to say. There's no place in Wikipedia where it is said that words like "breakthrough" and "success" are prohibited. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  19:42, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * If you are going to quote me, please quote me correctly "Wasting no more electrons". And while we are at it. You are correct, there is no outright prohibition on using any word - I never said there was - but the use of subjective "peacock terms that merely promote the subject of the article without imparting verifiable information" is strongly discouraged. -- The Red Pen of Doom  20:36, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * "there is no outright prohibition on using any word" - that's correct.
 * WP:PEACOCK? My friend, I'm well aware of every Wikipedia policy, so you're not really giving me a lesson here. After throwing every possible policy, you now come up with WP:PEACOCK. Another violation of WP:WL from your part. Please read the guideline: "forgo unsourced or unexplained peacock terms that merely promote the subject of the article without imparting verifiable information" - it is both sourced and explained. It is explained for the simple fact that it is a summary of an entire section, which is sourced. And it does "impart verifiable information". If you only looked at the list of words, I suggest you to reread this wonderful guideline.
 * Other than that, starting an RfC on a completely irrelevant page is pretty discouraged as well (WP:TALK). What we are discussing here has nothing to do with this article. From what I see, you are against something that is a standard (or you would prefer to call it a "disease"?) that is spread througout the entire Wikipedia and is used in Wikipedia's best articles. If you think such titles should not be used in Wikipedia, then it is better to have this issue discussed elsewhere, where this can be declared as completely prohibited or discouraged, something I don't believe will happen as this standard which is made by common sense (which is not POV) has been an integral part of writing articles on Wikipedia. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  20:52, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

From WT:NOR

 * Note: This debate has been included at Wikipedia talk:No original research. --  The Red Pen of Doom  20:37, 16 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I came here from the note at WT:NOR and scanned the discussion above. The titles appear to be accurate summaries of the contents of the associated sections. I see nothing inappropriate about them. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 00:20, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm inclined to agree with Carl. The sectioning is arbitrary, but that's within the scope of editorial judgement, i.e. within the scope of how an editor may wish to organize the content. But the dispute could perhaps be easily settled by (consistently) structuring chronologically. Perhaps something like this. -- Fullstop (talk) 16:40, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * So why then should the entire career section be split at all? And if they are split, why into these particular years? The answer is simple. Subsections are by nature created in order to represent different phases and periods of a person's life or career. There must be a reason for them to be created, and the titles are the reason. That's called common sense, according to which we have heading titles. As Carl said, such titles are objective and accurate summaries of well sourced sections. It has been a Wikipedia standard for years and it is done in some of the best articles in Wikipedia (see Bette Davis or Angelina Jolie). This is not prohibited by any Wikipedia policy. And if anyone is to object this standard, it should not be done here.
 * I say that because, as I said, what we are discussing here has nothing to do with this article. From what I see, TheRedPenOfDoom is against something that is a standard that is spread througout the entire Wikipedia and is used in Wikipedia's best articles. If you guys think such titles should not be used in Wikipedia, then it is better to have this issue discussed elsewhere, where this can attract a broader number of opinions and be declared as completely prohibited or discouraged. So this RfC does not make much sense. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  18:30, 20 August 2009 (UTC)


 * What part of " [sectioning is] within the scope of how an editor may wish to organize the content " did you not understand?
 * The new "it has been a Wikipedia standard for years" is also a non-sequitur since no one said anything about "standards". On the contrary, the comparison to Davis/Jolie articles works against you since neither one of those two articles makes (altogether arbitrary) same-level distinctions between "Career" and "Personal life". But this article does. Indeed, both those articles are in chronological order, from birth to present in contiguous, same-level order. And that is what I suggested be done here too. -- Fullstop (talk) 21:49, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * First off, control yourself because I do not respond well to rude messages. We are talking about the titles themselves - the words "breakthrough" and "success" (which are proper), and not about sectioning or structure. In this case, the comparison to Davis/Jolie not only does not go against me, but also supports what I say. If your meaning is "[sectioning and titling is] within the scope of how an editor may wish to organize the content" - so I agree with you. If you think no titles should be used, so I disagree, just like two other editors here do. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  22:04, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Thumb
why no mention of his extra thumb? seems like censorship —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.168.251.6 (talk) 22:45, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

More vital information?
Please, can you put up more information regarding the box office receptions, hrithik's films have earned, and also the critics' response? Also, the fact that he is such a wonderful dancer gets neglected. There is nothing that points that Hrithik is currently the best actor we have.

