Talk:Shah Rukh Khan/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Under construction

This article will be under construction in the few days to come. Mostly for the addition of a section called "In The Media" and other arrangements of the article. So expect it to feature the tag soon and yes, it will be a royal mess for a while.

• Any concern regarding the content of the section could be added here (I know there would be plenty).
• If you happen to have such concern, try to be at the very least civil. (even tho I now it IS too much to ask from some ppl :P)
• JFYI, I ain't being paied by SRK. lol just the for the dilutional haters who would (I am sure of it) think that. --Meryam90 (talk) 22:16, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Thats nice! Good luck to you. Do consider my "Too many pics!" comment. Others, as & when i recognize, i will put them here. -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 13:07, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Shouldn't In 2006, Khan was one of four Bollywood actors including Priyanka Chopra, Kajol and Hrithik Roshan whose miniature dolls were launched by Spin Master Toys UK under the name of "Bollywood legends" be part of "Awards and honors" section instead of "In the media"?--Sandy (talk) 18:04, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Is that an award? I don't see it an honor. He has an awards list, but it's seperate from the main article and is just a list. same as when U mention him winning a filmfare best actor award in this article when it's already mentioned in the awards list...

The Dolls thing is a general info about him...He doesn't have an awards and honors section anyway, and in the Media section also sums up some of his "honors" as well.--Meryam90 (talk) 00:06, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I will add this to talk page first, in case some1 would find a problem with it.

I still haven't found this article in The Hindustani Times website:

• epaper.hindustantimes
• Youth Survey.hindustantimes

I only found it in the epaper. and It's deffo an RS. So I am adding it to the In The Media section.--Meryam90 (talk) 15:24, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh wait, I found it: http://www.hindustantimes.com/Specials/coverage/YouthSurvey2012/RoleModels.aspx--Meryam90 (talk) 15:31, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

TIME magazine's note on SRK

In 2009, TIME magazine noted in their article that Shahrukh Khan's worldwide fan base has been estimated at 3.5 billion people. Check out the following link: http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1917090,00.html This was much more than half of the world population that time. SourabhDev (talk) 17:16, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Shahrukh's cameo in "Pehla Nasha"

Shahrukh Khan did a cameo in the movie "Pehla Nasha". It's also given on the Wikipedia article of "Pehla Nasha". SourabhDev (talk) 21:13, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

planning to start award section for SRK

I am planning to create separate dedicated page for SRK for all his awards. The main article is becoming mess and to big to read with to to much information.

do we have any contributors for that ?

~~hopefloat007~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hopefloat007 (talk • contribs) 15:43, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Do you mean a separate article? I don't think so it will be accepted. Instead, you can clean and work on the existing ones. -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 15:49, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

What? There already is one: List of awards and nominations received by Shahrukh Khan BollyJeff || talk 15:50, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

There is no need for an awards section since main article: List of awards and nominations received by Shahrukh Khan has a big lead, if U'd wish, u can work on that, separately from this article and it wud still be linked to this one though the section http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shahrukh_Khan#Awards_and_honors. As for the length of the article, it is still too short as his films of the 90s haven't all been addressed. One more thing, please stop adding or removing materials without having a valid reason or a reliable source. --Meryam90 (talk) 15:51, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Have added that he joined Jamia Millia Islamia but left the mass communication. Its in his biography. Have removed the king, queen and child of bollywood link as its derogatory to SRK status. These are pop fan given names which are many and we can not add in wiki which has to be factual and not a pop driven article. I have mentioned that on your talk pape too.

ok will not start new SRK award pape, will try to update this one first. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hopefloat007 (talk • contribs) 15:57, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I am still not getting the whole the king, queen and child of bollywood link as its derogatory to SRK status. These are pop fan given names which are many and we can not add in wiki which has to be factual and not a pop driven article. U're only removing a redirect note that states there is an other article which leads to the name King of Bollywood (other than SRK's) plus please try to stick to the rule of reliable sources, all materiasl added without source will be removed.--Meryam90 (talk) 16:02, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Shah Rukh Khan to speak at Yale university

Shah Rukh Khan is to deliver a lecture at the prestigious Yale University as its Chubb Fellow, an honour which in the past has been bestowed on heads of states and Nobel Prize winners.

Here' the URL of the source: http://www.thehindu.com/news/international/article3277951.ece SourabhDev (talk) 19:12, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

o_O OMG! He's getting The Chubb Fellowship??! That's a MUST add...Maybe we shall wait till it happens so we can have more news on which to build a sizable paragraph!! :D --Meryam90 (talk) 20:31, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Name Spacing

Numerous sources, including old school documents, IMDb, and even the actor's personal Twitter page all indicate that his name should be spelled "Shah Rukh Khan". This makes sense, as the name is Persian in origin, and many Persian "first" names are made up of more than one word. As such, "Shah Rukh" is almost like "Mary-Kate" or "Ann-Marie". Since his personal Twitter page even lists his name as being made up of three words, why does this article insist on using two? "Shah Rukh" is a fairly common name, and it's used with or without the space depending on personal preference of the person to whom it belongs, but in this case it seems fairly clear that Mr. Khan's name is made up of three words: "Shah Rukh Khan".

Sources:

SRK's Twitter page: http://twitter.com/iamsrk
IMDb page: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0451321/
School document (which was at one time featured in this article): http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/374/showletter2dd09gg.jpg

I just feel that we should respect the clearly more accurate spelling of the man's name. If he himself spells it as three words, then shouldn't we do the same? Just my two cents.

