Talk:Shah Rukh Khan/Archive 4

Pashtun
Why are there some people showing hate towards "Pashtuns" by de-linking the word Pashtun to pashtun? You people should realize that Pashtuns ruled India for over 1,000 years. Don't pretend you don't know or never heard of Pashtun before. Check Khilji dynasty, Lodhi dynasty, Suri dynasty, Durrani Empire, Delhi Sultanate, etc. Also, I have a very strong doubt about S. Khan's background to be of Hindkowan, so please just show me one single reliable source that says he comes from a Hindkowan background. Either him or his father. If you are not sure about something, why place false and misleading information here?--Spock44 17:01, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Shah Rukh Khan's father was a Hindkowan from Peshawar. There are lots of Hindkowans there but they are not of Pashtun (Pathan) ancestry. Thus, not everyone from Peshawar is a Pathan. Hindkowans are descendants of Punjabis who migrated to that area. Please stop calling Shah Rukh Khan and his progeny Pathans. Thank you. zakka 15:29, 7 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I have friends who are Hindkowans from Abottabad in Pakistan, they are fluent in Pashto and Urdu both. Their culture is very similar to that of Pashtuns. Their physical appearance, dress code and lifestyle is of Pashtuns. They do not practice Punjabi lifestyle or culture. I lived with these people for a year and closely monitered them. User zakka, you need to show convining evidence in order make your point. We know there are some non-Pashtuns in Peshawar, but the majority there are Pashtuns. The city is Pashtunized, meaning anyone who lives there will eventually become Pashtun. This articls is specifically about Shahrukh Khan, and we need to see sources that clearly states that he is Hindkowan, if no such source is available for now then it should say that his ethnicity is not confirmed as of yet. The source provided for his father being of Hindkowan background is not explaining anything but saying that Shahrukh Khan refused to visit a Hindko language conference in Pakistan. This is saying that he may not be Hindkowan since he refused to attend the conference. In other words, he gave a hint that he is not Hindkowan.--Spock44 15:50, 12 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Refusal to attend a conference does not imply any of the things you've mentioned above. It is logically wrong to try to draw inferences from the attendance (or lack thereof) of a person.
 * Your concern about reliable sources is justified. Rather than pummel the article about it, our community would like to encourage you and all other editors to search for sources to prove (or disprove) the same. After all, it is us - the editors - that write this encyclopedia.
 * Best regards, xC | ☎  15:24, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

The population of Peshawar is 100% ethnic Pashtun, the term Pathan ONLY refers to PASHTUNS,,, NOT Punjabis. Punjabi itself is an ethnic group, which is totally different from Pathan or Pashtun. Hindkowan means someone who is speaker of the Hindko language. Sharukh Khan's father is from Peshawar, which is 100% ethnic Pashtun city. His mother's family are from Rawalpindi in Pakistan, which has a big population of Pashtuns. There is not even 1% Hindkowan or Hindko speaking people in Peshawar or in Rawalpindi. Hindkowans live in mountains of NWFP. In view of these findings, the chances of Shahrukh Khan's parents being Hindkowans is very very slim. None of the references say that he is Hindkowan or Punjabi Pathan. The term "Punjabi Pathan" is only used in wikipedia, made-up by someone who edited the article. There is no such group as Punjabi Pathan, this is really the most stupid thing someone has ever made. The following meanings of words are from The British Libarary - The world's knowledge - Glossary to the sources for the study of Afghanistan
 * pathans see afghans. Comes to mean those tribes not living in Afghanistan itself.
 * pushtun A speaker of Pashtu; a Pathan or Afghan.
 * afghans (1) An ethnic group: the Pushtun tribes inhabiting the area roughly lying between the Hindu Kush in the North and the Indus in the South; Pathans. Comes to mean Pathans residing in Afghanistan. Divided into two main groups, the Abdalis (qv) and the Ghilzais (qv). The predominant ethnic group in Afghanistan. (2) Any inhabitant of Afghanistan (modern meaning, probably not earlier than 19th century).--Khan1982 15:15, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Religion
After reading the source next to the sentence (he personally believes in both religions), I find this....
 * Questioner: "Is being Islamic an important part of your identity? Have recent events forced you to think more about it?"
 * Shahrukh Khan: "I’m not an atheist, I am a believer in God, and I don’t think it is great fashion to be an atheist. I am Islamic by birth, so I know that a bit better, though I’ve been brought up by Hindus most of my life, and I was fascinated by Ram Lila and things. All that hasn’t changed, but as I’ve grown older, and I see what’s happening to Islam around the world, I think it’s important that even without full knowledge of Islam, I need to be very clearly standing for the goodness of Islam. AR Rahman sent me a message once saying you are an ambassador for Islam. I think I truly am. I follow the tenets of Islam — peace, goodness, kindness to mankind. And I’m a normal guy. I think that is what Islam tells you to be..." CHECK SOURCE HERE

Where does it say that Shahrukh Khan believes in both religions (Islam and Hinduism)? How can someone be follower of Islam (believer of ONE God) and at the same time be follower of Hinduism (believer of billions of Gods)? The reference clarifies that he only follows the teachings of Islam, and that he has studied Hinduism in the past but stuck to Islam as his official religion.--Khan1982 15:47, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

You are mistaken, I'm afraid. Hinduism does not believe in billions of Gods. Hinduism believes in the one God (Brahman), which is referenced throughout the Vedas. Through the entire Ramayana, the 'cosmic force' of Brahman is referenced as well. Note that we are not talking about the deity Brahma. To me it seems the multiple deities exist for two purposes -


 * different interpretations or forms given by people to the same God
 * for the purpose of the mythological/religious texts of Hinduism

To me it also seems pointless to base an argument on details of a religion. It is sufficient to note that a believer in one religion is neccessarily a devotee of one religion only. He may believe in, understand about, or in any other way feel strongly about the belief system of another religion, but at the heart of the matter, he is either of one religion or another.

What I understand from the source CHECK SOURCE HERE, is that he is Muslim who also happens to have been around Hindus a lot.

So?

Why is that a bone of contention?

I understand that this is the line that all the noise is about - "Although his family was Muslim, he was raised by Hindus for most of his life."

Perhaps that could be rephrased - "Khan was born to parents of Pathan ethnicity, [1][2][3] and is a practising Muslim". Somehow the whole part about being raised by Hindus his entire life doesn't seem relevant to me.

All editors comments or suggestions about this are welcome. It seems to be a good idea to end these circles being spun around religion as soon as possible. They just draw attention away from the primary aim of writing an encyclopedia.

Happy editing, xC | ☎  13:35, 26 September 2007 (UTC)


 * To me there's nothing wrong in the statement indicating he was raised by Hindus. Its just a little more information about his early life. As discussed earlier, being raised by Hindus doesn't mean he practised or is practising Hinduism. By editing the statement to "Khan was born to parents of Pathan ethnicity, [1][2][3] and is a practising Muslim" (as suggested)  isn't called rephrasing, but completely changing the sentence. There isn't any need to rephrase or change the sentence as it is not provocative in any way.--S3000 14:09, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I have to concur with xC here. Growing up in a multi cultural environment such as India, he could have been raised by many people also, then we'd detract from the main aim of the article as is mentioned. Being raised by Hindus, makes the implicit assumption that he was adopted or something by another faith group and vice versa. He has a great deal of respect for Hinduism (and rightly so) but I believe XC's paraphrasing is more encyclopedic and more factual, staying clear from possible liable assumptions. 


 * Regarding synthesis in belief between Hinduism and Islam, this has happened many times with many notable personalities in History (Daa Shikoh for one) but this is clearly not the place to discuss and debate this topic. Let's stay calm and objective about the SRK article rather than contentious statements. Just my 2 cents worth...--Raja 11:57, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


 * (Replying to S3000 above)
 * My intention was to change the meaning of the sentence. I question the encyclopedic value of including that he was raised by Hindus for most of his life. From what I read in the interview, he says, "I am Islamic by birth, so I know that a bit better, though I’ve been brought up by Hindus most of my life, and I was fascinated by Ram Lila and things."
 * So we conclude Khan is a prominent Indian actor, who was born a Muslim and was brought up by Hindus for most of his life. How is the latter part of the sentence important in any way? How does adding that extra information improve the article in any way?
 * It is merely clutter. And to me, it seems like an unnecessary tack on of religion where it doesn't need to be. xC | ☎  03:01, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The person who said Hindus don't believe in billions of Gods, please man we are living in 2007 and can get information online from official sources instead of listening to what you have to say about Hinduism. We are here discussing things "IN GENERAL" only. So in general, Hindus believe that all things (living or non-living) are Gods, while Muslims believe that everything is God['s]. It sounds like a very tiny difference, with just the appostraphy "'" between God and the letter "s". That's not the case though because what Muslims believe is that everyting was created and belongs to the one true God. The Hindus, on the other hand, believe that everything is God. I watch Dr. Zakir Naik on Peace TV about everyday and he often explains the differences between Hindus and Muslims. Shahrukh Khan was born Muslim just like all other Muslims, he was always around Hindus, probably all his friends were Hindus. That does not in any way affect his religion. I don't object to the mentioning of him being raised by Hindus. However, the word "but" should not be there and instead it should be changed to "and" because "but" makes the sentence sound like he left Islam to become Hindu. If "and" is used in the sentence then it is accurate, with no pushing for hidden POV.--Khan1982 21:13, 24 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Coming back to the article, as you rightly said, his being around Hindus or having a majority of Hindu friends does not in any way affect his religion. Therefore I question the neccessity of having that portion of the sentence in the article. The information it conveys is pointless, and it adds no value to the article.
 * As of now the sentence reads "Although his family was Muslim, he was raised by Hindus for most of his life". While this removes but-and problem by removing both of them, the second part of the sentence still remains, which I feel shouldnt be there. His parents ethnic origin, and their (as well as his) religion is of note. His friend circle, as well as all the other people he is around, somehow doesn't seem relevant to me, in an article about him.
 * xC | ☎  23:01, 24 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Its fine if the statement is put in another part of the biography topic to make it blend in better, but I don't see it being irrelevant. It is just a little additional information that few know. To Khan1982, we don't need a lecture on Hinduism or Islam as we aren't arguing about his religion. Please get to the topic. What Zakir Naik says on his Peace TV doesn't matter here. I'm not bothered about you changing "but" to "and" or whatsoever, as what I seek is the meaning of the sentence to be understood.--S3000 18:31, 27 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with xC, the mentioning of him being raised by Hindus is not very important. On the other hand, I also agree with S3000 and we may add the Hindus part in his life, as long as it is explained in a proper way. The way it's there now is like someone trying to pull a fast one, trying to say that his family were Muslims but he is now Hindu because he was raised by Hindus for most of his lifetime. That's completely false because he is not Hindu but a straight-up Muslim and a very proud one. It should just say "He is Muslim who was raised by Hindus". There is no point in trying to go further. We don't care what religion he practice at home, something only he knows. I had to mention the difference between Islam and Hinduism because that's where my point was. Dr. Zakir made it clear to the world on a special debate between Hinduism and Islam on Peace TV, in which Muslims and Hindus both agreed. So it was not just coming out of one side.--Khan1982 22:31, 27 October 2007 (UTC)


 * (Replying to both above)
 * Stating that the people around him (or brought him up) have been mostly Hindus doesn't seem very useful to me. How is it even vaguely encyclopedic to note that although he is a Muslim, the majority of the people around him are Hindus? The majority of people in India are Hindus. So? Does that mean we state that as well in this article? Because to me this seems like someones trying to fit in religion here unnecessarily.
 * Lets take up a few examples -
 * Eminem is a white rapper. Should we go note on his page that although he is a white rapper, the majority of his colleagues are black?
 * Which featured article about, say, any international actress has lines like "she was of one religion, but the majority of the people around her aren't and actually follow another religion"?
 * To Khan1982 - why should the page read "He is a Muslim who was raised by Hindus"? Does that add any value to the page? Is that something you will find in Encyclopedia Britannica, which religion a person is of and what religion are the people who raised him? Which serious enyclopedia ever has information like that?
 * To S3000 - The article should have things that people should know and that matter when we discuss the life history and career of SRK. You say that it is a little additional information that few people know. That is correct, so now should we go and add to the article that he was a non-smoker earlier at one point in his life but then turned into o chain-smoker who'd litter his movie sets with stubs and now is a light to moderate smoker?
 * Please people, think about it - what we add to the article should be things that need to be there. Why are we adding the religion about the people who brought him up? What use is it? What does it add to an article about him?
 * xC | ☎  16:08, 28 October 2007 (UTC)


 * User:Khan1982 was a sock-puppet of an abusive user and has been blocked indefinitely.
 * I do not know what stops User:S3000 from responding on the talk page of this article. -xC- 06:08, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Nothing has stopped me from responding on this page. I was actually silent for sometime as I was waiting for other responses. If you and other wikipedians feel that inserting the religion of people who brought him up is not needed, there's nothing I can do or say. Just have it the way you feel is best for the page and I'll support. Happy 2008!--S3000 (talk) 16:45, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

SRK Launches $2.1 Billion SRK Boulevard in U.A.E.
The development project, a tribute by ‘King Khan’ in response to the love and affection shown by the people of the U.A.E. to Indian cinema, Shah Rukh Khan Boulevard will be located on the Dana Island in Ras Al Khaimah.

This is the latest in the series of endorsements and signature developments that are coming up in Dubai with names such as Brad Pitt, Boris Becker and Tiger Woods continuously doing the rounds.

Khan will work closely with Los Angeles based architect Tony Ashai in the design concept of the beachfront community comprising 10 residential towers, it was announced during a press conference here. Announcing the project with T.S.A. Group, Shah Rukh Khan said, “Indian cinema has enjoyed strong emotional ties with the U.A.E. and Arab cine-goers for decades. The Arab world is Hindi film industry’s strongest foreign market.

“Shah Rukh Khan Boulevard is my tribute to the love and affection shown by the people of the U.A.E. to Indian cinema. I have lent my name to the project and I intend to share and transfer my passion for design and living spaces into this world class community that residents will be proud of.”

Scheduled for completion in 2012, Shah Rukh Khan Boulevard will have residences including specially designed studios, and one-and two-bedroom apartments and townhouses. It will also have beach front features piers and boardwalks besides marine sports and leisure facilities.

Shafi Toffic, President of T.S.A. Group, said, “With a fan base of over three billion people worldwide, Shah Rukh Khan is the most successful name in the movie industry globally. It is our honor to be associated with him to develop a premium, resort-style community on Dana Island, Ras Al Khaimah, a fast developing tourism and lifestyle destination offering peaceful pristine surroundings.”

Tony Ashai, Principal, Ashai Design Corporation, U.S.A., commented, “This project is very special to me because of Shah Rukh Khan’s involvement in the concept and design.”

Shah Rukh Khan Boulevard will be part of Dana Island, which will eventually house several hotels, a shopping centre and commercial complexes spread across 6.3 million square metres.

T.S.A. Group will showcase the boulevard at Cityscape Dubai 2008 running here from October 6 to 9. Rakeen is the master planner and development arm of the Ras Al Khaimah government in the UAE.

Source: indiajournal.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.251.87.21 (talk) 14:46, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Khan's Malaysian knighthood
Khan was awarded the Darjah Mulia Seri Melaka (DMSM), which carries the title ‘Datuk’. It was conferred to him by the Malacca state, one of the 13 states of Malaysia, for promoting Malacca in his songs and films. Khan’s film “One Two Ka Four” was shot in Malacca. The actor was among several others who to get the award on the occasion of 70th birth anniversary of Malacca’s head of state Mohd Khalil Yaakob.

Read: http://in.news.yahoo.com/43/20081011/908/ten-rise-datuk-shah-rukh-khan.html

60.50.246.46 (talk) 11:07, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I've put it in, under Biography. Fanatix 14:12, 23 October 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fanatix (talk • contribs)

SRK back injury
A few years back (2003), SRK had suffered from major back problems and had to go through a life threatening operation for the same. Reportedly, had he not undergone the surgery, there would have been chances of his left hand getting paralysed. During the surgery there was also a possibility of irreparable nerve damage. Thankfully, the operation was successful. But he was asked not to indulge in any kind of exercise.

srk and world envirnment
Dedicated to World Earth Day, the channel here Monday launched a special music video titled “Earth - A Song for Life” and messages by actors Shah Rukh, Preity, Kunal Kapoor, Rahul Bose and Science and Technology Minister Kapil Sibal on the Internet.

The lyrics have been penned by Sameer of “Sawaariya” fame, Sandeep Chowta has composed the music and Bangalore-based music band Karma6 has lent its voice for the song that inspires people to care about mother earth.

“The sole intention of the music is to inspire viewers and listeners to realize that even one small step can help save our world,” said Chowta.

Netizens can log on to www.natgeotv.co.in to download the song.

“We are extremely happy that these talented stars have joined us in our endeavour to protect our world,” Nikhil Mirchandani, managing director of National Geographic Channel (South Asia), said in a press statement.

“Music can reach out to people across borders. We were convinced that this would be a unique way to spread the message and inspire the youth to be more environmentally aware.

“The song strikes an emotional chord with the messages, and has an extremely youthful and fresh feel to it. We hope that this anthem will inspire today’s youth to do their bit for a better future,” he maintained.

Shah Rukh in his message said he is optimistic the country’s youth would succeed in making the earth a better place to live in.

“I believe my children will breathe easier. I believe there will be nicer things around them to look at. I believe they will be closer to nature. I’m a non-cynic,” Shah Rukh said.

“I’m a very positive thinker and I believe in the power of the youth, and I believe in the sensitivity of the youth. I think the youth is going to be very sensitive to the changing scenario around the world and they will put their best foot forward and make our earth a cleaner, greener, nicer and a better place to live in,” he added.

The actors said even small initiatives like discontinuing the use of plastic can contribute largely in bringing a change.

“My message to all those people out there for Earth Day would be - please try saving the planet, you don’t have to do a very big thing, all you can do is use as little plastic as you can. So if you don’t want Mumbai to drown in the rain or London to have lots of rain or excessive heat anywhere around the world, save it in your little way by using lesser plastic,” urged Preity.

“If one has to go across to the nearby garden for a walk or a jog, why don’t you walk (instead of using a vehicle). I think these are the really simple common sense ways that are not head-in-the-clouds unrealistic, but definitely feet-on-the-ground realistic,” says Rahul Bose in his message.