I can provide the links to all the information, but the question is will it be added to the main article?

Hi, to the owner of the article, I just want to know on which basis you say that K3G is Hrithik's most succesful movie, i don't see any kind of source attached to that statement Poly Roshan (talk) 16:04, 30 August 2011 (UTC) Poly Roshan
 * There are no article owners on WP. Everyone is freely allowed to edit articles as long as they are backed up with "reliable" sources. I have attached a source to show that K3G is still his most successful movie (in terms of adjusted inflation). --  Bollywood Dreamz  talk 17:34, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Why was edit reverted?
Trakesht, why? All I did was change the intro and move one of the sections in order to make into the same format that all Wikipedia articles about Hindi actors and celebs in general have. The origin always comes first.

I also changed the "leading actors of India" to "leading actors of Bollywood" because he's a leading actor in Hindi movies, NOT all of India, hence the "Bollywood's top gun" in the referenced Rediff article.

Another thing: I'm getting rid of the DigitalSpy reference since the whole site is a rehashing of other Internet articles and not a very reputable source. Seriously, some of you need to work on better referencing and go for PRIMARY sources. AyanP (talk) 23:02, 24 October 2009 (UTC)Ayan

hmm.. I can't figure out why it happened, but when I checked the difference for your edit- it had shown as you had removed the content, instead of moving it to another place- hence I had tagged it as removal of sourced content. It looks fine now. No problem from my side trakesht (talk) 06:29, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Barbari Mori Controversy
I think the tremendous attention given to HR's alleged affair with Barbara Mori by the Indian media should be noted, and of course the subsequent vigorous denials. I think the edit of my addition by Nikhitbhanu leaves a reasonable and fair summary and should be allowed to stand. I have reversed Shshshsh's edit.--Bigfrog88 (talk) 06:49, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Shshshsh doesn't seem to feel the need to discuss this section but continues to remove my addition without comment. I will continue to revert this edit until this matter has been debated and a conclusion on the matter has been reached. --Bigfrog88 (talk) 15:00, 22 May 2010 (UTC)


 * OK then - please do read WP:CITE, WP:NOT and WP:BLP. This is just gossip at its worst. No place for it on Wikipedia. Thank you. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  15:23, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

"Hrithik"
If you type "hrithik" into the search window, you arrive back here. Does Roshan have a rare name? Varlaam (talk) 19:23, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Haha, first couple of pages on google search is him too, finally get: http://www.hrithiktools.com/

Early Career vs Personal Life
The Early Career section might benefit from a merger with the Personal Life section as the latter on pages usually details events after childhood, while this one includes parental information, etc. Additionally, the EC section is very subjective and sounds like an advertisement, and is additionally overly long.

Thoughts? --128.151.150.17 (talk) 06:06, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 8 June 2013
Please change the listing of movie "shuddhi" from listing in hrithik roshan's upcoming movies ans the information on shuddhi here is leading to a religious ceremony in hindus and not to the movie.

Rbkasr (talk) 08:32, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ - Thanks for your help. Tolly  4  bolly  08:36, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 December 2013
please change the years of marriage from 13 to 17, it has been 17 years since the marriage and the date was 13th..

