Talk:Saif Ali Khan/Archive 2

Boxofficeindia - new source needed
BoxofficeIndia is not a reliable site, per their disclaimer: "BOXOFFICEINDIA.COM and its affiliates do not control, represent or endorse the accuracy, completeness or reliability of any of the information available on the web site". -- The Red Pen of Doom  13:07, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It is a reliable source, actually the most reliable for Indian box office figures. Its reliability was already proved in a long WP:RSN discussion a long time ago. For the record, it is a leading website for box office collections of Hindi films. It is regularly cited as a source of information in various newspapers and other reputable websites, and is used in several GAs and FAs on Wikipedia. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  13:54, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you.[] It appears that this has indeed been discussed and that many others shared my concerns. --  The Red Pen of Doom  15:25, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * You're welcome, friend. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  16:24, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Nawab of Pataudi ...
... is a defunct title. It became defunct when the Government of India abolished the titles and privy purses of the rulers of erstwhile princely states in the late 1960s. Whatever, Mr. Khan is, he is not the new Nawab (The Times of India notwithstanding), for the simple reason that his father was not the Nawab of Pataudi after 1967. Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  13:21, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * PS I do understand that the family has recently been through a traumatic event, the loss of a near and dear one. They may have had a private ceremony to mourn the death of a charismatic figure in their midst and to celebrate his legacy by asserting continuity, but that has nothing to do with the legally recognized title "Nawab of Pataudi" of old.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  13:32, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Your assertions do not matter, sources do, and they clearly state that he assumed the title. Also, the "multiple issues" tag you've added needs a thorough exaplanation here. If there's something which needs to be fixed, which I don't really see, kindly mention it here first, and the issues will be taken care of if there's any agreement with you in accordance with Wikipedia policy. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  13:56, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Shahid - I'm with you on this one. Numerous credible sources have reported he is now Nawab. Verifiability, not truth. Zuggernaut (talk) 15:00, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Zuggernaut, be mindful that you have a one-way interaction ban with me. That means you can't appear on threads on which I am already there.  I have been relaxed about it, but you are clearly engaging in the kind of behavior that got you your topic and interaction ban in the first place.  Shahid, If tomorrow the Times of India says the earth is flat, will you be amending the lead of Earth with the same fervor?   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  15:07, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

The Abolition of Privy Purses and Privileges was the 26th Amendment of the Constitution of India passed in 1971. One of the landmarks of legal legislation in India, it reads, The concept  of rulership, with privy purses and  special  privileges unrelated  to  any  current  functions   and   social   purposes,   is incompatible  with  an  egalitarian social  order. Government have, therefore, decided to terminate the privy purses and privileges of the Rulers of  former Indian States. It is necessary for this   purpose, apart from  amending the relevant provisions of the Constitution,  to insert  a  new  article  therein  so as  to  terminate   expressly  the recognition already granted to such Rulers and to abolish privy purses and extinguish all rights, liabilities and obligations in respect  of privy purses.

There is a Wikipedia page Privy Purse in India which discusses this. Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  15:24, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Again, this kind of analysis makes no sense when we have numerous reliable sources publishing the news. The Hindu says, "Bollywood actor Saif Ali Khan was on Monday anointed the tenth Nawab of Pataudi at a ceremony at his ancestral palace here over a month after his father Mansoor Ali Khan Pataudi passed away." This is a fact, there's an image showing this, what you show here has little relevance. Please see WP:V to see how Wikipedia works. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  16:01, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Also note, according to The Hindu, "Pataudi gave up his title in 1971 when India abolished royal entitlements through the 26th Amendment to the Constitution of India." - it is mentioned, and yet the article clearly says that Khan has assumed the title. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  16:04, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Here is Mr. Khan himself from the news report, Saif Ali Khan happy about being an ex-Nawab To the question: "On October 31, you will become the next Nawab of Pataudi?" the actor says very eloquently: "Royal titles ceased to be recognised by the Indian government in 1971. The title of Nawab and Maharaja are not recognised by the Indian government anymore. And rightfully so. We are a democracy and I am not under any misconception about me ruling any state or body of people. It's just a sense of tradition. As far as receiving the title and the ceremony from the villagers go, they are sentimental about tying the pagdi. Perhaps it is is something symbolic. And yes, I will be there for that. I have a lot of connection to Pataudi. I have spent a lot of time there and I love the place very much, but at no point, do I consider myself a Nawab."

Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  16:16, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * And Shahid, my apologies for the incorrect use of revert.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  16:18, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Apologies accepted. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  16:25, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I did not use TOI at all, I used the The Hindu. You are again repeating something that does not mean anything. So yes, the Indian government does no longer recognise such titles, so what? The ceremony still took place and he assumed the title and that's something that has been covered ceaselessly in the press. The same article you've cited (which had actually been published before the ceremony took place) says, "The title of Nawab will soon be attached to his name." And this has been materialised.
 * Yes, he said, " at no point, do I consider myself a Nawab" - fine, this is a personal sentiment. And yet, he was there at the ceremony and was officially named the 10th Nawab. I repeat, this has been reported on all over the press. This is worth-mentioning. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  16:26, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * "Officially?" What does that mean?  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  17:17, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * This is a tricky one. India is not like the UK where Barons and other Nabobs are conferred their titles by the government or recognized as being passed down through birth and heredity so the title does not really exist. However, it does seem to be useful information about the gentleman that somehow needs to be included in the article. Perhaps a suitably qualified statement such as "He would have been the tenth nawab of Pataudi if India had not abolished royal titles in 1971" in the lead and a mention of the 'unofficial' ceremony in the body? --regentspark (comment) 17:59, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

From what I see, there is a clear consensus on this page and on WT:INB that this info should not be removed. I'm personally fine with the dubious tag until the discussion is over. If the press does acknowledge Khan as the 10th Nawab, I do not think WP should have any problems with that, since that's how this project works--with reliable sources being used. I think a clause like "though not recognised by the government" can be added (in the appropriate section). I hope a broader number of editors comes to review the case. If that takes a lot of time, then WP:DRN may probably be the next step. Shahid •  Talk 2 me  18:24, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Shahid: There is no such consensus. I'm pretty clear about this and will take you to all the dispute resolution forums that are available on Wikipedia including independent expert verification, so sure I am about this mis-usage.  The rulers of the erstwhile princely states had, until 1971, the "right to the hereditary title."  That right was abolished.  They can call themselves Nawab exactly as much as the average man on the street can.  That they are children of celebrity might be a notable fact, which could be noted as RegentsPark said.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  18:50, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Nice discussion! Agree with RegentsPark. We are not short of words. This whole description can go in the article (not lead ofcourse). Just to cite an example, Manvendra Singh Gohil's article states that he "belongs to the royal family". Though he is refered to as Prince in the article as well as in the media, he is not called as "the Prince of Rajpipla". However, Bhagyashree Patwardhan's father is refered as "the Maharaja of Sangli". I guess that also needs some editing. -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 19:01, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Here is Barbara Ramusack., "Through a constitutional amendment passed in 1971, Indira Gandhi stripped the princes of the titles, privy purses and regal privileges which her father's government had granted." (p 278). The descendants of former princes might have lots of goodwill among the local people, and they may play a significant cultural role, since the princes were often sponsors of various religious and cultural foundations.  Those are all notable things.  We can use RegentsPark's suggestion and finesse it in some way, but we can't say, "His the the 10th and present Nawab of Pataudi."  That is all I am saying.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  19:09, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Let me correct you again (in response to your previous message): there is a clear consensus that the info should not be removed both on this page and on WT:INB (all the editors, apart from you, support the inclusion in this way or another. Do you want me to name them?). The discussion is, from what I see, more about how we should write it. The fact that you feel so strongly about the issue and are so decisive to have it done your way does not mean that's what we are going to do, unless consensus turned the other way around. The sources you are citing do not really belong here (Saif is not mentioned in them, so this does directly concern this article). What matters the most is what reliable sources say, and reliable sources perfectly support what's on the page, and that's what Wikipedia should reflect. Now the question is how it should be reflected. And here I'm open to discussion. Thanks. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  20:19, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I think the Nawab of Pataudi is a well known enough title that it makes sense to include some mention of it in the article. But, fowler is correct that "he is the 10th and present Nawab of Pataudi" is not the way to do it. Apparently fowler is objecting to the categorical nature of that sentence (and the fact that it is therefore inaccurate) and not to rewording the information, and shshshsh is willing to work on a rewording, so we've really got nothing to complain about. I've made a rough suggestion above, and I note that animeshkulkarni supports the spirit of that suggestion. How about if we use that as a starting point? --regentspark (comment) 20:43, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