Sibal said: “Let us preserve nature and thereby preserve ourselves. We can achieve this goal only if we change - change the way we live, change the way we think, change the way we act.”

source BusinessOfCinema  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.251.70.153 (talk) 18:13, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Total cruft
This article is total cruft. I have replaced dozens of non-RS cites with fact. This is the second time I'm doing it and if it is not addressed pronto, I will be blanking large parts of the article. We cant have an article full of OR with fact tags sitting on every sentence for eternity. Sarvagnya 04:06, 3 November 2007 (UTC)


 * You've removed many sources claiming they're unreliable. Tell me please what does make them unreliable. Let me inform you - boxofficeindia.com is the official site of box office figures in India. Likewise many other sources are reliable. The fact that most of these sites' titles consist of the word Bollywood, doesn't mean that they're unreliable.


 * What does make you feel that this article resmbles a fansite? Examples? Comments?


 * See Jolie (FA). She has award in both the infobox and a similar table like this one here.


 * The images are 100% permitted. Why did you remove before even checking it? The license is clear, well-written, it is not copyrighted, and even supported by administrators. Please turn to User:Yamla.


 * Why did you insert this template into the filmography section? Doesn't IMDb satisfy you?


 * I actually appreciate you for raising concern. But that's why we have a talk page, and to prevent any edit war, it's good to use it before doing such drastic edits. Best regards, Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  06:24, 3 November 2007 (UTC)


 * WP:RS explains what type of sources are reliable. Please go through it.  And who is boxofficeindia?  Who made them the "official" site for BO figures in India?  Who runs it?  Are those who run it acknowledged experts in the field?  If so, show me the evidence.  And the image I removed has been tagged for deletion.  Please go and make yourself heard there before you put it back.  And I dont care whether Jolie has an infobox repeated.  Feel free to go and remove it there.  On this article, I see that it serves no purpose.  And no imdb isnt RS for the same reason that wikipedia isnt RS.  We both could edit imdb just as we edit wikipedia.  And all the images being used here are not "100% permitted".  There's many problems with the way you're using it, but I will hold off on removing them until I can investigate them fully.  But the non-RS sources will go and if they're not replaced with proper sources in a week or two, I will blank content.  Thanks.  Sarvagnya 07:08, 3 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I won't go through it. NO! I want YOU to bring the evidence of these sites which are used here being non-RS. First of all there are special tags for it. What a surprise! Yes there are, and they have to be used IN the reference template. You can't just remove and tah with citation needed.


 * You said, "And who is boxofficeindia?" - and who are you to invalidate it? According to what. You can't just direct me to WP:RS. I want the indicating quotes HERE. Plus, featured articles use it. See Lage Raho Munnabhai. It is used --> it is permitted and was even featured in the "today's featured article" section. Yes!!


 * As for the image, OK.


 * All these tags cannot be used above because you discussed nothing. Just nothing apart from the RS and the images.


 * "if they're not replaced with proper sources in a week or two, I will blank content." - NO - You won't!


 * Shahid •  Talk 2 me  07:24, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
 * no. i dont need to quote rs verbatim on every page which uses non RS sources.  RS, NOR, V are among the most basic editing principles and you need to familiarise yourself with it before you start being so sure of yourself.  and NO, i dont need to prove that boxofficeindia is a 'nobody'.. it is for you to prove that they're acknowledged experts because you're the one claiming so.  Yes everytime you use a source, you're making a claim that they're reliable and that they're experts.  So it is for you to back up your claim with evidence.  and it is a fansite as long as you dont bring proper sources to the table so that we can see what is genuine and what is nonsense.  07:38, 3 November 2007 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarvagnya (talk • contribs)

NO! You have to provide. Thousand of pages use this source. I've even heard its mention on an Indian talk show. It is a net source, just like every other source on other pages, so we can use it. Now if you think that we can't, so please give reasons. What is the reason? I can come to another page and say that most of the references are non-RSs. So what? YOUUUUUU have to prove. Shahid •  Talk 2 me  08:06, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Have you read WP:RS? =Nichalp   «Talk»=  13:23, 3 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes I have. So what? There are no indications for these sites being unreliable. Many of them appear in featured articles. While your tags here are definitely exaggerated. Why does this sound as a fansite? It doesn't. Please I ask everybody too read before making themselves important persona and tagging articles with unnecessary tags, and that's all, without providing ANY minor explanation. I'm waiting for replies. Best regards, Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  13:57, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I think that Box Office website needs to be checked out as it is rather peculiar that the home page isn't accessible. It probably isn't a good idea to use so many references to this site if the publisher can't be found as we can't be 100% of who has written it although technically it should be reliable if it is the official statistics site. There must be another site witha full home page that displays the same information? ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦      "Talk"? 13:31, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

...although technically it should be reliable if it is the official statistics site... - Now this is exasperating. Please dont keep repeating it. What do you mean "official"? "Official" for what? for who? Is it the "official" site that the United Nations' Secretary General uses to look up bolly stats? Or the "official" site for the Indian Govt., to do the same? "Official" what? "Official" who? Looking at the site, there seems to be nothing official about it. It doesnt even have the editor's name! To me it reads like a bollywood fan making up stats on the fly and blogging it on the internet, clumsy ads and all. And you want me to take that seriously? Sarvagnya 23:52, 5 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Quote: "To me it reads like..." - To you? To me it readsvery very well. And to The Times of India, the largest seeling daily newspaper in the world, too. Now I understand why you don't want it - just because y-o-u don't like it. Whether it's the official or not, it's reliable, and that's according to the site. One more thing, maybe not the United Nations' secretary, maybe for the Indian Govt., but The Times of India, again, a newspaper, (and nobody here has the authority to invalidate it...) does make a use of it. Spartaz gave his support. Why can't you do that, dear Sarvagnya. Best regards, Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  00:33, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

This whole issue is something I have been talking about since last December 2006 at WT:INCINE, and is a problem with the Bollywood industry as a whole. Sadly it seems that nothing much has changed even after a year. The fact is that there are no reliable sources for film status or box office statistics, either in print or online. Print sources (Stardust, Cineblitz, Filmfare etc) may be reliable only so far as the article is written in an objective or semi-objective way, and we all know how gossippy these filmi magazines are. Online sources are, well, pretty crap. No serious editor could even think of suggesting that information from sites such as Apunkachoice, MusicIndiaonline, AOL and Tripod member homepages fit WP:RS in any way.

But there is a dim light on the horizon. Google News is an excellent source for Indian entertainment news (notice how this URL directs to Indian topics) except when they produce results from rubbish non-neutral websites such as GlamSham and SantaBanta. This argument about shifting the responsibility of editors to prove the authenticity of sources may work well in other areas of Wikipedia but it is meaningless here; there just aren't any RS that satisfy Wikipedia requirements where ICINE is concerned. So the best thing to do is for editors who are truly dedicated and committed to the INCINE project should regularly read the news and use these articles as good source material. I believe this is a step in the right direction. Ekantik talk 22:25, 31 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Well reliability is not an easy task, but box office india and ibos network are RSes; the disclaimers and the "about us" pages on these sites are clear. As it was requested, I have found an evidence, proof that box office india is reliable, and the proof is that RSes like The Times of India cite box offcie india as their source of information. That's a perfect evidence for this site being reliable. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  12:50, 1 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes I'm familiar with your arguments, Shahid. I spent the better part of yesterday reading through them on various India-related project pages. I disagree with your conclusions. ToI itself is not a reliable source most of the time. First of all, it is not totally necessary to include film reviews in articles dedicated to articles, except if the film is notable. In other words, we do not have to write about every movie and we do not have to include reviews for all of them, just the important ones. What are SRK's biggest hits? DDLJ, KKHH, KANK? That itself is POV, but those films were undoubtedly well-known so it is OK if a couple of comments about them were included. Comments about them, not box-office statistics all the time. We don't have to write about Chak de India and other recent offerings. They may have been hits but were clearly not as 'big' as DDLJ et al. Whoops, there I go sauntering into POV-land.... Ekantik talk 22:13, 1 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Well ToI is a reliable source, not because it is my PoV, but because it is supported by WP:RS and its conditions. I'm sorry but I'm not going to argue over this issue, I've had enough of it, and have some better things to do. ToI is a newspaper, a famous newspaper. I strongly think that editors don't have the authority to invalidate its reliability or usage on Wikipedia. Saying that it is unreliable most of the time - this is the PoV here. I'm talking about box office figures, and box office india is reliable, just like ibosnetwork is. If you follow these sites, you will notice that, everything these sites state, is well supported by other reliable sources. But apparently, you are talking about reviews. Well, I tend to agree with you partially. The case is that in our particular Bollywood-related BLP articles all the mentioned films are notable. We don't mention films like Guddu, English Babu Desi Mem, Hey Ram, Chaahat and so forth, but only notable films. It can be perceived as PoV too, but if you look at it, it's actually not my PoV. I'll later post a detailed reply to you, I'm just too busy these days. My best regards, Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  23:41, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Like I said, Shahid, we have been discussing this issue at WT:INCINE since December 2006 and nothing new has happened. Apart from that it appears that you have misunderstood my previous comment. I meant to say that it is evident that you think box office figures are more important information for an article that information about the actual person, just like every other hero-worshipper editor of Bollywood actors. It isn't. If you don't have a WP:CON it is useless arguing about WP:RS. Ekantik talk 19:25, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry? "hero-worshipper editor of Bollywood actors."?! "It is useless arguing with hero-worshippers"?? Dear Ekantik, if you could calm yourself a bit, I would be extremely grateful. I'm usually very very nice, but if you want to see me like that, please do not attack me personally, calling me a "hero-worshipper" which I find very impolite. Please refrain from commenting on what, according to you, I think. What exactly are you talking about? Could you explain yourself?


 * Let me inform you that I don't give a damn for box office figures when it's compared to information about the actor and the film itself. I'm not here to glorify actors, nor am I a big fan of box office checks, but for commercial actors like Shahrukh Khan, box office is an integral part of their film career. Do you disagree? As for boxofficeindia.com -- it is used in newspapers, in one WP:FA, and in addition to that, two administrators supported my evidence for it being reliable. Chak De India is, correct me if I'm wrong, the second biggest hit of the year. And OSO is the highest grosser ever, as it was indicated in several reputable sources, so we definitely have to mention it. On the other hand, Paheli, for example, was quite unnoticed. And Swades too, doesn't really require a box office report, as it was a kind of an art film, just like Amitji's recent The Last Lear, and its success remains unharmed regardless of box office collections. These are only examples. As I said before, I agree with you in parts. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  19:39, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


 * My question is, what exactly are you trying to say/do? Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  19:56, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Religion
Khan's family is Muslim, and he was brought up by none other than his parents. However, living in Cosmopolitan India, he grew up with Hindus for most of his life, and was fascinated with Hindu festivals like Ramlila. !-- DO NOT SIMPLY DELETE OR MODIFY THIS STATEMENT. REFER CAREFULLY TO THE CITATION PROVIDED OR GO TO THE DISCUSSIONS PAGE - THERE IS A TOPIC ON THIS. IT WAS ALREADY DISCUSSED AND ACCEPTED. IF YOU HAVE CONCERNS, DISCUSS IT FIRSTLY THERE; GENTLEMEN / LADIES -- I HAVE KNOWN HIM FROM CHILDHOOD, HE WAS NEVER RAISED 'BY' HINDUS, BUT WE ALL WERE RAISED 'WITH' HINDUS AND THOROUGHLY ENJOYED THE COSMOPOLITAN INDIAN CULTURE AND TRADITIONS; CELEBRATED EACH OTHER'S FESTIVALS AND LIVED ALL INDIAN CULTURES TO THE HILT. THERE IS DEFINITELY A TYPO ERROR IN TEHELKA ARTICLE, INSTEAD OF SAYING 'RAISED WITH' THEY HAVE TYPED 'RAISED BY', THAT IS IT. -- Khan has claimed to be a devouted muslim, according to BBC asia.[]


 * I've removed all of it from the article. There is absolutely no reason to include the religion of the people he was raised by in the article. -xC- 06:03, 30 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm with you. It's the best thing we can do for now. We can later discuss further. Regards, Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  07:34, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, there is no reason why religion cannot be mentioned in the article, and removing reliably-sourced information may be done with good intentions but may also count as a form of vandalism. Without getting into long drawn-out debates over whether SRK thinks of himself more as a Hindu or Muslim, it is just enough to state either that he is a Muslim or that he was born to Muslim parents. I'll start editing appropriately soon. But frankly I think there is much more to do with this article than worry about whether he is Hindu or Muslim. Ekantik talk 22:02, 31 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Firstly, I'm sorry, what? I removed the religion of the people who have raised him, which is useless in the article, which is supposed to be about him. You say thats vandalism?
 * Secondly, it doesn't matter what anyone thinks about whether he feels/thinks/believes himself to be, more muslim or hindu. All that matters is whether the religion of the people that raised him is notable enough to be included in an article about him. Isn't that what we should be checking/debating?
 * -xC- 12:23, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Formatting
Can somone please fix the formatting for the filmography... It seems to be messed up. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.181.178.207 (talk) 09:18, 15 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Fixed. Thank you, Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  11:56, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I just wanted to say, Paheli is not the first to do anything. Pather panchali won the Oscar for Best Foreign Film and Lagaan was also nominated so I don't know where this hackery is coming from. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.232.7.94 (talk) 01:10, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

NOT PATHAN/PASHTUN

Can you remove the His parents are of Pathan Orgin, since this is innacurate .... His mother is Rajput and his father has no definite lineage to any Pashtun tribe, since you have to at least know what tribe you are, i find this insulting to have these FALSE BOLLYWOOD actors FALSIFY their lineage and claim something THEY ARE NOT .. IT IS MORE APROPRIATE for them to be classified to be of INDIAN ORIGIN ! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.70.29.14 (talk) 22:44, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

The Image is used Without Permission!
The picture used for this article is from a private collection! It was taken on Schiphol Airport Amsterdam in 2005. Mr Khan was leaving after the IFFA Awards 2005 in Amsterdam! So my request is to remove this image and use another one. He has much more pictures! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.85.111.47 (talk) 20:26, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

ethnicity
While I see arguing about Shah Rukh Khan's religion is everyone's favourite sport, I'd like to bring up a new one. This article lists him as a Pashto, but the article on Hindkowans lists him as Hindkowan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dalmatianfan52 (talk • contribs) 08:37, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I have edited this to reflect the basics. The 2 references stating both parents to be Pathan was both poor and one reference wasn't even a working link. HIs mother was most certainly not Pathan, and the above writer is correct to mention that unless one describes this point of tribal heritage more explicitly (i.e. which Pashtun tribe he belongs to) which it doesn't, it appears to be adisputed point, with no proof and hence no place on wikipedia. HIs father Taj Mohammed Sahib's actual ancestry has never been recorded or declared in any written verifiable sources, hence I believe the appropriate edits which can cite the basic true info have been made and should remain, until further info can be found and brought to light.--~Raja~ (talk) 13:18, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Shah Rukh Khan's family comes from the city of Peshawar in Pakistan and that city is about 99.9% ethnic Pashtuns. So what's the chances of him being Pashtun? Isn't the word "Pathan" used for all ethnic Pashtuns? Many sources say he is Pathan, he himself claimed many times he is of Pathan origin. Why is everyone so oppose to or so hostile to the idea of him being of Pashtun ethnic background? The city of Peshawar has been part of Afghanistan for ages, until it was lost to the Sikhs in approximately in the mid 1800s. It became part of British India then Pakistan as of 1947.--119.30.66.179 (talk) 12:46, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Pathans see Afghans. Comes to mean those tribes not living in Afghanistan itself.
 * Afghans (1) An ethnic group: the Pushtun tribes inhabiting the area roughly lying between the Hindu Kush in the North and the Indus in the South...

Family
Obviously we need to have more info about SRK's family and parents. Just look at Tom Cruise page for example. So I am adding that his mum died in ICU at Batra Hospital, Delhi. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mUyRVqpAo1c Tri400 (talk) 14:11, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Can think of adding criticisms too
As BCCI and ICC were both against Shahrukh khan 'using' cricket to promote himself, this can be added as a section in criticisms. Today ICC snubbed him by saying that he should not enter dressing room. Post your suggestions (Niketsundaram1977 (talk) 21:52, 18 May 2008 (UTC))

This page:
Needs work; I'm on it —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aaaxlp (talk • contribs) 02:45, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

"Shah Rukh"
Could somebody explain to me why a search for Shah Rukh redirects to this Bollywood chap, rather the far more important 15th century ruler who was obviously his namesake? There isn't even a link to the original Shah Rukh's article. I'll be changing the links, if nobody expresses any objections.--76.104.221.167 (talk) 04:34, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 * His real name is Shahrukh, not Shah Rukh. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  12:02, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Err... The Timurid ruler, or the actor? It's true in either case.--76.104.221.167 (talk) 01:11, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Shahid,i totally  agree. Iam Suddha

Shah Rukh can not be Pathan or Muslim, because I recentley saw Sha Rukh in film fare award in London bending down on Rekha's knees and touching her feets asking for blessing and let me tell you guys Pathan's or muslims don't do that. who ever you are mate don't be shame of who you are. remember this money or award is not every thing in this world pride is more important thing a person should have. a pride of who person is and their background and people respect that more. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.36.107.105 (talk) 00:34, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh so any Muslim just respectfully following a Hindi gesture of respect is suddenly a non Pathan and non Muslim? In that case, is Yusuf Khan aka Dilip Kumar also a non Muslim for adopting a Hindu name for movies? Is Salman Khan no longer Muslim for using Hindu names in the actual movie? Were the Pashtuns no longer Muslim when they enforced a violent policy of control over their subjects during their rule of India (which was at odds with Islamic laws of governing subjects of any faith - hence a non Muslim practice)? Please be real and contribute fairly with intelligence and proof, not bias and conjecture --~Raja~ (talk) 12:36, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:INDIA Banner/Delhi Addition
Note: WP India Project Banner with Delhi workgroup parameters was added to this article talk page because the article falls under Category:Delhi or its subcategories. Should you feel this addition is inappropriate, please undo my changes and update/remove the relavent categories to the article -- Amartyabag   TALK2ME  02:39, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Controversies
The quality of the writing apart, the whole section has absolutely no relevance to this biographical article. Manoj Kumar incident is related to one of him movies and should be mentioned in the movie article; no in an article about his personal life. I seriously believe the verbal clash with some other person is highly trivial to be mentioned in an article. AFAIK, Sharukh has not been involved in any major controversies worth mentioning in the article. Gnanapiti (talk) 21:24, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea about SRK being a Hindu though he seems to be making sure sure his son is brought up as one, but he is not a Pashtun/Pakhtun or Pathan. He father was a kharey - a city deweller in Peshawar - many of who are of Awan affiliation. Unfortunately in India the term Khan is automatically assumed to be of Pashtun origin and in order to elevate themselves non-Pashtuns from the NWFP also go along with this. User: Moarrikh, 16:51, 29 August 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Moarrikh (talk • contribs)
 * I completely agree but it has already been re-added. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  21:29, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * At the moment there is no longer a Controversies section in the article. Shouldn't his ad for skin-lightening cream be mentioned? It made foreign news headlines e.g. BBC (here). - Fayenatic (talk) 20:57, 4 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I added the above, but Shahid deleted it. I accept this for his reasons stated here. - Fayenatic (talk) 12:30, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