Orion.prateek (talk) 09:58, 16 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: According to the article and the sources, the relationship was 17 years, but the marriage was 13 - Suzanne was his girlfriend for four years prior to the marriage. If you have a reliable source that disagrees, please post it so others can check it out. Thanks, -- El Hef  ( Meep? ) 00:03, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

NPOV
Is the description of him as "an Indian film actor known for his versatility and work ethic in addition to great dramatic range" an encyclopedic introduction? It reads rather more like flattery or puffery.Royalcourtier (talk) 22:48, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 September 2014
Bang Bang

117.192.159.0 (talk) 14:44, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg 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. Please resubmit your reuqest providing any necessary reliable sources. Thanks, Nici  Vampire  Heart  15:06, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 November 2014
please change Commercially, the film earned around INR3 billion (US$49 million) in global ticket-sales. [76]                 to              Commercially, the film earned around INR3.02 billion (US$55 million) in global ticket-sales. [76]                 reference= http://www.koimoi.com/box-office-verdict-bollywoods-top-worldwide-grossers/

2.103.81.133 (talk) 16:47, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
 * ❌: the content of this request doesn't seem to be supported by the given source. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 19:12, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 November 2014
182.74.63.10 (talk) 11:12, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg 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. Nici  Vampire  Heart  13:03, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

edit request on 9 December 2015
i want an editing in Hrithik Roshan profile. Firstly, he is one of the superstar and most influential stars of bollywood, this line should be there and secondly it should be mentioned that he is the co-owner of ISL team Pune City FC. Please make these changes. I request you being a Hrithik Roshan fan. The previous article which said he is known for his his versatility and work ethic in addition to great draamtic range; this line ws perfect. It would be helpful if you include that line again and the line i mentioned above. Thank You.

edit request in introduction part.
i want an editing in Hrithik Roshan profile. Firstly, he is one of the superstar and most influential stars of bollywood, this line should be there and secondly it should be mentioned that he is the co-owner of ISL team Pune City FC. Please make these changes. I request you being a Hrithik Roshan fan. The previous article which said he is known for his his versatility and work ethic in addition to great draamtic range; this line ws perfect. It would be helpful if you include that line again and the line i mentioned above. Thank You. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.193.143.3 (talk) 06:52, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 one external links on Hrithik Roshan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150318010723/http://boxofficeindia.com/Movies/movie_detail/fiza to http://www.boxofficeindia.com/Movies/movie_detail/fiza
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150318025136/http://boxofficeindia.com/Movies/movie_detail/main_prem_ki_diwani_hoon to http://www.boxofficeindia.com/Movies/movie_detail/main_prem_ki_diwani_hoon
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20121127115503/http://ibnlive.in.com:80/news/masands-verdict-go-dhoom-2/26974-8-1.html to http://ibnlive.in.com/news/masands-verdict-go-dhoom-2/26974-8-1.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 15:25, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Hrithik Roshan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140303225236/http://www.boxofficeindia.com:80/Movies/movie_detail/mujhse_dosti_karoge to http://www.boxofficeindia.com/Movies/movie_detail/mujhse_dosti_karoge

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 16:33, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

controversy
there is no mention of kangana ranaut and Hrithik contraversy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.109.97.164 (talk) 09:34, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Is it very significant and encyclopedia worthy, or just some fan news fodder? Give reliable links.  BollyJeff  &#124;  talk  12:48, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 18:21, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Decorative pics by User 'FrB.TG'
User is adding random decorative pics of Roshan, on the page, which serve no particular purpose. If yoo want to add them then dsicuss the rationale behind it. They are merely decorative, their addition makes no sense on an encyclopedia. BlueGreenYellowRed (talk) 16:24, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
 * How is a picture of Hrithik Roshan in the article of Hrithik Roshan irrational especially a pic that is related to a high profile film he has starred in? Also, do even know what vandalism means? I've been nothing but expanding this article from scratch for the past few days. - FrB.TG (talk) 16:59, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Mohenjo Daro (film)
Why not Mohenjo Daro movie in Filmography section? Wikibaji (talk) 06:33, 31 March 2017 (UTC)