RegentsPark: My real worry is not Pataudi, which, tipping the scales at 52 square miles and no gun salutes&mdash;a piece of real estate thrown in the surprised lap of a Pataudi ancestor by Lord Lake in a moment of airy generosity after the Brits defeated the Marathas in 1802&mdash;was not exactly a heavyweight among princely states, but the others. Apparently, many of them are engaging in this sophistry, ie. someone is on Wikipedia. Moreover, the "List of pretenders" page is troubling as no descendent of any Indian ruler is a pretender in the European sense. Is a delusional move afoot by disgruntled royalty to reclaim something? Even they know (at least Saif Khan does to his credit) that nothing is about to come their way. They are lucky to have what they do. Or is this a page begun by some solipsist Wikipedian in the usual way such pages are? As for the finessing, I'm reluctant with, "He would have been the 10 Nawab of Pataudi if ..." for the reason that we could soon have, "He would have been the 17th Mughal incumbent on the Peacock Throne of Delhi if ...," the "99th Mauryan Emperor if ..." I think it is best to leave it as "His father Mansur Ali Khan was the last Nawab of Pataudi, holding the title until it was abolished in 1971. We could say somewhere, but not in the lead that a symbolic private ceremony of continuation was held after the death of his father in which the mantle of the family "Nawab" was placed on him by the tying of a turban.  There are scores of newspaper proper sources that attest to this.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  22:29, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Shahid, I'm afraid there is no consensus. A Wikipedia consensus is not a vote.  Otherwise, the Lord above help us.  Reliable sources are of prime importance, and I'm about to go looking for them.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  22:29, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Have added a bunch at Wikipedia_talk:Noticeboard_for_India-related_topics Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  23:12, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * No one said there was a vote. Only that all the editors except you support its inclusion, period. "Reliable sources are of prime importance" - right, and reliable sources say he was crowned the 10th Nawab of Pataudi, another peiod. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  23:30, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Crowned the 10th Nawab is way excessive. I agree with fowler in principle: that a categorical association between Saif Ali Khan and the term Nawab is undue, simply because he is not a nawab. However, in the case I do believe that some mention of nawabness is due simply because of the name recognition of the title. That doesn't and shouldn't mean that the heirs of every erstwhile princely state can be called a nawab (for example, it shouldn't apply to the nawab of loharu because no one has heard of that nawab).. Why can't we just say something like "he belongs to the family that ruled Pataudi State as Nawaabs until the abolition of titles by India in 1971. In deference to tradition, local villagers annointed him as the Nawab of Pataudi on xxx date, although the title has no official or legal significance." Perhaps the lede is not the place for this since he isn't, so far, known for nawabity, but this may not be out of place in the main body. --regentspark (comment) 02:29, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Fyi, i've made the changes (though the last clause in the new text is out of place - will try to fix it). See if this works for you guys. --regentspark (comment) 02:40, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * That sounds good with one proviso. The Indian newspapers are all using the word "anoint," which is often used figuratively, but I've never seen it applied to a "Royal" ceremony without the actual anointing.  (Queen Elizabeth, for example, had to endure this longish uncomfortable ritual in 1953.)  Could we use "acclaimed" instead of anoint?  ie "He was acclaimed Nawab of Pataudi in a ceremony ...."   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  03:30, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * PS I did watch the video on one of the web sites. There was no anointing or crowning, only the tying of a turban.  The newspapers might be using the term loosely.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  03:38, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * PPS If you don't like acclaimed, you could use "proclaimed."  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  03:40, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm changing it to proclaimed. Acclaimed means something entirely different. --regentspark (comment) 16:15, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I like the new changes made by RegentsPark and Fowler. I support this version. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  09:20, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I really don't see any problem with "anointed". We do mention the title is not official, don't we? Proclaimed, acclaimed and whatever is already too much and too vague. He was anointed. That's what the sources say, anything else is mentioned and properly discussed. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  16:19, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * "anointed" is simply incorrect usage in Standard English when it is applied to a royalty related ceremony. Indian newspapers are using the term incorrectly.  There is also an echo-chamber effect there.  One newspaper uses it and before long every newspaper does.  In one week they will have all forgotten the word they used.  "Acclaim" is really the correct word here (the word has two meaning) one of which is "To announce or proclaim with enthusiastic approval. e.g. to acclaim the new King" (Dictionary.com) See also Google Books ("He was acclaimed King") If a formal announcement was made by a serious looking official, you would say, "He was proclaimed Nawab of Pataudi,"  if a "loud raucous enthusiastic ceremony was held in which a turban was tied around his head, you would say, "He was acclaimed Nawab of Pataudi."  In any case, proclaimed is fine too, but misses the popular aspect of the occasion.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  18:31, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * PS Incredible really, I just Googled "annointed Nawab". All the 340 entries that showed up were about Saif Ali Khan.  All in Indian newspapers.  All usage likely based on an initial malapropism.  After all "nawab" have been installed before, but they were all absent.  Not a single instance of usage there of "anointed" used as an adjective (as in Bush was Reagan's anointed successor.)  To me this is absolutely remarkable and symptomatic of language changes taking place in India today.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  18:37, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd suggest sticking with proclaim because that is a more neutral word. Acclaim comes with an 'enthusiastic approval' baggage (per the dictionary.com reference). OED defines acclaim as "to proclaim or announce with applause". --regentspark (comment) 19:17, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, so, are we done with it already? Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  19:32, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * :) Yup. Sorry, it may have seemed like we all ganged up on one page, but in the process a policy applicable to a larger set of Wikipedia articles got worked out.  Thanks for your cooperation.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  21:30, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Good, thank you too. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  21:39, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