IMPORTANT INFORMATION FOR YOU GUYS
I HAVE FOUND SOME INTERESTING NEWS ABOUT SALMAN KHAN, SAIF ALI KHAN , SHAHRUKH KHAN, AAMIR KHANAND FARDEEN KHAN THE INFORMATION IS VERY IMPORTANT FOR EVERYONE SO PLEASE ADD THE INFO FOR ALL THE 5 KHANS ITS REALLY VERY IMPORTANT AND I AM NOT LYING HERE IS THE LINK FOR THE NEWS [http://newsfrombollywood.blogspot.com/2008/08/salman-google-king-of-bollywood.html. WHO IS THE REAL BADSHAH OF BOLLYWOOD]     A R Ansari September 7 2008. (UTC).
 * This "info" is unencyclopedic nonsense, and the link is worse. See WP:RS, WP:BLP, WP:POV, WP:NOT. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a fansite. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  12:41, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

IPL
I do not know why my question was deleted without being answered, so I shall put it forward again. Why is it not mentioned that Kahn co-owns the IPL cricket team Kolkata Knight Raiders along with Juhi Chawla and Jai Mehta?  Blood ed Edge  Sign/Talk 19:34, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * It is, friend :) Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  19:43, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, found the reference. Funny, I didn't see it mentioned last time I asked this question, [thinking face]. Cheers,  Blood ed Edge   Sign/Talk 17:24, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Number of Filmfare Awards
please change "has won thirteen filmfare awards" to "has won fourteen filmfare awards" in the last sentence of second para. editsemiprotected RollTheDice (talk) 17:09, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
 * ✅--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 05:40, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

A REQUEST
'''PLEASE DON'T REMOVE ANY HIGHLIGHTED LINKS OTHERS ARE COMPLAINING ME THAT WHY ARE YOU GUYS REMOVING THE HIGHLIGHTED LINKS AND LIVING IT AS A PLAIN TEXT OTHERS HAVE ALSO COMPLAINED THAT THEY ARE FINDING DIFFICULTIES TO GET INFORMATION FOR E.G. U GUYS ARE JUST WRITING NEW DELHI AND NOT HIGHLIGHTING IT SOME PEOPLE ARE BLAMING ME FOR THE MISTAKES YOU GUYS ARE DOING. ARA''' 4 NOVEMBER 2008. (UTC)


 * Please read WP:OVERLINK. "It is counterproductive to hyperlink all possible words". In particular, it's not necessary to highligth (wikilink) the words "New Delhi" every time they appear on the article. Wikilink them only the first time that they appear, and leave the rest unlinked. --Enric Naval (talk) 01:18, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

SPELLING MISTAKES AND GRAMMER MISTAKES
THERE ARE SPELLING MISTAKES AND GRAMMER MISTAKES TOO IN THE ARTICLE SO I AM CORRECTING IT COOPORATE WITH ME PLEASE. ARA''' 6 NOVEMBER 2008. (UTC).Salman khan65 (talk) 07:03, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I HAVE CORRECTED THE MISTAKES WHICH I MENTIONED I HAVE ALSO GONE THROUGHLY THROUGH THE ARTICLE AND NOW THERE ARE NO MISTAKES. Salman khan65 (talk) 07:03, 6 November 2008 (UTC)


 * You have not corrected anything, but just overlinked it and created mistakes. Shshshsh2 (talk) 11:01, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

and is written as amd there are some dashes also in the article User:Salman_khan65--99.229.145.116 (talk) 15:30, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

ONE THING WHICH IS IMPORTANT FOR ALL OF YOU
GUYS I HAVE SHAH RUKH'S FAMILY PHOTOS IF YOU ALL WANT I WILL ADD THEM AND ALSO HIS CAR PHOTO WHICH HE USES IF YOU ALL WANT IT THEN PLEASE REPLY TO ME AND EVEN i HAVE HIS CHILDHOOD PHOTOS ALL THE FANS CAN SEE THOSE PHOTOS PLEASE REPLY TO ME THROUGHT THIS TALK PAGE.ARA''' 6 NOVEMBER 2008. (UTC).--Salman khan65 (talk) 08:10, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Where did you get these images from? Shshshsh2 (talk) 10:28, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

My friend emailed me do u want me to put it or not. ARA--99.229.145.116 (talk) 15:27, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Well I personally don't need them. I wanna know where they come from originally. They don't seem to be free, because if your friend sent you his childhood images, he found them somewhere on the net. They were not taken by him. So the answer is no. Shshshsh2 (talk) 15:31, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

actually it is from shahrukh's official website was shahrukhkhan.com which he closed a long time ago.--Salman khan65 (talk) 15:35, 6 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Then they can only be used under "fair use". However, since the article already has a free photography, that means that you can only use a photography that is really important for explaining some content on the article, and you have to give a good justification of why the photo is needed. Otherwise, the photo will be removed due to all the restrictions on fair use images. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:50, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I AM GOING TO ADD MY CAR PHOTO ITS ALREADY REGISTERED BY MY FRIEND WHO OWNS THE COPYRIGHT--Shah rukh khan 7 November 2008 (UTC)

A REASON TO ADD MY CAR PHOTO
MANY PEOPLE HAD EMAILED ME THAT WHY DON'T I PUT MY CAR'S PHOTO TO THE ARTICLE IT WILL ALSO GIVE MY FANS A CLEAR VIEW OF MY LIFESTYLE. PLEASE DONT REMOVE IT ITS ALSO FOR REFERENCE PURPOSES I HOPE YOU GUYS WILL ATLEAST TAKE THIS REQUEST OF MINE SERIOUSLY LOTS OF LOVE Shahrukh Khan--(talk) 04:38, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh please you're not dealing with a group of fools here. It's more than clear that you and User:Salman khan65 are the same person. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  05:18, 7 November 2008 (UTC)


 * We'll have to wind up using the car photo. The one currently on the article is about to be deleted for bad copyright commons:Image:Shahrukh-khan-filmare-october.jpg and the new one has a copyright problem too commons:Image:Salman_Khan_%26_Shahrukh_Khan.jpg.


 * Mind you, the only "car photo" I can find only shows only half his face :D commons:Image:17320srkre5.jpg --Enric Naval (talk) 23:58, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Story about his parents
Can this be added to explain a little about his parents...

"The story of how his parents met is like something straight from a Bollywood film - his mother needed a blood transfusion after a car accident and his father, who happened to be at the hospital at the time, gave her his blood. Subsequently, they fell in love.".. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/2204900.stm

Please change city of birth to Delhi
For the sake of accuracy, New Delhi =/= Delhi. --128.211.201.161 (talk) 06:36, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Biography edit
In the biography part of Shahrukh Khan on wikipedia, I was surprised to read the below paragraph "Khan said to the B News coorespondent that he will be directing a new movie, King of Bollywood, which will be releasing on Christmas of 2009. He said that he has already started working on his new movie. He says that he is very confident that this movie will be a blockbuster hit. The actor is Shahrukh Khan himself and the actress is Rakhee Sawant. He said that he has invested 35 Crores in the making of this film. The movie has been filmed in China, Japan, India, Canada, USA, and Russia. He has dedicated all his time in the making of the movie which is said to be releasing on Christmas of 2009."

I have not read any such news anywhere, and according to me it is an act of vandalism. But the article is semi protected and I couldn't edit it. So anyone who has privileges to edit the article please remove above paragraph and wait for any citation which I know would no be there.


 * Thank you for pointing this out. I don't know who added the material but it is unsourced and therefore does not comply with Wikipedia standards. I deleted it. -Classicfilms (talk) 17:58, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

shahrukh has a
1.100 crore house mannat, bandra area(including the back side property,which he made a red chillies office) 2.he has a red chillies vfx studio in lokhadwala area where computer graphics engineers and professionals work for salary 3.he has a house and apartment in delhi(not flat but a full apartment) 4.he is developing a residential cum commercial property in ras al khaima,dubai which is a 250 crore project. 5.he has a villa in palm jumeirah island next to david beckhams villa. 6.he is a member of the board of directors in jet airways,he has 8% stakes in jet airways(i guess everyone will be shocked to hear this,but its true) 7.he has a statue of his in madam tussads museum in london 8.he has a statue of his in gravin museum in paris (the 2nd indians statue after mahatma gandhi)along with tat the highest honour award of france. 9.he has won the highest honour knighthood datuk award of malaysia. and many innumerable filmfare,screen,zee cine,sansui,iifa awards. 10.the only indian along with sonia gandhi in US magazine newsweeks most powerfull 50 people in the world(only person from the field of entertainment, not even tom cruise,tom hanks,brad pitt,will smith) 11.he is the owner of Kolkata knight riders for 10 years(showed profit in just 1st year even without reaching the final of the ipl, while mukesh ambani, vijay mallya lost money in 1st year) shahrukh has signed md azharuddins 19 year old son asaduddin for kolkata knight riders(see he has a eye on the future as well) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.250.125.129 (talk) 21:03, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Honors that need mention
Shahrukh Khan presented an award at the 2009 Golden Globe Awards - the first Indian actor to do so. It needs to go into the page. Here's a news item from the golden globes press release:

Another factoid on SRK (from the same press release) - was recently named as one of the 50 most powerful people in the world by Newsweek - he's the only film star on the list! Worth a mention? I think so.

Anagha (talk) 09:34, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Golden Globe Awards
Can we mention that he made a special appearance on stage to present a short preview of the movie Slumdog Millionaire at the 66th Golden Globe Awards on January 11, 2009 in Beverly Hills, California?--Junglebrother (talk) 18:42, 13 January 2009 (UTC)


 * As the article stands, there isn't an adequate space to insert a single comment about the GGs. However, I think we could if we created a larger section called something like "notable appearances" and list this as one among a few others. The fact that he was the first to do so for the GG establishes notability but is not enough for an entire section.
 * On the other hand, since he was available to make the introduction because he was already in Los Angeles filming, My Name is Khan, there is already a mention in the "Production" section of that article. I'll copy it here:


 * Shahrukh Khan, Gauri Khan, and Karan Johar took a break from filming to attend the 66th Golden Globe Awards held in Los Angeles on 11 January 2009. Khan introduced Slumdog Millionaire along with a star from the film, Freida Pinto.


 * Also, Newsweek is already mentioned in the article. -Classicfilms (talk) 20:57, 13 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Another possibility which might work - we could add to the "Actor" section a mention about My Name is Khan and that SRK presented at the GG while in LA working on the film. That might be the most straight forward solution since we could use the information already present in the film article. I'll wait a day - if there are no objections, I will go ahead and make that addition. -Classicfilms (talk) 21:25, 13 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I made this addition. -Classicfilms (talk) 14:20, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Great work. I found it kind of rare for an Indian actor to take part in the GG.--Junglebrother (talk) 04:03, 16 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Great! Glad you like it. -Classicfilms (talk) 07:12, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Shah Rukh Khan to receive an honorary doctorate from Britain's University of Bedfordshire
Bollywood superstar Shah Rukh Khan has been nominated to receive an honorary doctorate in arts and culture from Britain's University of Bedfordshire.

Shah Rukh, the first foreign actor to be conferred the Malaysian title of Datuk - akin to a British knighthood - last year, will receive his first doctorate July 10. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.217.165.140 (talk) 09:41, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

shahrukh lighting villages
Laxmi Mondal of Banhipal village in Orissa's Kendrapara district has never watched any of Shah Rukh Khan's movies, as the village has been without electricity all these years. But for this poor village woman the Bollywood actor has turned into a real life hero by lighting up their lives.

Shah Rukh has funded a solar power harnessing project which provides light to the village after sunset.

'There is no electricity in our village and we don't expect it to be provided by the government in the near future. So the electric lanterns have become very handy for us. Though we used kerosene lanterns earlier, they couldn't be relied upon due to the brisk breeze throughout the day as our village is just a few kilometres away from the Bay of Bengal,' said Mondal.

Banhipal is not the only village which is a beneficiary of Shah Rukh's largesse. There are six other villages - Ahirajpur, Okilapala, Palachua, Rangani, Denlasahi and Gupti in Kendrapara district which have benefited from this solar harnessing project which has been fully funded by Shah Rukh Khan.

The project is part of the Greenathon initiative of NDTV called 'Lighting Billon Lives'. Technical assistance has been provided by The Energy and Resources Institute (TERI).

Each village has been provided with about 50 solar lanterns with a single charging point. The lanterns are charged every morning through solar panels set on rooftops.

The charging of lanterns, distribution and collection of money are mainly manned by women members of the village.

Though Shah Rukh has borne the installation cost, the maintenance cost is taken care of by the villagers themselves.

'We have a corpus to meet the running expenses of these lanterns. We raise the corpus by charging just Rs.2.50 from every villager. We charge extra if one takes the lanterns for use during festivals and special occasions. And if a person from a neighbouring village takes it then he is charged Rs.10 per night,' said Biraja Prasad Pati, of Nature Club, a local NGO which implemented the project.

These villages are primarily small clusters of Bengali-speaking people. The villagers use these lanterns not only to light their homes but also for other purposes.

'We use these lanterns for different purposes. Our men take these lanterns to scare away wild boars during night as they often destroy our standing paddy. The fishermen take these lanterns for fishing during night and our children study with these lanterns,' said Urmila Modal, from Okilapala village, adding that they often give these lanterns free of cost to meritorious students of the village.

Apart from these seven villages, Shah Rukh's generosity has helped in bringing light to two other villages - Jadapala and Tarajodi in Mayurbhanj district of the state. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.250.246.167 (talk) 12:02, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Two-Word Name
Shah Rukh appeared on the talk show 'Oye! its Friday' on 17/1/09. He stated that he writes his name as two separate words 'shah' meaning prince and 'rukh' meaning face or direction. he also mentioned that several Parsis in Mumbai use it as a single word, but he doesn't and that his name has Persian origins. I'll wait for two weeks to see if there is further discussion on this issue (there has been on the past) But now that he has explained how he spells it himself on national television and even given a lengthy explanation for it, this matter should be resolved. watch the interview in 10 parts: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0utZ3dZIGKo cheers --Sayitaintsojoe
 * Sounds like a good idea to me, why don't you move the article to "Shah Rukh Khan." I don't know if you need to wait two weeks for feedback either, I'd wait just a few days but I can't see this as being a serious issue. If you do move the article, check corresponding links to make certain the redirection works. -Classicfilms (talk) 18:06, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm also aware of the fact that he prefers his name spelled separately. However, it does not change the fact that his original name is Shahrukh in one single word. It has already been discussed many a time in the past. "Shah Rukh" is still his alternative name -- if it's the name he prefers, the name that sounds better or whatever reason it may be -- his name is "Shahrukh" until there is an official confirmation of the matter (eg he changed his name officially, not just prefers it to be spelled in some different manner). Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  18:17, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi Shahid - Ok, I could really go either way on this - my concern is following Wikipedia guidelines which state that we need to create articles in accordance to sources. Right now I see the YouTube source above which does indicate that SRK prefers two words. However, if you could provide the sources which state that his official name is one word and thus override the YouTube video above we can move from there. And can you link to whatever discussions already exist on this topic? Since I'm not familiar (and I suspect others are not as well) with the sources or discussions that you are referring to, it would help to have the links here and we can then continue the discussion. We should probably link to them in the body of the article as well. -Classicfilms (talk) 19:30, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Hey dear friend! I don't really get what exactly needs to be sourced here and at the same time don't know what this youtube video offers to the understanding of the issue. He is Shahrukh - that is his birth name, that has always been his name and he had always been referred to as Shahrukh until several years ago when people started using Shah Rukh as well considering his statement. The fact itself that he clarifies his own preference speaks for itself - his name is Shahrukh and Shah Rukh is the way he prefers it to be spelled. Most of his films (all his early films and most of his films nowadays) credit him as Shahrukh. His last film, Rab Ne Bana Di Jodi, has his name spelled accordingly. If you want sources that his birth name is Shahrukh Khan, there's no peroblem. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  20:24, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I am thinking that this is an issue which has confused many (myself included) since I have seen both spellings. I am sure what you are saying is correct but we need to make certain that the Wikipedia always follows Verifiability rules - so yes, it would be a great help to the article to include one or two RS that confirm that his official name is one word. I don't quite know how to do it - maybe a source next to his name in the lead, maybe a small sentence or two about his name with a source - I'll leave that up to you. But I do think somewhere in the article we need to add a reliable source which clarifies that the one word spelling is his birth name (and maybe another RS that he prefers the two word spelling). Thanks Shahid, -Classicfilms (talk) 21:16, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

TV appearances
One of the recent guest appearances on the show 'Oye Its Friday' needs to be mentioned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aragrawa (talk • contribs) 20:14, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

THERE IS ONE SENTENCE MISSING FROM SRK'S CAREER BIOGRAPHY
''' THE SENTENCE IS, In 1994, Khan once again played an obsessive lover's role in Anjaam. Though the movie was not a box office success, Khan's performance earned him the Filmfare Best Villain Award. '''

 ADD THE SENTENCE THANK U  --90.224.123.86 (talk) 02:32, 8 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Please feel free to add it yourself, and please don't use ALL CAPS, which is interpreted online as shouting. There is no need to shout. -GTBacchus(talk) 02:42, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Bibliography - Investment Book Uses Shah Rukh Khan To Teach - Cash The Crash/CNBC
I just finished reading an investment book published by CNBC - Network18 and written by Yogesh Chabria called Cash The Crash that uses Shahrukh Khan to explain investors how they can invest and learn from him. There is mention about his investments in IPL and Production. I feel this is relevant and need to be added in his Bibliography-Books. What do you feel?

219.91.249.100 (talk) 18:23, 15 May 2009 (UTC) Karan

Born in Gurgaon
SRK was born in Gurgaon, i have just reverted back to my edit which says he was born in Gurgaon and refrences a link which says which hospital he was born in, from an 8-part documentary series. That's it! His mother died in Sapra Hospital. So can we please reach a consensus that he was not born in New Delhi? Tri400 (talk) 02:25, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * If you want to change the article's info and you claim that he was born in Gurgaon, so first reach consensus for that. I made a check several times. According to the most reliable of books, he was born in New Delhi.
 * Your sources are also not really reliable. According to this and this and this, he was born in Delhi. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  14:48, 24 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Your links are a not recent, and are from Western India (Mumbai}, my link specifies which hospital he was born in, does ur link do that? 202.92.43.51 (talk) 02:00, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Recent or not, Mumbai or not -- it does not matter as long as the source is reliable. These sources are reliable, your sources are not. Additionally, I can start now my own website claiming he was born in Austin Hospital is Melbourne. Will this make this info true? Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  13:18, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

old biography about shahrukh khan
http://kiwidepia.com/kiwi/cy9oL2EvU2hhaHJ1a2hfS2hhbl8wNjEw —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.6.167.189 (talk) 20:30, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Notable Hindkowans
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindkowans —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.3.43.206 (talk) 16:28, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Award notability
Couldn't help but notice this on my watchlist. I think the Rajiv Gandhi Award for Excellence in the Field of Entertainment in 2002 and Padma Shri, India's fourth highest civilian award from the Government of India in 2005 are definately awards worth noting. The Padma Shri is a national decoration which was awarded by the President of India and is generally the sort of content that is noteworthy in an encyclopedia. The wax work in a major museum in Paris is also of note but I've restructured it -it also illustrated the growing popularity of Bollywood not ony in London but in France too. If it was some non notable minor film award I'd agree but national decorations are of note I believe and I think mentioning them improves the article. Dr. Blofeld       White cat 16:43, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I was sure Padma Shri was there already in the last paragraph. As for Rajiv Gandhi, it is not notable enough and it is not a national honour by any means. As for Guerin, it is not as important Madame Tussaunds. You don't really mean to mention all the possible waxwork museum he will be took in. Let it be. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  21:12, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Yup that's OK now. Dr. Blofeld       White cat 14:04, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Second biggest hit
It's amazing how frequently this phrase appears in the article. Anybody want to double-check the accuracy of these claims? 98.248.32.178 (talk) 18:39, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * They are sourced. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  19:16, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Intro
The first sentence of the article is rather confusing IMO. See "Shahrukh Khan (Hindi: शाहरुख़ ख़ान, Urdu: شاہ رخ خان) born November 2, 1965, sometimes credited as Shah Rukh Khan, is an Indian actor, who has been a prominent Bollywood figure, as well as a film producer and television host."

Somehow one gets an impression that he has been a prominent Bollywood figure and not anymore. I would propose something of the line "Shahrukh Khan (Hindi: शाहरुख़ ख़ान, Urdu: شاہ رخ خان) born November 2, 1965, sometimes credited as Shah Rukh Khan, is a prominent Bollywood actor and film producer." Any objection? ZencvLets discuss 11:13, 15 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, I agree to you, it sounds even better. SthitadebasisLets discuss 01:13, 16 October 2009 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.192.12.12 (talk)

Airport incident
Is there some reason his detaining at Newark airport is not mentioned? It has been getting tremendous coverage from the media, especially since it has inspired the effigy burning of President Obama. 98.66.147.220 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:23, 16 August 2009 (UTC).
 * It is discussed in a subarticle here where it is directly related:
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Name_Is_Khan#Newark_Airport_incident
 * Perhaps the solution is a sentence mentioning that it happened along with a wikilink to this article. -Classicfilms (talk) 21:04, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I created a link at the bottom of this section:
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shahrukh_Khan#2000s
 * -Classicfilms (talk) 05:09, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I must note I find it a bit non-notable and irrelevant in the article for the simple reason that's one of many little controversies which have nothing to do in a biographical article about him, let alone a career section. Sentence mentioning IMO makes it only worse as things should be presented fairly, and one senstence does not really covers the story that well. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  11:31, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I must respectfully disagree with you on this issue Shahid. This story has received major news coverage and thus is notable. I didn't add a source because most of the sentence is a wikilink to a highly sourced subarticle, but sources can easily be added. It is as notable as stating that Khan introduced Slumdog at the Golden Globes. Since at least two editors agree that it should be on the page then the goal from this point should be where. I added it to that section because it is related to the film and it makes perfect sense for it to be there. It doesn't have to be there, it can be part of a see also as well but it should be somewhere on the page. -Classicfilms (talk) 14:08, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Hey friend CF!! I have no doubt this is notable enough to be mentioned on Wikipedia. My question is, however, undue weight. This is by nature a controversy. It has nothing to do with Shahrukh Khan's role in the film, his work on his performance, etc. Khan has been the subject of so many controversies during his years in Bollywood that adding one would be a matter of preferance.
 * As for the Golden Globes - I don't know what to say because actors always take part in these events. No one mentions Tom Cruise's appearances on such shows presenting awards. It belongs more to the page of Golden Globe Awards 2008. I understand the nature of these additions because Indian actors never take part in foreign events such as this and it explains the power of his popularity. It is biased to do that, but anyway. If we could start a section like "Media" - adding some international appearances, notable polls like Newsweek and Time and articles like National Geographic where he is mentioned and ranked - it would be far more interesting. I would start working on such a section on this very page. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  14:28, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi Shahid - Well, I appreciate your concerns about undue weight. It would be if the entire subarticle were on this page. It isn't, rightly so, for the reason you point out. However, I didn't add that, I added one sentence which is a hyperlink to the actual article and that isn't undue weight. As for the GG - SRK has presented at many ceremonies and yet we give a few sentences about Slumdog because they are compliant with WP policies. I don't see it as bias because it was well sourced. Same for this. Readers will come to this article (as the editor above) looking for info about the event as it has received an enormous amount of press all over the world (more so than many other controversies). And as I mentioned above as well, two editors believe it should be on the page so that is consensus. As for the Media section idea, that sounds good, go ahead. I am going to restore the link for the section for now as a "See Also" which will overcome the issues with fairness about sources or undue weight. "See also" sections are also perfectly fair for BLPs. Please discuss here before removing the "see also." -Classicfilms (talk) 14:34, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * CF, undue weight has nothing to do with wide media coverage. Similarly, two editors is not consensus.
 * WP:UNDUE is not about the length of what you mention, but the mention itself. Khan is the biggest star in the country and arguably the country's most succssful actor in the last 30 years. Every controversy he has been involved in has received a tremendous media coverage. None of it is mentioned, because they are too many, they rapidly disappear and get forgotten, and they have nothing to do with his biographical article, his work and his craft (this was discussed on this talk page - please do have a look at previous archives). Mentioning it in see also section may makes much more sense IMO but it seems to be equally inappropriate per WP:LAYOUT, and again WP:UNDUE because we are definitely not going to list all of his controversies from 1992 to present in this section. Anyway.
 * Here you can see the list of presenters at the 2009 Golden Globe Awards. Do you think it is appropriate to mention in the career sections of each and every one of them that they presented an award at this ceremony? This may have been well covered on in the media, but its relevance in a biographical article about a person is almost zero. Anonymous editors will obviously support it because they are by nature not particularly familiar with the spirit of Wikipedia and its rules. I can take it to a widely viewed noticeboard (like BLP) where I can assure everyone (and I'm talking about established editors) will oppose to mentioning it. Anyway, I'm not going to do that as of now because as I said I'm planning to make a section in the coming days. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  15:11, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi Shahid - Why don't we agree to disagree and leave it at that? We have found consensus on leaving the link in "See also" which we both agree is appropriate. Since there are no existing articles on other controversies then I don't think it really is an issue for layout or undue. As for the other issues, it doesn't really matter to me. Whatever other editors think is fine. The goal always is to find a middle ground, consensus, a point where all editors can agree. I think we have found that here and as far as I'm concerned, I don't think there really is a need to prolong the discussion on this particular issue. -Classicfilms (talk) 16:19, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Fine - I'm not going to proceed on it as of now. Don't want to diminish our understanding of collaborative views. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  16:28, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

This issue should be put on SRK's page not MNIK's page. Khan has been already alleged of using it as a publicity stunt for his film, we should not forget that in the whole incident their was no reference of the film, i don't see a point of putting this incident in the film's page and adding it again and again could be tried for vandalising1234peace (talk) 20:14, 17 August 2009 (UTC)--1234peace (talk) 20:14, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * These guidelines help outline how the Wikipedia works: Five pillars. What they emphasize is that the WP reflects information that is established by reliable sources. Rumors are never a part of the WP re: WP:SPECULATION. There is thus enough information to support the inclusion of the event in the WP. It is on the My Name Is Khan page because SRK came to the U.S. to promote the film and discussion of the film was tied to the event. It wouldn't be part of this (the biography) article for the reasons Shahid outlines above. The other option would be to turn it into a separate subarticle but it isn't long enough yet. If it continues to grow that might be an option. For now its current place is appropriate. -Classicfilms (talk) 20:21, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Shahrukh was in US dat day to attend a function hosted by a group of NRI's in an american city, it is too long to put in the page plus it should have been added in SRK's page itself1234peace (talk) 20:57, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Please review Consensus - the subarticle complies with WP policies and should not be removed unless there is consensus to do so. If you would like to move the article to another place please start a formal discussion but do not remove the existing information until consensus is reached. -Classicfilms (talk) 21:01, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Shah Rukh Khan's recent Taekwondo Black Belt
'''Does Shah Rukh Khan's recent Taekwondo "Black Belt" honor from the South Korean government lose notability to deserve a mention ? '''
 * The news of Shah Rukh Khan getting conferred the prestigious Black Belt award in taekwondo from the government of South Korea made major news headlines both in print and electronic media. It's always notable when an international award of this sort is being conferred to anyone. Simultaneously he was also employed as the goodwill ambassador from South Korea to India in the field of arts, culture and tourism. It drew tremendous eagerness among general public as it was a step further aimed to strengthen the bilateral relationships between the two counties India and South Korea, which in contemporary situations is of huge concern. I feel it needs get a mention in Shah Rukh Khan's page. Constructive opinions are welcome.


 * It is of course notable, but as notable to be mentioned in his lead biography. It is in fact mentioned in his awards page. Apart from that, he was awarded so many honorary doctorated and other such awards that this one does not really deserve a special mention. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  20:54, 15 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with Shahid. It is mentioned in awards page so not necessary but I feel being goodwill ambassador should be mentioned. Oniongas (talk) 21:12, 15 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Well said by Shahid and Oniongas. Now I also feel it's unnecessary to be included in the main biography. Sthitadebasis (talk) 21:35, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

mention of place of birth
i suggest to introduce New Delhi in first line [Shahrukh Khan (Hindi: शाहरुख़ ख़ान, Urdu: شاہ رُخ خان) born November 2, 1965, New Delhi] Bigsuperindia (talk) 03:20, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The birth place of SRK is mentioned a number of times in the home page of his biography, so it's unnecessary to edit it this way. (talk) 13:35, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

you are wrong mister. he was born in qissa khuani bazar peshawer. he is the son of a pathan activist  of indian independence acivist taj muhammad khan from peshawer. pakistan se  3   joounakist usay mile bhi hain.aur unk friends hain. I will mention their names and what they had talked tom  KHAN. OKKKKKKKKKK —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ihsanss86 (talk • contribs) 16:31, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

SRK's recent declaration of being among 500 most influential Muslims globally
Shah Rukh Khan has been recently declared to be amongst 500 most influential Muslims in the world by Georgetown University, USA. Need it not find a mention at all??

Sthitadebasis (talk) 00:10, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Please add 2 new movies SRK is filming. One is Ra.1 and the other Don 2.(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don_2_%E2%80%93_The_Chase_Continues) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ishaan don (talk • contribs) 07:51, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Naked Body Scanner Images Of Film Star (Shahrukh Khan) Printed, Circulated By Airport Staff
www.prisonplanet.com/exposed-naked-body-scanner-images-of-film-star-printed-circulated.html link] Grundle2600 (talk) 20:15, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Shahrukh Khan attacked by Hindu fundamentalist groups
this has been in the news for a long time now here is the source: http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5h6ZCn9hTy1j8yAI75uQ0-ln92NwQD9DP9KLG0

it states that "The Shiv Sena, a Mumbai-centered political party known for regional chauvinism and Hindu fundamentalism, has branded Khan a traitor for expressing regret that no cricketers from Pakistan — India's archrival — were chosen to participate in next month's Indian Premier League Twenty20 tournament." This is really important information I am surprised no one has added this yet as it is getting quite nasty now 86.153.128.139 (talk) 13:04, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I actually did want to read up on that myself. There does need to be more of a mention of his involvement with the IPL and the KKR.
 * You're welcome to add in that information btw. Wikipedia is editable by everyone after all. Arnabdas (talk) 19:33, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Automate archiving?
Does anyone object to me setting up automatic archiving for this page using MiszaBot? Unless otherwise agreed, I would set it to archive threads that have been inactive for 30 days and keep at least ten threads.--Oneiros (talk) 17:59, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  19:58, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅--Oneiros (talk) 12:40, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Happy new year
Happy new year is mentioned as filming under the filmography. And there has been a page also made for the film which is a stub with only one reference, which is also irrelevent. As we all know, happy new year is no more under production and the project being unlikely to resume in a near future, i think the page and it's mention under filmography need to be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iradins (talk • contribs) 14:49, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Sounaksrk, 14 May 2010
Requesting you to kindly change the Filmography Notes Column for the year 2008 pertaining to the movie Rab Ne Bana Di Jodi, kindly add "Apsara Best Actor Award (Producers Guild Awards)" which he had won for his performance in that movie at the beginning of this year

Requesting you to kindly change the Filmography Notes Column for the year 2007 pertaining to the movie Chak De India, kindly add "Apsara Best Actor Award (Producers Guild Awards)" which he had won for his performance in that movie

Sounaksrk (talk) 03:54, 14 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Respectfully . Those particular awards are just one among many that he's won. The "Apsara Film and Television Producers Guild Awards" don't even have an article. I don't think their notability is worth a mention in the notes column, especially considering there is a whole separate article of awards and nominations article which lists all of his Apsara awards and more. -- &oelig; &trade; 07:01, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from SourabhDevani, 31 May 2010
1. In 2004, Time magazine considered Shah Rukh Khan as probably the most recognized actor in the world. 2. Please change "In 2008, Newsweek named him as one of the 50 most powerful persons in the world" to "In 2008, Newsmeek named him as one of the most powerful persons in the world, he being the only actor in the list "

SourabhDevani (talk) 05:22, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: This is largely just trivia with no indication of notability making it worth mention in the article. In addition, you haven't provided any sources. Please try again with an explanation of why it is notable, and a reliable source.  Giftiger Wunsch    [TALK]  14:35, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from SourabhDevani, 31 May 2010
In 2007, Eastern Eye magazine named him 'The sexiest man in Asia'

SourabhDevani (talk) 06:02, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: See above.  Giftiger Wunsch    [TALK]  14:35, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Syed2012, 1 June 2010
Syed2012 (talk) 02:45, 1 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: A clear and specific description of the requested change must be included with the edit request. -- SoCalSuperEagle ( talk ) 03:12, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

srk to act in Paul Schrader’s film
Famous Hollywood screenplay writer Paul Schrader has decided to cast Shahrukh Khan in his next film ‘Xtrme City’ which is based on Mumbai underworld. Paul the man behind ‘Taxi Driver’ and ‘American Gigolo’ has tied up with Mushtaq Shiekh and Anubhav Sinha to make a USD10 million-budgeted cops and mafia film titled ‘Xtrme City’.

It is learnt that Shahrukh Khan has given his nod to star in the film and all the credits goes to Mushtaq Shiekh, who wrote the screenplays for ‘Om Shanti Om’, ‘Billu’ and is also working on SRK’s under-production sci-fi thriller ‘Ra1’.

‘Xtrme City’ will be made keeping in mind the choice of the domestic and international audiences. It is an action thriller based on the backdrop of criminal orbit of Mumbai

Paul quips about visiting India, “Spending time in India and working with a Bollywood talent like Shiekh has inspired and excited me to make a film accessible and meaningful to both Indian and American cultures”. By: Bollywood Mantra Staff on 12th October 2009 hieeeee my name is saily jagtap i wanna beeeeeeeeeeeep —Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.60.4.56 (talk) 13:48, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Iliilicious, 1 August 2010
Add the Film "Kismat Konnection" (2008) in the Filmography. He was Narrator in the film.

Source: http://www.apunkachoice.com/scoop/bollywood/20080710-5.html

Iliilicious (talk) 09:06, 1 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes check.svg Done Stickee (talk)  09:14, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 81.131.177.137, 12 August 2010
editsemiprotected

The mention of the wax works, add the most recent one of him in New York's Madame Tussauds. It is not there.

81.131.177.137 (talk) 22:05, 12 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I'll do it. Also there is one in the Hong Kong Tussaudes it seems. -- Imagine Wizard (talk • contribs • count ) Iway amway Imagineway Izardway. 00:08, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Msikk, 2 September 2010
Shahrukh Khan's first movie "In Which Annie Gives it Those Ones" is actually based on life in The School of Planning & Architecture, New Delhi, not Delhi University. The School of Planning & Architecture (SPA) is an independent university with the conferred status of "Deemed To Be a University".

Thanks

Msikk (talk) 00:34, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Not done: Please specify the change you would like to make in a 'please change X to Y' degree of detail and provide a reliable source for any factual change. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 01:00, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

kia hal  hay  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.152.90.28 (talk) 04:40, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Shah Rukh's name spelled wrong on wikipedia
I have NO idea how to edit his page but I just wanted it to be known that his name is Shah Rukh not Shahrukh. I find this really annoying. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PeruvianJew (talk • contribs) 20:23, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * His name is spelled as a one-word name - Shahrukh. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  20:50, 19 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Can someone put this 2008 Berlin image in the 2000s section, it's a good quality photo. File:Shahrukh Khan Berlinale 2008.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by PanjshirPashtun (talk • contribs) 15:28, 21 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Now it's not only Shahrukh Khan, but whole of the media indulged in calling him Shah Rukh Khan or SRK rather than his original name Shahrukh Khan. So I feel it needn't be there like "calling himself" or something like that. This name of his has been a public fav off late, and it has to be accepted more than anything else. At the same time, I feel it is a bit derogatory as well to use the verse like "calling himself" for a person of Shah Rukh Khan's stature in Wikipedia. I have also included "media" to indicate that in that section.