File:Saif in 2011.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion
Saif Ali khan & Kareena Kapoor to wed in Oct 2012 Description: If all goes well, Bebo and Saif would walk down the aisle in October next year. The couple's engagement is reportedly scheduled for February 2012. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bwteam (talk • contribs) 13:37, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

relevance of not yet released films in the filmography
Is there any value to promoting within the filmography projects that are not yet films or is it simply giving WP:UNDUE weight to non existant films and WP:CRYSTALBALLing things which may not come to pass? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  18:11, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * It depends. If the future films are well sourced and completed then I guess it isn't a crystal ball thing. If, however, filming is still ongoing or not yet started, then it is. In the latter case, we probably won't (or, at least, shouldn't) have articles on the films let alone list them here. I can't believe you guys are edit warring over something as trivial as this :) --regentspark (comment) 18:25, 31 October 2013 (UTC)


 * If the filming hasn't started, your best way to deal with the issue is to AFD the articles present on them. In cases where the film is much talked about, irrespective of it's cinematographic status, the filmographies can still list them. In fact, most AFD of such type close as Incubate and redirect the title to the best known person involved, actor/director/producer. And if at all you had cared to read before reverting me multiple time, posting templated warning on my page, you would have found referenced mentiones of start of filming on their respective pages. (Not new for him.). §§ Dharmadhyaksha §§ {T/C} 18:40, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * it was you who was {re-)inserting the content without sources in contravention of the policy WP:BURDEN which specifically requires inline citations for any content that has been challenged be provided by the person restoring. It is not my responsibility to go clicking through articles to find whether or not sources might exist in other articles to support something that I deem even with sources as WP:UNDUE weight and inappropriate trivia not worthy of including. --  TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  19:05, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * huh! §§ Dharmadhyaksha §§ {T/C} 10:18, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Was there afghanistan in 1400s, nope it was delhi sultanate
To add a category indian people of afghan descent is wrong as there was no afghanistan. It should be corrected. Also instead of mentioning afghanistan in biography, city of that time should be mentioned from where his ancestors migrated. Afghanistan came into being around 1800s. Thankyou

Nawab of Pataudi
We've already been through this one. See discussion thread upstairs. "Nawab," along with "Maharajah" (and a few others) was a title used by the rulers of Indian princely states during British rule in India 1757 to 1947. In 1947 (or soon thereafter for a few) the Indian princes lost their realms which were absorbed into either independent India or Pakistan. However, they were allowed to use their titles and privileges, such as special license plates for their cars. They also received remuneration from the Government of India in the form of the annual privy purses. In 1971, all privileges, including titles, and privy purses were abolished in the 26th amendment to the Indian constitution, which began with the historic words:

The concept  of rulership, with privy purses and  special  privileges unrelated   to  any  current  functions   and   social   purposes,   is incompatible  with  an  egalitarian social  order.

Accordingly, no one can hold the title "Nawab of Pataudi" in India today with any official or legal bearing. Saif Ali Khan's grandfather was the last Nawab of Pataudi until 1947; his father was the last titular Nawab of Pataudi until 1971. Saif Ali Khan, himself has no titles. Please don't keep inserting the Nawab bit, no matter how many Indian newspapers call him that; those newspapers use the title to give him glamour and to attract readers, but those newspapers are not reliable sources. Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  10:39, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Saif Ali Khan. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20111116174813/http://www.thehindu.com:80/news/states/other-states/article2585515.ece to http://www.thehindu.com/news/states/other-states/article2585515.ece

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 07:21, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Saif Ali Khan. 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 User:Cyberpower678/FaQs for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20071012120930/http://news.sawf.org:80/Bollywood/41716.aspx to http://news.sawf.org/Bollywood/41716.aspx
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120222184459/http://www.hindustantimes.com/Entertainment/Tabloid/Police-at-Saif-s-house-to-arrest-him/Article1-815152.aspx to http://www.hindustantimes.com/Entertainment/Tabloid/Police-at-Saif-s-house-to-arrest-him/Article1-815152.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 18:14, 9 June 2016 (UTC)