23:26, 19 January 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sthitadebasis (talk • contribs)

Shah Rukh Khan _is_ his original/official name both in Urdu and English. And it's the _only_ spelling he himself is using (in latin letters). While IMDB/Amazon has him as "Shahrukh", his movies/DVDs/books themselves have him as Shah Rukh. (Watch the movies!) --Jhartmann (talk) 12:35, 16 February 2011 (UTC)


 * First off, IMDb and Amazon are important enough to have significance. Secondly, his name is Shahrukh Khan originally and it is the media who started calling him Shah Rukh, a version he may prefer but an encyclopedia does not have to follow. Books use different versions of his names and he is an example for you: Still Reading Khan. Films also use different versions, see for instance Veer-Zaara which I could check now. Other examples include Chak De India and Rab Ne Bana Di Jodi. So your statement is simple incorrect. If you want take all the 70 films he's appeared in and count how many of them spell it as "Shahrukh" and how many spell it as "Shah Rukh". Most importantly, make a simple google search and you will see that "Shahrukh" gives more hits than "Shah Rukh". Last but not least, this statement, "calling himself and credited in his movies, DVDs and books as Shah Rukh Khan" is unverified and unsourced, the phrase "calling himself", as agreed by another editor, is not encyclopedic, and I challenge you to come with sources. If you can add a source which supports the claim, then I do not oppose. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  16:29, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Shubh415, 11 September 2010
Children Aryan Khan born november 12 1997 Suhana Khan born march 23 2000 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shubh415 (talk • contribs) 15:49, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Shubh415, 11 September 2010
Children Aryan Khan born november 12 1997 Suhana Khan born march 23 2000

Source=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gauri_Khan —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shubh415 (talk • contribs) 15:54, 11 September 2010 (UTC)


 * ✅ -- His Children are indeed Suhana Khan and Aryan Khan. --Meryam90 (talk) 07:02, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

SRK redirects to disambiguation page?
I searched for SRK, and it redirects me to a disambiguation page containing links to Shivaraj Kumar and Soave-Redlich-Kwong equation. I am pretty sure that none of the other links are popular usage for SRK. (Note, I am a kannadiga, and very few people use SRK for shivaraj kumar (now don't quote this as OR, as you can google it (WP:GOOGLE))). MikeLynch (talk) 07:27, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Support SRK should redirect to this article. Mspraveen (talk) 07:48, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Shital123, 25 October 2010
Shahrukh is shooting a sequel of DON. Articles doesn't have much information on that. I want to add the same.

Shital123 (talk) 10:47, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: If you post the content you wish to include in the article here (after you have written it), I will add it to the article. Thanks, Stickee (talk)  12:32, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Srk27, 5 January 2011
edit semi-protected

http://in.docs.yahoo.com/info/copyright/copyright.html

Srk27 (talk) 19:35, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. Salvio  Let's talk about it! 14:14, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Prakrut, 3 February 2011
edit semi-protected

please allow me to edit this page

Prakrut (talk) 12:19, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The article has been protected from editing from new users because of extensive vandalism. Once you have an account for 4 days and have made 10 edits to other pages you will be automatically granted permission to edit this article. -Atmoz (talk) 14:58, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

w —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.192.40.97 (talk) 23:08, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Why there is no mention of "Zor Ka Jhatka" in the television host segment of SRK?
It has been more than a week that this program namely "Zor ka Jhatka", the hindi version of American "Wipe-out" has started being telecast in Imagine tv now starring Shah Rukh Khan as the host, who is reportedly the highest paid ever in the history of Indian tele history pocketing 2.5 crores per episode. But strange to see no mention of all these in Wikipedia, which is supposed to be the fasted to fetch such information. I request all my fellow editors to input some efforts. Otherwise I will take the help of one of my friends, who has the eligibility to edit un-editable pages like that of Shah Rukh Khan.. Thanks to all dears.. 117.192.40.97 (talk) 23:15, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 59.95.160.246, 20 February 2011
Koffe With Karan 2011 episode

59.95.160.246 (talk) 10:44, 20 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Not very notable. He's been in countless shows of this sort. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  11:06, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Some suggestions
In the Infobox, add this:

just to make it more informative. A lot of other information can be added, and can be added at the discretion of the editors, fans and watchers of this article.

Also, he is an entrepreneur, which is a considerable part of his work and a large contributor to his fortune, and deserves treatment in the article.

This article provides a nice treatment of the entrepreneurial work Shahrukh Khan: http://www.businessworld.in/bw/2009_11_21_A_Star_As_A_Businessman.html

- Mortalmorratoes (talk) 22:45, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Tjmaman, 27 March 2011
I or could you put in Shahrukh's children's name Aryan Khan & Suhana Khan

Tjmaman (talk) 02:36, 27 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. —C.Fred (talk) 02:45, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Iliilicious, 1 April 2011
SRKs Red Chillies entertaiment will produce "Always Kabhi Kabhi", wich will release in June. Please add the film in his produced films list

source: http://www.2indianews.com/03/shahrukh-khan-romantic-production-always-kabhi-kabhi.html

Iliilicious (talk) 19:08, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅ -- gtdp (T)/(C) 10:37, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Health problems
Shah Rukh has suffered numerous health problems thro out the years, his surgeries include, Stomach surgery (1998) Neck/Spine surgery (2003), shoulder (surgery 2009), knee surgery (time unknown), and various health problems. Shouldn't they be added to his bio? --Meryam90 (talk) 06:54, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Enriquezove, 30 April 2011
Please Change the picture of the Shahrukh Khan. That one is a old picture (Om Shanti Om is a history now) of the Shahrukh Khan, wherein he just looks as a Star. Put some new picture of him in which he looks what he is "An Actor, Entrepreneur, TV Host, Producer, Franchise Owner, etc;.

I have uploaded a image of him. You can find it here. taken on 22nd of March 2011, when he reopened his twitter account or the second one where he is delivering his speech after winning Filmfare Award for the "My Name is Khan" a movie which broke all oversea record for the Bollywood Movies. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/10/Srk.jpg or http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:SRK_Filmfare_2011.png

Even if you select another picture, please keep his look in mind. The current picture shows him as old.

Enrique Zove 01:30, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Not done: The first picture is clearly a copy vio, as it can be found on a copyrighted page online at. I'm almost 100% certain the other is also a copyvio, as it appears to be a screen capture of a television production. Just because you retrieved the file from a website or you captured it off of a streaming video does not make it "your work". The only pictures that may be used of living people are those that are "free" (i.e., in the public domain or that are CC-BY-SA licensed). Pretty much, this means you need to have taken the picture yourself, and then you need to make it clear that you are placing it in the public domain. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:09, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Controversy
In 2008 some intimate scenes of his with co-actor Deepa Sahi were leaked on internet from his 1993 movie Maya Meemsaab. These scenes resurfaced on the internet and gathered a lot of attention. The source of the leak could not be found.

Spandan91 (talk)
 * Unfortunately, the link doesn't work. Without a good look at the source, it's hard to say whether or not it belongs in the article, because WP:BLP says we have to be very careful about using only the best sources and most neutral wording for contentious information about living people. Qwyrxian (talk) 09:37, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 122.161.214.94, 5 June 2011
please,i hate this fellow,i want to edit it

122.161.214.94 (talk) 13:00, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Why would we let you edit it then, you're probably just gonna vandalise it-- Jac 16888 Talk 13:13, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Cameo in Always Kabhi Kabhi
He has a short cameo in the song "Antanna" in "always kabhi kabhi", his home production witch is due on June 17th. It should be added to his filmography. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meryam90 (talk • contribs) 14:31, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia should be fair and unbiased.
I see only his successful movies are being exaggerated here and the box office failures which bombed drastically are just sidelined in the mask of "did not do well at the box office" or "was not a box office success" or have no mention at all. For some strange reason I couldn't find the word "Flop" anywhere in the whole page for any of his movies. To name a few, heres a list of some of his biggest box office disasters which are actually termed as "FLOP" all over the world (even in Hollywood) but esp in Indian industry (or Bollywood as we call). In all a total of 32 flops (27 of in which he starred as lead role) goes to his credit.
 * Chamatkar
 * Dil Aashna Hai
 * Maya Memsaab
 * King Uncle
 * Anjaam
 * Zamana Deewana
 * Guddu
 * Oh Darling! Yeh Hai India!
 * Ram Jaane
 * Trimurti
 * English Babu Desi Mem
 * Chaahat
 * Army
 * Dushman Duniya Ka
 * Gudgudee
 * Koyla
 * Duplicate
 * Baadshah (was a flop and not an Average Grosser as stated)
 * Phir Bhi Dil Hai Hindustani (no mention at all of its box office failure and also being his first produced movie)
 * Hey Ram
 * One 2 Ka 4
 * Asoka
 * Hum Tumhare Hain Sanam (film was a delayed release but never did well at box office
 * Yeh Lamhe Judaai Ke
 * Kuch Meetha Ho Jaaye
 * Paheli

Below are the films where his extended appearances also couldn't save the box office fate.
 * Shakti: The Power
 * Gaja Gamini
 * Bhoothnath
 * Billu
 * Dulha Mil Gaya

His list of Average grossing movies.
 * Raju Ban Gaya Gentleman (Average)
 * Kabhi Haan Kabhi Naa (Average)
 * Dil Se (Average)
 * Josh (was definitely an Average grosser and never a box office success as mentioned)
 * Yes Boss (Average)
 * Chalte Chalte (Average)
 * Rab Ne Bana Di Jodi (was only Average Grosser and not box office success as mentioned)

I am trying to understand that was it coined anywhere that the term "Flop" cannot/may not/should not be used for Sharukh Khan. I remember even legendary star Amitabh Bachhan have his list of Hit's and Flop's, so whats wrong in that.

Having said this, I would like to say that I neither a die hard fan of Sharukh nor do I hate him from the core of my heart. As an constant reader of Wiki which I believe is one of the major contributor to improve my knowledge and IQ, I am just being neutral and expect it to be fair by all means for everybody on earth. I understand being positive and focusing on same is better but then we prefer Wiki for its very neutral and info-as-it-is kinda articles. Otherwise this article is no different than most of the articles published by the various corrupt and biased News and Magazines publishing houses in India except that Wiki provides a detailed and organised informational data. --Maneesh2312 (talk) 07:23, 20 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Most of his films are mentioned, nothing is omitted, nothing to complain about. We are not going to mention films in which he had special appearances. Whether or not you are a fan or a hater does not matter. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  07:52, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Iliilicious, 24 June 2011
SRK did a cameo in his home production "Always Kabhi Kabhi" in the song "Antenna". Please add it to his filmography. Source: http://www.bollywoodhungama.com/news/2011/05/03/15719/index.html

Iliilicious (talk) 19:16, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅ Added link to film's article. BollyJeff  ||  talk  19:31, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Where are the Controversies?
Like any other celebrity, Sharukh Khan is no different from the world of Controversies. Currently he is among the most controversial actors in Bollywood but still there isn't a single word on the list of his controversies which is as follows.


 * Crediting various Awards and Recognitions in his favor: Almost everybody in the film industry knows about Sharukh getting various Awards and recognitions to himself and in his favor. This was also mocked by the Indian actors Ritesh Deshmukh and Boman Irani on one of the award ceremonies in 2011 criticizing Sharukh, that he knows he'll get the Best Actor Award again in year 2012 for either RA.One or Don2. Lead actor Ajay Devgan had openly confessed that the awards are given to the attenders of the event as an honor to them for just attending the Ceremony night.


 * Frequently supporting Pakistan and its Cricket Team for their selection in IPL 2011: Criticized and protested by Shiv Sena chief Bal Thackrey for supporting Pakistani players while knowing its (Pakistan's) involvement in 26/11 Terror Attacks in Mumbai. On contrary, even while Sharukh supported Pakistans Cricket Team selection for IPL 2011, he and his franchise KKR did not bid for a single Pakistani player during the auditions and thus escaped safely.


 * Dropping Saurav Ganguly from KKR Team and as Captain: Self Explanatory. Entire nation knows about this.


 * Constantly passing Witty and Rude comments to fellow actors and Colleagues: The famous split between Salman Khan and Sharukh Khan was due to one of his comments passed at Katrina's birthday bash causing a major rift between the two (once very close buddies) and is well known to everybody from and within industry.

--Maneesh2312 (talk) 08:08, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 *  His never ending self claims of being No 1 and King of Bollywood: Now this too need not be explained as the whole world knows about it.


 * It was decided long ago that no constroversies would be added. Apart from that, most of what you have mentioned here is pure nonsense and gossip that do not even deserve to be discussed on message boards. Since when winning awads has been a controversy? He is widely known as King of Bollywood, what's constroversial about it? I don't think it's a title he gave to himself. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  09:00, 20 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Maneesh2312, your last message has been reverted because it goes in violation of WP:NPA. I am not going to take kindly to that, sorry. Anyway, if you have anything else to add or say, then please provide reliable sources to prove your claims. Thanks, Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  10:45, 20 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Alright, Sorry if you took it very personally but I meant no offense here and no hard feelings. But FYI, Salman Khan has section "Controversies" in his profile. Now as per your message, "It was decided long ago that no controversies would be added.", either one should remove the section entirely or add in other pages as well as the rule should be the same for one and all. Do you agree with me this time at least. Maneesh2312 (talk) 11:03, 20 June 2011 (UTC)


 * There's a difference between Salman Khan and Shahrukh Khan. Salman has been the subject of major controversies involving him. Shahrukh Khan has not, he's just been the subject of some really inconsequential incidents. The things you mentioned above are, as I said, pure gossip and nothing more. I also now understand where it comes from, but anyway. You better cite your suggestions. I for one never saw Mr. Khan calling himself the king or something. It's the media who does. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  11:10, 20 June 2011 (UTC)


 * OK. Agree with you that its the Media who does it often, calling and making him the "King of Bollywood" and going literally by word even I cannot prove SRK himself calling King. So lets forget about my points 1,3,4 and 5. But Point 2 was one of the major controversies surrounding him in the year 2010 for which Shiv Sena activists created a mayhem in the city of Mumbai stopping the release of MNIK. And this is not just a gossip, this was a National News all over the Nation for many days in almost all leading News papers and News channels. You still think this shouldn't be included in his profile. Wiki is not here to create and find differences between Salman and Sharukh. I still strongly feel Wiki, as an encyclopedia, should just state the matter as it is and should not have its own views about any person or organization.


 * This article is an encyclopedia entry for all intents and purposes. Unless something has a major connection to his biography, it should not be mentioned. As I said, this is one of many incidents involving Khan. I personally see no reason to have it here. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  12:39, 20 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I see severe violation of rules, and personal fanfare being imposed in a dramatic and failed intellectual way by this Maneesh guy. Dear Shahid, can't we do something legal to report such accounts to be marked as spams, thus disabling their nasty arguments even in this discussion section? I personally felt very nasty of it, as It is an SRK discussion page, visited daily by millions. It must keep its sanctity up, and be as charming as the person SRK himself this discussion board is for. Thanks

Sthitadebasis (talk) 22:28, 12 July 2011 (UTC) As an uninvolved editor, I just want to clear up some misconceptions. First, this is not a discussion page--this is a page for discussing improvements to the article. Second. This page is not visited daily by millions; in fact, if you go to, you'll see that the article gets about 10-12 thousand views per day, while this talk page gets an average of about 11 views per day. Second, there is no consideration of "sanctity"; in fact, if anyone is trying to edit the article to promote or otherwise praise an individual, that is a direct violation of our policy requiring neutrality in articles. Third, I don't see any violations of policy by Maneesh except for the NPA that was removed. While it's true that we can't make negative claims about living people, even on talk pages, the questions raised by Maneesh above are legitimate considerations. Now, this doesn't mean I think those should be added to the article, but they are relevant enough to be discussed here. Which brings me finally to whether or not any of this info belongs in the article. Maneesh, the editors above are correct that this is not a gossip site, and we only provide information that is of sufficiently due weight that is verified by reliable sources. So, the question becomes--do you have any reliable sources for any of the claims above? Since you specifically feel that #2 is the most important claim, why don't we focus on that first. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:00, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, I just looked more closely at #2. I don't get it. So he supports a foreign sports team--that has literally nothing to do with that sports team coming from a country that was involved in terrorist activities.  Or, as a comparison, I can be a fan of the University of Berkeley, even though the Unabomber once taught there as a professor. I don't see that as a relevant or controversial issue.  However, the first one does seem potentially relevant to me (as someone who knows absolutely nothing about Shahrukh Khan): has Khan been involved in deciding awards that were given to himself or projects he worked on?  If that could be verified, it would probably be encyclopedic material. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:04, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Please go through the previous discussions, and Shahid's logic in proving that all the above points put by Maneesh are just rumors, self-proclaimed and eve-targeted from personal fanfare. What potentially has relevance to be in the article put aside, all of the points are just base-less mere gossips. If you personally feel all that Maneesh did here in this page previously is solely intended for the "improvement" of this article, I can do nothing about that. But I don't feel like that at all from any angle, and believe not many will be amused by such nasty efforts of his to 'improve' this SRK page. Thnaks

Sthitadebasis (talk) 22:48, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

I completely agree with Shahid's point. The 1st argument is pure gossip, if you look at the awards page of SRK, you'll find that all the film he has gotten an award for were performances he got an overwhelming critical acclaim for. and It isn't like he get an award every single year! for the 2nd point I think it's universally agreed upon that there is NO controversy or even a logical point to adding it to the article. As for the 3rd one, that is the team's matter, a player has been dropped from the team of KKR as a strategy to revamp the team, the fact that some portion of the community in Kolkata didn't like that decision doesn't make it worthy enough of being controversy. Thansk. --Meryam90 (talk) 14:26, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

completly bias
srk wiki profile is completely bias

no info about flop movies only hit movies are in profile. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theman244 (talk • contribs) 23:54, 28 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Please provide the specific "flop movies", along with verification that Khan was involved with them, and they can be added to the article. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:58, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

re:

list of some flop and average movies source- Box Office India

1 Army 1996 - average

2 Koyla 1997- below average

3 Yes Boss 1997- above average

4 Dil Se 1998- Flop

5 Duplicate 1998- Below Average

6 Baadshah 1999- Below Average

7 Josh 2000- above average

8 Phir Bhi Dil Hai Hindustani 2000- Flop

9 Asoka- 2001 Flop

10 Shakti-The Power- 2002 Flop

11 Swades- 2004 Flop

12 Paheli- 2005 Flop

13 Billu- 2008 Flop

 check with each year

--Theman244 (talk) 00:07, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Some of his flop films are just not notable enough but most of them are mentioned and discussed, there's nothing to be biased about. Shahid •  Talk 2 me  08:03, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

re: what you mean by not notable enough. these movies are not notable because these are flops and should be mentioned in wiki, wiki profile of srk is not just for hit films n most of these are not mentioned --Theman244 (talk) 22:26, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Theman244 is basically correct here: every film that Khan made that was widely released, released at a major reasonably large sized film festival, or that otherwise was discussed widely should be listed here. Under no circumstances should a movie be not mentioned because it wasn't popular.  Notability is never based on the quality or success of a movie. The only things that would be excluded are private films or films never released (even those might be included if there was sufficient coverage in reliable sources). So, for example, we don't include home movies he shot of his family, or a short film he made in school.  However, we shouldn't evaluate any of the movies with terms like "flop", unless those terms were used in reliable sources, per WP:NPOV.  Qwyrxian (talk) 00:06, 12 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Obviously I agree with this observation but that wasn't my point. There's notability per se, which means a project deserves to have an article on WP, and there's notability in a biography article. In a biography about an actor who has appeared in over 70 films, we do not mention all his films (which does not at all mean we should overlook his flop films). A film like Yeh Lamhe Judaai Ke had been delayed for 10 years when it was released and hardly anyone was aware of its existence even after release. This one is non-notable in Khan's biography, according to me. Same with movies like Billu and Army in which he only had special appearances. Many of his flop films are mentioned and discussed on the article, from what I see. A quick glance shows that the commercial failure of such films as Anjaam, Dil Se, Baadshah, all his films in 1996, is mentioned. I am definitely willing to expand the article, and I've been planning to do it for quite some time. The article must mention some of his performances which were not well received (even if the movies did well, like KANK for one). Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  18:37, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, as far as I know, we are supposed to list every single film he ever appeared in; if the list is too long, it can be moved to a separate page; see how long the list is on Brad Pitt; or see how Marlon Brando's filmography is on a separate page at Marlon Brando filmography. And sorry if you thought that I was claiming the article was biased towards only his successes, as it does include a variety of quality of film.  I was responding more to the comment above.  Qwyrxian (talk) 11:04, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Well that's something I respectfully disagree with. I do not think a biography article should include (in prose) every film an actor has ever appeared in. Films that have an actor in special appearances only should not be mentioned, according to me. Similarly there are films which hardly get noticed. If you see such FAs like for one Bette Davis's, not all the films are mentioned. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  19:38, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Bisexuality
There has been news on many reliable sources about the assertions that he is bisexual (not saying he's gay). For the record, Shahrukh has never denied this in clear words. This should be included in his article, I think.

Times of India Rediff

--110.38.110.61 (talk) 01:33, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Definitely not. The first source you give isn't to the Times of India, it's to some sort of self-published movie site.  The second one is an interview of some other person, and all it says is that there is a rumor.  First of all, Wikipedia doesn't publish rumors. Second of all, sexuality requires a very strong, clear source, and often a self-identification.  Finally, we need some clear indication that it's even important--even if we can verify that he is bisexual doesn't necessarily mean it is important enough to belong in the article. If you have actual reliable sources, preferably one that quotes Sharukh himself, then feel free to re-raise the issue. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:43, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Shivrain, 26 August 2011
Please change the picture of SRK sir here, he is not looking so cool here and I am big fan..please do that...Thanks SRK rocks :)

Shivrain (talk) 14:34, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Unless you have a different, compatibly licensed image we can use, we can't change the picture. If you have one, upload it to Wikimedia Commons and I'll switch them out for you. Note that a copyrighted image would not meet the requirements for fair use, as a free equivalent (the one we're using) exists. See Uploading images for further information. — Bility (talk) 17:11, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Picture on Website
The picture displayed with this bio seems to be a promotional item from the movie Swades, not from the Berlin Film Festival of 2008 (note the NASA lanyard around his neck, which he wore in Swades). If you click on the picture, it states that it was taken on location at the Kennedy Space Center in 2004. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.228.86.101 (talk) 22:46, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅ You're absolutely right. I guess whoever replaced the former picture (which was of Khan in Berlin film festival 2008) forgot to edit the rest. --Meryam90 (talk) 09:19, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Urdu Name
The spelling of his name in Urdu (شاه رخ خان) should also be included, as it is the language of Indian Muslims. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.210.240.103 (talk) 19:24, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Garbage. Urdu is definitely not "the language of Indian Muslims". Most Indian Muslims are not native Urdu speakers, only the ones in Uttar Pradesh. Bengali and Tamil Muslims aren't Urdu speakers, for instance. I believe Mr Khan is ethnically a Pashtun, so his native language is Pashto, not Urdu. His name can certainly be added in the Pashto script.14.139.223.67 (talk) 08:01, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * But nothing wrong in adding it in Urdu too. -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 09:18, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Adding Urdu would be highly inappropriate, since Mr Khan is not a native of Uttar Pradesh in India, nor is he a Pakistani Muhajir. Therefore, he is not a native Urdu speaker. If his name in Urdu should be added then why not in Japanese, Bantu , Tamil, or Bengali? In India, there are probably more native-Bengali speaking Muslims than native-Urdu speaking ones anyway. 14.139.223.67 (talk) 04:58, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Biography
Shouldn't we separate the Biography section into 2 (Early life and personal life) just like it is the norm for every actor's page? --Meryam90 (talk) 09:29, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Well there isn't much to write about him in personal life. His marriage is also a part of his early life because it all happened before he debuted in movies. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  10:19, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Well if you would check the Personal life section of Aamir khan as well, there isn't much written about his marriage either, we can talk about his health problems in the "personal life" section, he's been known to face numerous injuries: here and also mention his so called "SRK the Brand" referring to the various Brand endorsement he is known for. (example the Genelia D'Souza page) --Meryam90 (talk) 10:34, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

He says he's neither the Badshah nor even a superstar
Shahrukh recently said "Superstar is someone who gives trouble to everyone (laughs). He comes late on the sets, makes the media wait for a press conference [referring to Salman Khan]. People come and tell me that I am a superstar or the Badshah of Bollywood, which feels nice, but I don't think I am a superstar."

This quote should be added because we need to explain both the version why hype is created about him and how he accepts his popularity is declining. Here's the reference: http://www.totalfilmy.com/feature/20110927/i_don039t_think_i_am_superstar_shahrukh-34287.html

On Rediff: http://www.rediff.com/movies/slide-show/slide-show-1-interview-with-shah-rukh-khan/20110927.htm

--175.110.139.122 (talk) 06:50, 28 September 2011 (UTC)


 * What's so special about this quote? He just tries to be "humble". The fact that he doesn't think so means nothing. And is his popularity declining? If I'm not mistaken, his last film (whatever that was) did well. Anyway, not noteworthy. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  08:41, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

No the facts say different story but wikipedia is not for it. Instead we can use his own words:

"There are three or four stars whose films do better business than my films. 3 Idiots was a huge hit. Dabangg, Singham, Golmaal 3, Bodyguard and Zindagi Milegi Na Dobara have done better business than My Name Is Khan. Commercially, the actors in these films are bigger names. I cannot deny these facts." From http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/news-by-industry/et-cetera/today-a-steven-spielberg-is-looking-for-investment-from-us-shah-rukh-khan/articleshow/10122957.cms?curpg=1

He continuously says he is not being humble but has to accept reality. His last appearance in bollywood screen with Always Kabhi Kabhi song was a megaflop if you can see.

--175.110.139.122 (talk) 09:37, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

And he's not humble but I won't say here he's a big boaster which cud b irrelevant here. Remember what he said to kareena on Ra.one music launch that she's working with small time khans these days: http://www.daijiworld.com/news/news_disp.asp?n_id=115677

I always have the sources for my claim.

--175.110.139.122 (talk) 09:45, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * and the point is? Akshay Kumar last 3 film were panned critically and did average business at box office, doesn't mean we're gonna go saying that he is not a big star...I don't see what you're trying to get into here...this is pointless...

the point is both are losing popularity which we can use in wikipedia with sources

--175.110.139.122 (talk) 09:45, 28 September 2011 (UTC)


 * just because other films are doing well, doesn't mean an actor is loosing popularity...a 2 min appearence doesn't make or break a film in the case of AKK and his last film grossed 192cr worldwide, he's sitting atop the biggest film ever made in Hitory of Bollywood. and the fact that all those films did well when he had no films out at all strengthen wut I am saying. Ur point is still invalid! if his next releases for this year flop, then we'll gladly ad what you just pointed out, as for now, it remains pointless...


 * Oh well, 175.110.139.122, this is all nonsense. His last film was My Name is Khan (and not Kabhi Kabhi whatever) in 2010, it was a huge hit in India and it still is the top-grosser in overseas markets (I may be wrong, I don't know). He can say whatever he finds right to play the good guy before his upcoming release. And because there are other hits, or bigger hits for that matter, does not mean in any way he is losing popularity and is not a superstar anymore. He's had an entire successsful career, it is not going to be defined by either his recent release in which he had a guest appearance or his own assertion.
 * This will not be added simply because the article does not 'discuss' his superstardom but his career. It's an encyclopedia, not a magazine. You are clearly trying to play some numbers game, not here, dear, not here. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  10:14, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Mother is from Hyderabad
In a meet with the Times of India, SRK has stated that his mother is from Hyderabad. I'm not sure if it means Hyderabad, Pakistan or India but a sentence following it says "Even as a young boy, I remember her telling me about these two great actors. I am also impressed with the work of Mammooty and Mohanlal. These are actors I deeply admire." This could not have been said if his family had influences from Pakistan and in Hyderabad, India, there are a significant number of Malayalis. And Mammoty and Mohanlal have quite a lot of followers there. Doesn't it mean that his mother tongue is partially Urdu or Telugu?  Secret of success  Talk to me  07:01, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

No it's deffo Hyderabad, India, because whenever he goes there to attend cricket matches, he calls it my mother's city...U can check it in his tweets.--Meryam90 (talk) 18:59, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Another from his biography SHAH RUKH KHAN - Autobiography and in more detail here .--Omer123hussain (talk) 16:38, 13 October 2011 (UTC)--Omer123hussain (talk) 16:39, 13 October 2011 (UTC)--Omer123hussain (talk) 16:46, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The first one is not a reliable source, the other one doesn't say that his mother is native to Hyd, maybe just that she grew up there due to the Islamic influences. But at the moment, it is not wise to change the info in the article without broad consensus as there are many links which state the terms in a confusing manner.  Secret of success  Talk to me  07:45, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Reports of doing Bollywood Version of Brokeback Mountain
Allegedly with the singer George Michael — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.176.222.130 (talk) 19:07, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I swear This is really funny. where did U get THAT from?! --Meryam90 (talk) 19:11, 23 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Did you know that Brokeback Mountain deals primarily with homosexuality and this fella, 122.176.222.130, is a known vandal. Look how he intends to found (or maybe co-found with some guy, LOL) WikiProject Homosexual India. Scieberking (talk) 21:08, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Oh! I've watched Brokeback Mountain, I know well wut it talks abt... WikiHomosexual?!! Oh God LOL...I wonder if this page wasn't protected...Oh the HORROR!--Meryam90 (talk) 21:46, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I watched a vandal screwing up the userpage of Jimbo Wales … without getting blocked … and surviving. That's my dream. It's my nightmare. The horror! The horror! ;) Scieberking (talk) 08:43, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Guys don't be haters! I personally think it would be great idea, and I have heard it on good authority (Times of India) that it is being considered. Although he will have to reprise his charachter from My Name is Khan. टूटी हुई वापस पहाड़ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.176.222.130 (talk • contribs)


 * Okay, so that's a silly rumor. Karan [Johar] was asked in an interview:

Q: Anil Kapoor said he'd like to see you and Shah Rukh Khan in Brokeback Mountain? ''A: It was in fun. I had a sense of humour about it. Why not others? What Anil said was very funny and I laughed it off. Anil and his wife Sunita are dear friends. I can never take offence to him. There's so much self-deprecating humour at the awards functions in the West. Why not here? I took Anil's remark in the right spirit.''

There's nothing more to it. Scieberking (talk) 15:19, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Stage performances
We should add a Stage performances section (same as Kareena Kapoor page) since SRK is known for being a regular stage performer in both award ceremonies and various international concerts and tours. I do actually have many reliable sources to make quit a sizable section. Should I go ahead? --Meryam90 (talk) 22:01, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I think it's better to have mentions of them in the career section, as there isn't really a section of other work he did, and there's isn't any need for it either. As for his performances at award ceremonies, there have no importance really. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  22:12, 26 November 2011 (UTC)


 * We can call it other work or social work like in the case of Rani Mukerji and Aishwarya Rai's pages respectively, adding his participation in HELP! Telethon Concert, Temptations 2005 show in New Delhi which helped to raise funds for the National Centre For Promotional of Employment for Disabled People (NCPEDP) and his visit to boost the morale of the jawans or Red Chillies producing a show or Children's day and more...All with reliable sources (which are available ofcourse, no worries) and we can merge the television work section as well...--Meryam90 (talk) 23:40, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think this section would make much sense, but let's see what else can be added there if that's an option. I think the article is put together very well as far as structure is concerned (acting, producing, television), and another section like other work would be just too short and redundant. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  23:21, 26 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I believe I have enough sources to make a sizable section actually, but I will write it first separately and maybe paste it here first to see what else can be added or reduced then we shall see how it will fit in the article. Sounds good? --Meryam90 (talk) 23:40, 26 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I am done with the section. and it's actually 5 paragraphs (and it's only about his stage performance) :D --Meryam90 (talk) 19:49, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The section reads like a list of stage shows he's done, and it's silly to have it named "other work". Some of them are mere concerts and I don't think they merit a mention as he must have done so many of them. I think what we should mention is world tours only. And we can combine them in sections like "stage and television work". Meryam, why don't you move it temporarily to the talk page as you suggested before so that we could discuss it here and then add it to the article after an agreement? Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  20:25, 27 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Actually, I've spent all morning talking to old fans and looking up his concerts Online and checking Youtube videos, all the things mentioned in the section are the "most important" concerts and tours he has done...he doesn't go on International concerts often, so the ones mentioned in that section aren't just "mere concerts and I don't think they merit a mention", I even refrained from mentioning Indian concerts and awards performances (even tho he is actually know in the Media for being a very regular performer in those). secondly, I called it Other work because I'm not done yet, I'm still working on the second parts which includes his charity work. That said, I took inspiration for various other star's sections, Kareena Kapoor (which is a GA) and Preity Zinta's (which is a FA) to make a few examples. what is funny is that he is mentioned in those other star's pages when it's not even written in his own... --Meryam90 (talk) 20:58, 27 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Btw, I'd like to use this picture for the section, I think it's under a Creative Commons License according to this: Terms and Policies considering it's from here: King Khan Temptations Reloaded. right? --Meryam90 (talk) 22:39, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately that picture won't work. Yes, it's Creative Common's Licensed, but if you take a look at Zimbio's CC license (see the CC page they linked to at ) they're not using CC-BY-SA, they're using CC-BY-NC-ND. Wikipedia doesn't allow the use of NC-ND works (that means "non-commercial, non-derivative"), because we allow people to download Wikipedia, package it, and sell it if they want. So a CC-BY-NC-ND would have to be used under fair use policy, but you couldn't use a fair use claim here (only on an article about the show itself).  Qwyrxian (talk) 00:35, 28 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Oh I see, Thank you. I am really bad when it comes to licensing content here at wiki. That's why I considered it would be safe to ask. Btw, supposing U find a picture on a blog, like here: http://glamourcelebrities.blogspot.com/2010/04/shah-rukh-khan-awards-performances_07.html
 * Is it considered free then? --Meryam90 (talk) 01:24, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Only if 1) The blog were explicitly CC-BY-SA licensed or public domain, and 2) you were absolutely certain that the blog itself didn't take the picture from somewhere else. Most bloggers, in my experience, just copy and paste pictures from wherever they find them, without caring at all about copyright. Now, that may well be okay, because it's possible that using those pictures is fine under fair use law. The thing is, Wikipedia is actually much more strict than it legally has to be on copyrights, because part of the goal is to be as free as possible.  Pretty much, for living people, the only way to really be sure is to use pictures that you, yourself have taken, in person, or that you know were taken by amateurs and subsequently freely licensed.  One thing I do whenever I see an image like this one is go do a search using Google Images using a variety of descriptions, and if I find it on other websites, I just assume it's copyrighted somewhere. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:09, 28 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, that just sucks ya! :P This site wouldn't be considered a blog under public domain? http://www.bollywoodnhollywood.com/2008/07/04/shahrukh-kareena-and-katrina-at-temptation-reloaded-2008-concert-in-amsterdam/ Too bad Bollywood Hungama's photo achieves are down now, they're the source for Kareena Kapoor and Preity Zinta's performance pictures :S --Meryam90 (talk) 02:40, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Oh I found a picture in Bollywood Hungama from Bangladesh concert  and an other one with Rani. There are Good to use. Problem is I don't know how to upload a picture with BH license,so some help please! :P --Meryam90 (talk) 20:48, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * All copyrighted. Here's the basic rule: any time anyone ever takes any photograph or writes anything, that thing is automatically copyrighted. Even if the person doesn't expressly say that it is.  The only time something is ever in the public domain is if its author/creator explicitly says that it is, if they work for the US (and some other) government, or if the work is very old (it varies country to country, but it's usually more than 75 years).  Wikipedia does allow the use of fair use images (that's where you use a copyrighted image under limited terms), but not for pictures whose subject is a living person.  Qwyrxian (talk) 02:26, 29 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Wait, but taking example from Preity Zinta's page, the picture used in her performance section is taken from BH and it's free ...same for Kareena Kapoor. Bollywood Hangama's license is :

'All photographs used by this site from Bollywood Hungama parties/events with the exception of screenshots, wallpapers or promotional posters are exclusively created by their own photographers. Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify these images, providing the site is attributed and a direct link running to the source on their site is provided.'

So, it IS Ok to use... :P --Meryam90 (talk) 19:32, 29 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Yep. Images from Bollywood Hungama are licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution Share-Alike 3.0 Unported. And of course it's on a conditional permit. They should be uploaded with proper license on Commons, verified and archived by OTRS system, and reviewed by the administrator or reviewer. Thanks. Scieberking (talk) 21:41, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 12 December 2011
Please add these 4 tv serials "Nukkad, ummeed , waghley ki duniya , idiot " to the tv appearances section

Please add MNIK in producer section.

Please remove idiot from the movie list and place it in mini-tv series

Please remove "inner & outer world of srk " from the movies list and place it in documentaries.

Please you need to add a section of "SRK's famous quotes" because there are about 50,000 original SRK quotes .You can have a reference from his imdb page

And please, if possible , change his profile pic to something nice because its probably his worst pic that you have posted as his profile.

Finally, why is this article on SRK so so small in length ?

no talk about his surgeries 6 of them ....no talk about his smoking....no talk about his awards hosting (include sahara sports awards as well)......no talk abt his meeting Russian prez and a whole bunch of dignitories world-over ....no special mention of his craze in germany & morrocco especially ....no talk about his 200 brand endorsements till date (there should be a list of all his 200 brands n ads with a pic of his LUX advert coz he was the only male actor to do that).....who has written such a short rather insulting article to shah rukh khan- the living legend .......???

Seeta mayya (talk) 03:57, 12 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Any reliable sources for the TV serials? otherwise, we can't add...
 * "SRK's famous quotes"?! this a wiki bio of an actor, not a fan page, we only speak about facts regarding his work here...
 * As for the profile pic, if you have a free licensed picture (saying, from Bollywood hungama), that is candid (as in not from a film or a TV serial or so) please come forwards, we'll be happy to change it.
 * Cheers. --Meryam90 (talk) 15:12, 12 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Seeta just go with Meryam 90. It's only a wikipedia article. it's supposed to be a general sort of information portal. the editors will make the necessary changes as times go by and they have time. WE CAN LOOK FORWARD TO SRKOPUS! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashermadan (talk • contribs) 16:40, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Marrakech festival pics will do. He looks gorgeous in those. Please find those pics somewhere. Marrakech is in Morocco FYI, and his retrospect of movies was shown there. He was even awarded there. Please try and find a nice pic from that festival. u may try this link ..and try the 3rd and 4th pics from the top ...plzz meryam90 and asher ..plzzz

http://www.emirates247.com/entertainment/films-music/srk-honoured-at-film-festival-in-marrakech-2011-12-04-1.431239

Seeta mayya (talk) 23:14, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * All of those pictures are copyrighted, and thus may not be used in a WP article about a living person. I know that this is odd, since the rest of the internet freely copies and pastes pictures, but Wikipedia requires that all images be free (public domain or Creative Commons licensed), or have a fair use claim; however, fair use is basically never allowed to illustrate pictures of living people. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:21, 12 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Seeta Darling, I know where Marakesh is, I live 2 hrs away from there...FYI :D and like Qwyrxian said, those are copyright, I suggest you find pics from Bollywood Hungama, that is your only hope...--Meryam90 (talk) 23:25, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Billions of fans?
My edit summary might have been ambiguous - so, I'll try to clarify my thinking. This article, http://www.dailymail.co.uk/travel/article-1249929/Shah-Rukh-Khans-body-scanner-image-printed-says-Heathrow-Airport.html, which was the reference I deleted, does say "The Indian actor, who is one of Bollywood's brightest stars with billions of fans across the world" - but this isn't sufficient. This sounds like a made-up fact. She doesn't reference her source/s. For this to be true, EVERY Indian and another Billion people would have to self-identify as fans. Just because Sarah Gordon mentions it in passing in a web piece for the Daily Mail Online doesn't make it true.

More reliable sources are required to support this ambitious claim. Colon el Tom 09:43, 15 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Let's see:
 * His acting prowess and charisma have helped him earn billions of fans across the world. Now, it is the turn of a 23-year-old to impress Shah Rukh Khan.http://www.telegraphindia.com/1080428/jsp/jharkhand/story_9198503.jsp


 * "Shah Rukh Khan is considered to be one of the biggest movie stars, with a fan following numbering in the billions."http://in.movies.yahoo.com/news/baadshah-biggie-shah-rukh-khan-turns-older-183000642.html


 * "With a fanbase of literally billions, Shah Rukh Khan, King Khan or SRK to his fans, shook the city at a special event to honor the Indian film star opening night at the 11th annual Marrakesh International Film Festival." http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ariston-anderson/worlds-biggest-star-king-_b_1131054.html


 * Shah Rukh Khan, the subcontinent's most famous actor, sparked outrage among billions of fans, after announcing that he felt "angry and humiliated" about being stopped by gun-toting security staff... http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/bollywood-star-at-centre-of-us-diplomatic-row-1773083.html


 * Khan, who was named one of Newsweek's '50 Most Powerful People in the World' in 2008, has a fan following in the billions. http://news.outlookindia.com/items.aspx?artid=690092


 * Would that be all?
 * Oh and please next time, discuss first, then make a change after a consensus has been made. Cheers--Meryam90 (talk) 12:58, 15 December 2011 (UTC)


 * The above is weak, it's basically news articles just copying what each other is saying. I would not say this is reliable, it's like one news reporting something, which is simply copied by others, no academic or reliable data/sources to legitimize such a claim. - Perseveranze. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.86.161.196 (talk) 19:15, 15 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Meryam, none of those quotes address the concern I raised. None of these sources make any effort to show how this large number has been calculated.  As Perseverance suggests, this smacks of one lazy journalist repeating an unsubstantiated claim made in a press release, and the others either copying the first reporter or the press release.  Can you provide any sources or evidence to confirm that over 2,000,000,000 people call themselves fans of this actor?
 * This one claims 3.5 billion. This stuff is just made up. http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1917090,00.html
 * Here's a quote from his agent's puff piece - http://k-zentertainment.com/hire/shahrukh_khan.php
 * "Why should you book Shahrukh Khan and what can Shahrukh Khan do for you, or your company?


 * Shahrukh Khan's name is known globally and across the generations of fans worldwide, with a following of billions of fans across the globe, any brand/event Shahrukh Khan advertises is sure to get the right kind of publicity, could there be a better spokesman for your company? "


 * Do you have any sources that show how the figure was derived independently from the press release material? Cheers, Colon el  Tom 20:30, 15 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Its pretty ridiculous to ask for scientific calculations for how many fans someone has. Has that ever been done before?  He is one of few people in the world who can claim so many fans, but no one is going to count them all. What would really make you happy here; only complete removal?  Since it has been reported in reliable sources, why not just accept it?  Maybe with some sort of disclaimer.  BollyJeff  ||  talk  20:46, 15 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Do you even make sense to yourself?...You're asking for a scientific calculations for how many fans someone has?! Is that even possible? They're gonna conduct a survey in your opinion? There are over 10 reliable sources that prove the fact...that is more than enough...--Meryam90 (talk) 20:51, 15 December 2011 (UTC)


 * We clearly all agree that the figure can't be verified. Is there a breakdown by country available? How many fans he has in India, Bangladesh, Pakistan, China, et cetera, et cetera? Without that or similar, this is a spurious claim without any data to back it up. Until such time as this can be shown, I'll add a disclaimer per BollyJeff's suggestion, and a link to the agent's page as support.  Thanks, Colon el  Tom 21:15, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I note that my amendment has been reverted without comment. "claimed to number in the billions" has been changed to "numbering in the billions."  Could my above concerns please be addressed?  Without independent verification, the disclaimer I inserted is a good compromise, and surely preferable to removal of the spurious claim.  I shall allow some time for a response before I restore the necessary disclaimer.  Colon el  Tom 02:01, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, it was my mistake - the previous version is back. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  11:26, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Question
Why is ity that where the Urdu-Hindi cinema of Mollywood (formerly Bollywood) is mentioned a Hindu nationalist of non-contexualised origin by the Urdu worded name of 'Shahid' gets involved? Let me put some corrections in this discussions. Shah Rukh Khan's father was from the Frontier city of Peshawar. Peshawar was the main urban centre of the province named as North Western Frontier Province by the British in 1901 - until then it was part of Mashriqi Afghanistan subah and in dispute between the British and Afghan Emirs. The people of Pakhtunkhwa still do not recognise the borders between Pakistan and Afghanistan which is known as Durand Line. The implications of this fact has on Shah Rukh Khan and Feroze Khan's stories of their origin is immense. So when either of them suggests that their origins are in Afghanistan then they really mean present day Pakistan. I know this stick's in the throats of Bal Thakray's chelays but truth is truth. Shahrukh's father married a Punjabi woman and they settled in modern day India thus from his mother's side SRK's mother tongue is Urdu. Given Shah Rukh's father's origin in Peshawar, a kharay meaning a townie and thus not a Pakhtun but an Awan of Hindko speaking family (this is the same for Raj Kapur family who were also Hindkowan and not Pakhtuns). The fact that SRK's father also is sometimes credited with the suffix of Tanoli means that he was from Tanawal region of Hazara, east of Swat on border with Azad Kashmir of Pakistan. The above clearly means that SRK's linguistic background is Urdu and thus this must be included in the article's beginning. Moarrikh (talk) 19:41, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Read this: Wikipedia_talk:Noticeboard_for_India-related_topics BollyJeff  ||  talk  19:52, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 21 December 2011
Please add Shahrukh father pic as hyperlink http://www.myspace.com/shubindeol/photos/12658761

Rcramon 2000 (talk) 05:48, 21 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: This link could not be added by our external links policy. mabdul 16:41, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Shahrukh Khan 2012 films.
He is going to act in a film call CHENNAI EXPRESS This film is going to be directed by rohit shetty. Also, HAPPY NEW YEAR his is gonna be directed by farah khan. You can check in the Internet by typing the movie name. Please add them in 2012 srk's films. P.S. This is a reliable source. I had check it already. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.24.123.85 (talk) 14:58, 2 January 2012 (UTC)


 * ❌ Both the film are in the planning stage, unless notable article talk about pre-production work or the film enters principal photography, then those can not be added, please check WP:NFF --Meryam90 (talk) 15:17, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 5 January 2012
2013 CHENNAI EXPRESS pre-production

AAMCHIMUMBAI (talk) 15:03, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Do you have a source for this change? --Jnorton7558 (talk) 17:23, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 11 January 2012
Since Shahrukh Khan is the producer/co-producer of movies Ashoka(2001), Om Shanti Om(2007), My Name Is Khan(2010) & Don 2(2011), it should be mentioned in his list of movies as a producer that all these movies were nominated in Best movie catagory at Filmfare awards.

SourabhDev (talk) 18:46, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Done. --Meryam90 (talk) 19:07, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 11 January 2012
Shahrukh Khan receieved the Iconic Super Star award at the Airtel Super Star awards 2011. Check out the following link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airtel_Super_Star_Awards

SourabhDev (talk) 19:26, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done: He has a separate page for his awards here, and I added it to the Other awards section. — Bility (talk) 22:33, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 12 January 2012
In the 'Producer' section of Shahrukh Khan's Wikipedia article, it isn't mentioned that his company has further gone to produce My Name Is Khan (2010), but in his list of movies as a producer this movie is listed. So, it should be mentioned in the 'Producer' section also.

SourabhDev (talk) 18:39, 12 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Done.

Query
The article has gone through effective editing, but it is quite a mess now and needs major clean-up: some sources are not even formatted, some are missing, a lot of copyediting is required, and some grammar mistakes must be fixed.

Is it under construction or something? If so, then it can be tagged as such. Shahid •  Talk 2 me  21:08, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

It is actually and please do tag it if you can, tho I doubt the whole process will take more than 3-4 days. Oh and that's how things under construction are usually are: A mess :)--Meryam90 (talk) 21:22, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Yup, definitely, that's why I asked if it was. Good work. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  21:41, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 12 January 2012
In 2008, Newsweek NOT ONLY named Shahrukh Khan as one of the 50 most powerful people in the world but also CONSIDERED him to be the WORLD'S BIGGEST MOVIE STAR. Check out the following link: http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2008/12/19/41-shahrukh-khan.html

SourabhDev (talk) 18:31, 12 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Well it is stated in the lead that: Globally, Khan is considered to be one of the biggest movie stars, with a fan following claimed to number in the billions. I think that's enough. I mean you can't relly know how some1 is actually The biggest...--Meryam90 (talk) 20:02, 12 January 2012 (UTC)


 * This is in reply to Meryam90 for what she wrote at 20:02, 12 January 2012 (UTC).

Obviously, no one can really say someone is the biggest movie star but we can definitely say that NEWSWEEK CONSIDERED Shahrukh Khan as the world's biggest star. We're not saying that he's the biggest movie star but we can definitely tell the opinion of Newsweek.

SourabhDev (talk) 15:11, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

This is also a consideration of Newsweek that Shahrukh Khan is the 41st most powerful person. These are also considerations by different magazines that Will Smith was the most powerful actor in Hollywood in April 2007, Angelina Jolie was the most powerful celebrity in 2009 or she is the sexiest woman in the world or Tom Cruise was ranked among the top 5 film stars of all time or something like these. No one can really say these things. But we do mention these things in their Wikipedia articles. Then why can't it be mentioned that Shahrukh Khan was considered to be the world's biggest movie star by Newsweek.

SourabhDev (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:11, 17 January 2012 (UTC).


 * Mr. I think we agreed that the sentence ''Globally, Khan is considered to be one of the biggest movie stars is enough...so please stop trying to add it urself.--Meryam90 (talk) 17:41, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Go to hell

SourabhDev (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:17, 21 January 2012 (UTC).

undo — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vikaschandak915 (talk • contribs) 10:00, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 13 January 2012
Shahrukh Khan is the most popular Indian but there's neither a section of his personal life nor a section of 'Awards & honors' on his main Wikipedia article page unlike Wikipedia articles of other celebrities.

SourabhDev (talk) 14:44, 13 January 2012 (UTC)


 * first he has no personal life section because all informations regarding his personal life are in Biography (and considering the fact that he got married before getting into films) and the awards page of his is here: List of awards and nominations received by Shahrukh Khan
 * and please, U don't need to make a new edit request to answer, just edit this space and write your message. Thanks.--Meryam90 (talk) 15:18, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

But every celebrity who has got another page for her/his awards & honors has a section of 'Awards & honors' on her/his main Wikipedia article page describing her/his main & big achievements. Most readers don't go to the awards page of a celebrity to read about her/his awards & honors.

Most? Lemme give you an example of Preity Zinta (an FA article) and Kareena Kapoour (Both FA & GA Articles, respectively, which qualifies them as ones the best Biographies in Wiki). Do you see any section regarding Awards? --Meryam90 (talk) 13:44, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

But both Preity Zinta & Kareena Kapoor's Wikipedia articles have "In the media" section which describes their popularity, honors & recognizations.

SourabhDev (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:14, 17 January 2012 (UTC).

sorry recognition not recognization

SourabhDev (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:17, 17 January 2012 (UTC).

Edit request on 14 January 2012
For mare than one & a half year, it's written that Shahrukh Khan's net worth is estimated to be INR 2500 crore. Now, this might be much more than that.

SourabhDev (talk) 13:09, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
 * No speculations. Please provide a source.  X.One   SOS  18:27, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Distributer
So I've found an old rediff.com interview with Kamal Nahta, and something he said was interesting:

Kamal:'' 'You’ve dabbled in distribution in the past, but you never got involved in the day-to-day business of distribution. What made you get into the thick of production activity?''

SRK: I turned distributor with Kabhi Haan Kabhi Naa because nobody was buying the film. I had Rs 400,000 and the film’s price for Bombay was Rs 1.2 million. So Ratan Jain, Vijay Galani and myself brought in Rs 400,000 each and formed a distribution company in the name of my wife, Gauri. We made money in that film, so we bought other films like Chaahat and Oh Darling Yeh Hai India. But, just like in distribution, I didn’t dabble in day-to-day production either. I don’t understand accounts, how will I get into day-to-day production activity?

Where should this be added? Producer section (I know a film distributer is very mucgh diffrent than a producer or should it just be mentioned with Kabhi Haan Kabhi Naa? in the 90s Sub-section? --Meryam90 (talk) 17:45, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Awards and Nominations
Shouldn't Awards and Nominations moved upwards (probably it would look more better when its placed before Filmography). Also maybe it would suit better when there is a brief introduction of awards he has won (ex: he holds the record of 8 awards in the best actor category). Torreslfchero (talk) 07:49, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Don't think same.Current positions are better organised.Let other editors tell them their view.--abhishek (talk) 07:55, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

The current position is good, however I was thinking the same thing as Torreslfchero given the fact taht he holds the record, for Filmfare, ZeeCine, screen and IIFA...It would probably be best to make a brief introduction inside the article, but it shouldn't be like it was before, only 4 lines or something...that would be pointless. --Meryam90 (talk) 12:27, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Too many pics!
Arent there too many pics of SRK? They are free or have rationale. So there is no problem in keeping them. I, infact, dont mind the ones with rationale. They are much better in context than other pics. Can we remove File:Shahrukh Khan 2008.jpg and File:Shah Rukh Khan (Berlin Film Festival 2008) 2.jpg. They dont add much to the article. Plus File:Premeire of 'Ra.One' in London.jpg can also go. MNIK's promotional pic File:SRK Kajol & Karan.jpg is sufficient. -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 13:12, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't agree. The article size is big enough that the existence of these pictures don't make it look crowded at all.--Meryam90 (talk) 13:58, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Well... they dont depict anything special. Its the same SRK in all pics. Had these been covering his various roles, like Asoka, Ra.One, Paheli, Om Shanti Om's "re-introduction" or his older films like Josh, Bazigar, then they would add variety. These are all 2000+ pics. They dont represent his full career. -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 14:41, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with Animesh. There's nothing significantly different in all these pictures, the other ones won't depict. Its just a flooding of images.  X.One   SOS  15:19, 21 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I just want to point out an example: This is an FA article of actress Bette Davis, of 73,815 bytes and it has 23 pictures (almost all of them are not free or fair-use). SRK's article is of 86,645 bytes and it only has 9 pictures. So please, don't tell me it's flooding with pictures. --Meryam90 (talk) 01:17, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I am surprised at that example. Though majority of the pics are free they add nothing to that article. But when you scroll through that article, 2/3rd of it is full of text. Whereas in SRK's article you reach half way & his filmography table starts and then is the list of references. The byte-size of SRK's page is probably more than Bette's as Bette's uses more references to books. (You see, they finish in lesser words). 9 pictures of SRK seems fair. But they should have some connection with the neighbouring text. Shouldnt it? These ones through little light on his career. They show him promoting MNIK (Big deal?!), attending Berlin Film Fest (Big deal?) and another one is of some Zee Carnival which hasnt even been mentioned in article. If at all, him beating Shirish Kunder would be a better snap to add. hehehehe -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 13:30, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes there are useless images in this article, If we could add some of prominent images of his early work that will be nice. And also see pages of other indian actors like Rajnikanth and Kamal Hassan. This article can too be a good article if you tone down the 'In the media' section and add some important details in the 'Awards' section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bineetojha (talk • contribs) 17:34, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Sharukh slaps Sirish Kunder
I think we should def update the latest controversy about SRK beating up Farah Khan's husband Sirish Kunder at Sanjay Dutt's bash of Agneepath's success. For his behavior, he is ridiculed and criticized all over India in almost all National newspapers and publications. It is reported that he couldn't take down criticism against Ra.One and Don2. Moreover, not winning a single Filmfare award this year for two of his biggest and most ambitious films just added fuel to his frustration. This is not just a rumor or gossip as Farah khan herself confirmed the news stating that "Shah Rukh has always told me that physical abuse is the worst way to sort out a problem, and that it means the person who is hitting has either a personal or professional crisis going on. It saddens me to see him doing the same.". SRK is surely going through the one of most bad phases in his life and career as none of his performances in his two movies could get him a Filmfare award which he loves the most. Reference provided here. This piece of information should definitely be put up on his profile as this kind of behavior from a superstar like SRK, was not accepted well by the entire nation. I am very well aware of the bunch of editors (devotees of SRK) here who monopolize in editing this article and that they would def come up with same lame excuses for not putting up this info on their Lord's page. I know that writing this info would be like slapping themselves. I expect other editors whom I respect and left a message to provide their comments based on NPOV --HereToSaveWiki (talk) 07:32, 31 January 2012 (UTC)


 * This is pure fanboyism and a deliberate attempt by you to deface a Wikipedia article with irrelevant (and questionable) facts. And quite contrarily, it is SRK who is getting a good deal of support especially from the industry. Rediff has had the life-long habit of being very strict towards SRK and putting most news about him as negative. Such information will almost certainly not be put up in this article unless SRK does it repeatedly. Btw, LOL at the "can't take not winning Filmfare" bullshit; this is not a forum for you to spew ranting hatred against a star. Go do it somewhere else. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 07:54, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * And this is the funniest part : "I am very well aware of the bunch of editors (devotees of SRK) here who monopolize in editing this article and that they would def come up with same lame excuses for not putting up this info on their Lord's page." In fact, your name and your level of shit talk is strongly telling myself that you are the infamous Seeta Mayya. Remember the takkar we had? I haven't forgotten it yet; believe me, this time I will throw you out of Wikipedia for good. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 07:56, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

The current page contains no Controversy section (which is usually seen as a seperate section on other Biographies). That section would have been a better place to include this. If at all there are any more personal controversies about him, a new section can be started which can include this beating-story. For such a lengthy good article a new section to mention only this incident is not done. Including this is lead of the article is also not done. The controversy isnt that big. He has done other things that have place in lead. -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 09:52, 31 January 2012 (UTC)


 * While controversy sections seem to be quite common in subcontinent biographies, they are in fact deprecated. We should strive to avoid such things and instead incorporate any relevant material within the general flow of the article. Separate sections can easily unbalance an article. - Sitush (talk) 10:16, 31 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Anyways, this news is not a notable enough news, otherwise for stars such as Salman Khan the lead would have been full of such stuff. It isn't necessary to put this up. Besides, as Sitush stated, Controversy sections are deprecated in biographies; they are valid in film articles but not in any other articles (unless specifically required, or of a great severity). My comments are to be taken to be directed against Seeta mayya and not necessarily over this editor; however, the type of statements such as "group of SRK fans" etc. is strictly out of place and can be taken up as a personal attack on an unspecified group of users. Nobody monopolizes anything in WP, and it is precisely this statement that made me get the Seeta mayya link as she had said much the same thing; in addition, Seeta mayya had also stated that "wikipedia is falling apart, i'm trying to save it" etc. Hence the conclusion. I will follow this up anyways, just to make sure. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 10:37, 31 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Good you pointed out that Salman himself had these stuffs mention in his profile. I know it was there in a separate Controversies section but was removed later and added in Personal Life section. May be we could do just that and add in the Personal Life section. However replies from Animeshkulkarni and Sitush are quite satisfactory and solves the purpose of stating this consensus. Now coming to our controversy, do you actually understand what you talk? Can you or someone please explain how can a ""group of SRK fans" can be taken as a personal attack that too on an unspecified group of users. The statement is quite contradictory. I still don't want to name anyone here but believe me I've seen all of it. SRK's page and his movies pages are all glorified, personified and magnified by his die hard fans making the article read like semi-official fanzines. You don't believe me, just go read the same article all over once again and trust me you'll def find numerous unsourced claims like "received critical acclaim", "performance appluaded" etc., And about Seeta Mayya, I don't know who she is or what she has done to you and I don't care. You may please go ahead with your whatever investigations as I don't give a hoot. --HereToSaveWiki (talk) 11:08, 31 January 2012 (UTC)


 * No. You are misunderstanding a whole load of things here. Controversy/criticism sections are deprecated, period - nothing to do with the type of article. Similarly, we do not mention everything in the lead section: that exists to summarise an article, not to go into detail. A well written article needs no citations in its lead section, by the way. Finally, your comments about other users, regardless of whom you may think them to be, are tottering on the edge of being uncivil. - Sitush (talk) 10:49, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:CSECTION is a good place to start, and this incident alone, IMO, does not merit a mention. No, accusing someone or some group as having a bias for or against "SRK" is not a personal attack in itself (but threatening to "throw someone out of Wikipedia" is much more serious). With regards to this incident, whether SRK is getting truckloads of support, or whether Rediff is biased (or "was always biased") is completely irrelevant and reeks of fanlore. Please discuss matters relating to our policies; i.e. is it notable? Is it verifiable? Discussions should be structured on those lines. My final take: Not notable, shouldn't be mentioned.  Lynch 7  11:05, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree. Stuff like "Rediff has had the life-long habit of being very strict towards SRK and putting most news about him as negative" cannot be said without a proper verification, even that is similar to fanboyism. The topic is definitely notable and verifiable, because it has been published in almost all major Indian dailies, in some as headlines. Farah Khan's reaction should also be mentioned, along with this and if found, other major controversies deserve a note in a separate section, as long as undue weight is not given.  X.One   SOS  11:35, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Not notable, this is ridiculous. If we put this up we'll have to put up every little thing people have ever been involved in. This ins't the place where some unverified incident belongs. Plus, who is Shirish Kunder? (Asher Madan) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashermadan (talk • contribs) 12:12, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Who said its not notable and verifiable? Take a look at WP:GNG, and this is not a "little thing" he has been involved in. There are multiple sources talking about the issue, and the subject of the report is this incident. Shirish Kunder is the husband of Farah Khan, who has had a long and pleasant relation with SRK. Now, a sudden jerk in the relation is covered widely by the media, hence I believe it needs a notice.  X.One   SOS  12:28, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * @Sitush - Controversy sections do belittle people. But some of them reach wikipedia's sense of notability only because of this and i see no harm in calling it controversy if it was a controversy. Why sugar coat it? (Not commenting for this particular example. This one seems trivial; as of now.) -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 12:41, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Of course there are multiple reports about the incident because the Indian media seem to be even more obsessed with so-called celebrity gossip than the Brits are. It is what you get when you use sources such as these. We do not report every little instance that gets written in news sources. If someone decides to press charges then it is notable; otherwise, it is not. We are an encyclopedia, not some gossip rag. - Sitush (talk) 12:44, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * @SoS, For one thing, WP:GNG applies to article creation. Nevertheless, existence of thousands of mentions of the incident does not automatically bestow notability. Slaps are not uncommon, and their coverage by the paparazzi is also not uncommon. For instance, George W. Bush had a shoe thrown at him, and it received international coverage, and still it does not get a mention in the article. Mentioning these kind of incidents will just give undue weight to those incidents.  Lynch 7  12:53, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * @AK, I think SRK, Shirish and Farah were well noted in their fields before this incident.  Lynch 7  12:53, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * @MikeLynch - I am against inclusion of this incident on any of the articles in Wikipedia. My question is for all other articles. Why should we not have a separate section? Why do we need to blend it in? -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 13:09, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah, yes, glad to know we're on the same page on this particular issue, I forgot to read your first comment :) . About the controversy section, WP:CSECTION puts the reasons very well.  Lynch 7  13:15, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

X.One SOS: Congrats for being the biggest Salman Khan fanboy on Wikipedia and being the biggest hypocrite on the internet. If you include the slap incident where SRK slapped some guy, then why won't you include Salman Khan murdering a man in 2002, him hitting countless women, and killing endangered species for fun? Good job! Keep it up! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashermadan (talk • contribs) 13:27, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Asher, first please learn to sign your posts. If Salman indeed murdered someone, and it has been the talk of the town (not mere speculation and false charges), I see no harm in mentioning it in his article.  X.One   SOS  13:38, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * @Lynch : The George Bush incident was definitely not a major one. It lasted for barely a moment, and after the reporter threw the shoe, he was immediately taken away. Bush wasn't harmed in any way. USA and the middle east had been fighting for a long time. This is different. One of the reports said that Shirish was beaten up black and blue and injured badly, and that they spent hours together fighting, before some people finally managed to escort SRK out of the place and calm him down. Farah and SRK rubbed smoothly with each other, and this night changed the whole thing.  X.One   SOS  13:38, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Not big? You must be kidding. It gets more than 12,000 hits on Google News. Anyway, the point is that we should not give undue importance for single events.  Lynch 7  15:09, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Here you go. Another article The most talked-about scuffles of Shahrukh Khan released by Rediff. It lists not only Sirish Kunder and Farah Khan but also his tiffs with Salman Khan, Amar Singh and Sunny Deol to name a few. "I am not saying that we include all of them" but believe me if we start a Controversies section in the star's page, it would be longer than any other actor in Bollywood including that of Sanjay Dutt and Salman Khan. Another one to remember is the Shiv Sena controversy which is included in MNIK's page has actually got nothing to do with the film itself. It actually arose on SRK's comments on inclusion of Pakistan Crickets in IPL for which Shiv Sena blasted SRK for his comments. MNIK was just a victim of the co-incidence of the time. Please see again I'm not a SRK hater or XYZ lover. I'm just being neutral. And dear Ashermadan, I suggest you please read Salman's page once again before commenting anywhere. You'll find all those controversies you mentioned already listed in his Personal Life section. And didn't you say that Salman hit "countless women", you must be really kidding me. A star's profile hitting countless women should def needs to be updated and the star be regarded as a maniac. You get that source buddy and I'll def add it up there, if you cant then stop making such useless comments --HereToSaveWiki (talk) 13:47, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I think that the main protagonists in this thread all need to calm down. How about everyone take a 24 hour break? This article will still be around then. - Sitush (talk) 14:10, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I'll be back tomorrow.  X.One   SOS  14:13, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Wow, This is...this is...I don't have enough words to describe this really...Add tyhe slap issue in the lead? impossible, add a controversy section, EVERY celebrity on the face o earth is involved in controversies through out the years, isn't the what keeps PR agencies open and winning money? anyway, news hve come out today that Farah and her husband went to Mannat (SRK's residence and fixed things) If they can fix things between them, so can we...I hope this ridiculous discussion is over soon...--Meryam90 (talk) 16:46, 31 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I cannot stop you posting here but it looks like many of the earlier people commenting here have agreed to take 24 hours off from this talk page. Tempers were getting a little frayed and I am grateful to all of those who have realised that a short break might do everyone some good, a bit of time to read around and - more importantly - a bit of time to formulate coherent and civil arguments. - Sitush (talk) 18:16, 31 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Now that Shirish Kunder has been revealed as the guy who was drunk, messing with women, sending vulgar tests to Sanjay's wife, Mr. Fanboy aka X.One will go cry to his lord and master Salman Khan and leave this topic. How much do you guys want to bet? I would heed the following advice to people like him: Stop being a Salman fanboy and stop trolling SRK's every move. The media has revealed how truly vulgar Shirish Kunder is and no matter how many Salman fanboys like you try to put nonsense like a slap on Wikipedia, the fact is that Wikipedia is not a place for such news. You may love to spread useless news about some nobody getting slapped but do so in the comfort of you own homes, stop putting rubbish on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is an ENCYCLOPEDIA Mr. X.One SOS. An encyclopedia has no use for a slap. If he had run over someone or if there was a case lodged against him then that would be news. So, Mr. X.One SOS, stop being a Salman fanboy and grow the heck up. Asher Madan 19:53, 31 January 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashermadan (talk • contribs)
 * Check your language, Ashermadan. Don't accuse others of bad faith. As your history suggests, you've ignored quite a few warnings already. And this time, your consistent negligence could result in a block. Scieberking (talk) 08:32, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I was just about to revert that contribution. It is appalling. Since you have responded, I've resorted to leaving another warning on their talk page. If I was an admin then I would probably have considered a block. - Sitush (talk) 08:36, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Outright fanboyism and incivility, I suppose. Yeah, I've added strikeout tags per WP:REMOVEUNCIVIL. What's more concerning is that Ashermadan is noted for conveniently removing the warnings from his talk page with annoying edit summaries. Scieberking (talk) 09:15, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I stand by what I said. Remove or strike it out. I do not wish to participate in this ridiculous conversation about a slap anymore. Have a great day everyone! A slap has no place in an encyclopedia. -- Asher Madan 09:39, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Ashermadan, "signing" does not mean writing your name. Instead of that, do the simpler thing of typing four tildes (~ 4 times). Believe me, its becoming irritating to decipher who said this statement and who didn't.

Regarding the topic of discussion, this slap is totally non-notable. X.One is blowing the entire thing out of proportion; he has also forgotten exactly how quickly the controversy died down when both SRK-Shirish patched up. "Beating black and blue" and "for hours" is purely fanboyistic and no notable source (I repeat, no NOTABLE source) has mentioned such large and fancy statements, unless the statement was made by Shirish Kuner himself. If editors wish to put a statement in the article on the basis of a first-party statement, violating a ton of rules in the process, then go ahead. After all, the concerned editors can do no wrong.

And of course, most people are ignoring that it is reported to be Shirish's fault for starting the fight (involving his drunkenness, and even Sanjay Dutt's wife Maanyata). HereToSaveWiki's desperate attempt to bring this controversy into the article should not be encouraged, no matter how many supporters line up behind him. Statements like "official fanzines" are also being ignored by our impartial and neutral editors; in addition, the statement he used was "I am very well aware of the bunch of editors (devotees of SRK) here who monopolize in editing this article and that they would def come up with same lame excuses for not putting up this info on their Lord's page. I know that writing this info would be like slapping themselves." Clearly, for the other knowledgable and fair editors, this does not constitute any sort of unreferenced claim and attack.

Sitush's statement "We are an encyclopedia, not some gossip rag" should ideally sum up this entire situation. "It lasted for barely a moment, and after the reporter threw the shoe, he was immediately taken away. Bush wasn't harmed in any way. USA and the middle east had been fighting for a long time. This is different. One of the reports said that Shirish was beaten up black and blue and injured badly, and that they spent hours together fighting, before some people finally managed to escort SRK out of the place and calm him down." sums up exactly why Wikipedia does NOT have a gang of SRK-worshippers, as fact-twisting is going on by the dozen now: the George Bush incident received tremendous international coverage, sparking off debates about US policies, wars and economy and the public outrage against the Government. It was certainly notable enough if this issue is notable, and yet it isn't there in the Bush article. "Believe me if we start a Controversies section in the star's page, it would be longer than any other actor in Bollywood including that of Sanjay Dutt and Salman Khan." is so laughably fanboyistic that I'm finidng it hard to type with all this laughter. Yet, the said editor is getting a load of support for this ridiculous inclusion into the article from X.One.

In short, this event is absolutely non-notable and there should actually be no discussion at all. X.One, become neutral before commenting. I do not like Salman Khan, and I do not go around his page insisting for silly inclusions that warrant no need. You should do the same as well. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 09:53, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * TL;DR. This discussion is getting pointless. SOS was quite neutral in his comments; bringing up a conflicting opinion does not make him biased.  Lynch 7  11:10, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you Lynch, and Ankit, something like "I am very well aware of the bunch of editors (devotees of SRK) here who monopolize in editing this article and that they would def come up with same lame excuses for not putting up this info on their Lord's page. I know that writing this info would be like slapping themselves" cannot be considered a personal attack because it wasn't intended on any specific user. It's just a general note, though maybe not really civil. Have a good day!  X.One   SOS  12:00, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

And now a few days later, they have made up, so let it go: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jxhx75ffT6w&feature=g-all-u&context=G28ef81eFAAAAAAAACAA BollyJeff  ||  talk  13:48, 2 February 2012 (UTC)


 * X.One, the statement "I am very well aware of the bunch of editors (devotees of SRK) here who monopolize in editing this article and that they would def come up with same lame excuses for not putting up this info on their Lord's page. I know that writing this info would be like slapping themselves" is "not really civil"? So according to you, a sentence like "slapping themselves" and "devotees of SRK [...] who monopolize in editing this article" is "not really civil"? A statement like that, which questions the neutrality and integrity of the article contributors in such a manner, is "not really an attack"?


 * Ah well, since the highly notable editors, who are not interested in editing SRK-related articles as it is full of little fanboys like me, feel so then I am definitely in no position to question anything. The only problem now is that the dictionary definition of some words has to be modified. But that's no issue is it? ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 15:22, 3 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I'd expect a comment like that to be detected at a common enemy, understandable :D Funny how some ppl can never let go of a grudge. Anyway, they made up already and even newspapers report that Sirish himself went to SRK's home and APOLOGIZED.I think you all went at this for faaaaaar enough. Time to let go and move on like Jeff said. :D --Meryam90 (talk) 18:11, 3 February 2012 (UTC)


 * What was most hilarious was the blatant lying going on. Like the beautiful-sounding statement "SRK beat Shirish black and blue, and for hours". Yeah right, for hours. Or this lovely bit of GK like "the George Bush incident was barely important, lasted for just a little time". I was laughing like nothing before. Great comedy circus going on here, especially by those who say that they are neutral and we are fanboys. No wonder trolls like HereToSaveWiki and Seeta mayya are encouraged and nurtured. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 11:12, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay, this is enough.  Lynch 7  12:11, 4 February 2012 (UTC)