72.19.112.249 (talk) 22:42, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

File:Kkr new look.JPG Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Kkr new look.JPG, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests April 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Kkr new look.JPG) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 15:03, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Shahrukh - Wankhede affair

This is not his "Non-film work". It was a contoversy, So please maintain a separate section for the subject.--Napsync (talk) 17:06, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

he was banned from wankhede stadium

http://post.jagran.com/ipl-drama-girl-molested-srk-banned-1337317581 --82.139.5.13 (talk) 20:40, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

It's already added in the IPL ownership section. --Meryam90 (talk) 20:45, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

The ageing controveresy

User:Karthikndr added a section on a Newspaper article stating that SRK was loing out on endorsements due to his age, which is repeatedly being reverted by User:Meryam90 who claims it is a violation of WP:BLP. I feel no reason for it to violate BLP. It was a properly cited statement from the Times of India. If you feel that this is a BLP violation, then all refs from ToI are also the same. I'm adding it again, and I'm leaving it for an admin to have a look. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 18:02, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

BLP clearly state Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, so long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone. Do not give disproportionate space to particular viewpoints; the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all. Care must be taken with article structure to ensure the overall presentation and section headings are broadly neutral. Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association, and biased or malicious content.

The material added not only IS NOT relative to RKK's career in a direct way, he is an actor, if the problems are not hurting his acting career, what is the issue with him loosing or gaining ENDORSEMENT deals? and that because of age? Articles debating popularity of a star are publicshed everyday, the article by it i as well, phrased is a malicious way. Not only that but it is full of speculations, there is no proof he has lost any endorsement deals, and the latest study conducted on the popularity of actors in the endorsement world ranks him as #1, Rediff, which means that the content written on TOI is simply POV add is not backed up by any evidence that would make it NOTABLE enough on wiki. Variability isn't the only thing on BLP that should be respected. I am removing the content again and it would be wise to have a consensus before re-adding it.

I would like to point out an other article written by TOI that contradicts the content of the one used to cite the content added earlier,This so adding the first would require writing a hole paragraphs as a debate between two different pols of the society with different views, making it a clear POV that would find no place here on wiki and esp not on a BLP. --Meryam90 (talk) 18:22, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Okay, this article has been protected to allow time for discussion here. Meryam90, this article is a complete biography, which includes not only his acting career but all elements of his life; thus, material that is not directly related to his primary career may be acceptable. That being said, whether this particular material warrants inclusion is subject to editorial discretion, and the information you give about conflicting opinions suggests that that should be discussed. So, any other opinions on the matter? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:22, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

I had added the info on his loosing endorsements deal in "In the media" section, stating that "an article was featured on The Times of India (ofcourse the newspaper is world's largest selling newspaper, and hence AGF, it must be a well researched work by the tabloid. )" The actor, who was once God of endorsements in India, is loosing his contracts or no (or few) brand is signing him any more, its surely a news. Does it violates BLP? Find the info I added here. I never indulge myself in any dispute if my edit is reverted twice, but this time I strongly believe that an article must follow neutral point of view. -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 06:28, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Have other newspapers or magazines also expressed similar views? §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 06:52, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

• An old king.... MSN.
• Goodbye Shah Rukh Khan, thanks for the memories. CNN-IBN.
• My Name is Declined: Looking ahead at Shahrukh Khan's career outlook after MNIK demise. IBOS. -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 07:18, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

:If Times of India is the problem, then here is a simple solution: Remove all statements backed by ToI in this article. If that isn't posible, then the said statement should be added. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 08:05, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

I've always stayed away from this SRK's page as I feel, this article is not just one of the most but in-fact THE MOST biased article on Wikipedia. But not getting into any claims, discussions and arguments, I fully support Karthik and Rsrikanth for the inclusion of the ageing info for the very simple reasons of this being an encyclopedia, should cover all aspects of any person living or dead. Having said this, I also feel an above closed discussion of SRK slapping Sirish Kunder should've also got its place in the article, even though they hugged & kissed a day or two after, as the incident is and was highly notable and published by all the major dailies, weeklies etc., Moreover the incident is again being highlighted by the media after SRK got into the recent MCA scuffle at Wankhade. BTW, what is that 5-yr ban from the stadium got to do in the "Ownership of IPL" section. That has to be properly placed in some other section as I'm pretty sure that one-liner will also be soon removed citing some stupid reason. Though I never commented on any topic related to SRK earlier, I feel the three incidents as of now viz., SRK slapping Sirish, MCA scuffle and this ageing and losing should be properly stated in the "In the Media" section.

P.S: I an just being neutral and I neither hate SRK nor admire him for any valid reasons. --Msrag (talk) 09:23, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Even I had stayed away from this article. But its only we who can neutralize this article, hence I came out arguing for the first time (tough I watch the page to revert vandalism's). Great neutral reply Msrag :) The article is very much biased and I said same to User:Meryam90. -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 09:30, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Neutralize this article?? You mean months of sleepless nights, raising our blood & body temperatures, frustrations and abuses leading to mental state of mind, hypertension, losing focus on other things in life, or should I say losing our normal life. Are you ready for all these?? I'm sure not. If yes I'm in it but I believe you must be kidding. :) --Msrag (talk) 09:46, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

You are right, I'm kidding as of now :P :) I'm not in. Just want to get this matter solved :P -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 09:53, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

All of you, please don't throw names at articles, no matter what you feel about them. Imagine the efforts the major contributors must have put up to raise it. Why, if I didn't look deeper, I would say that this article fits for an FA review. It is not etiquette to baptize articles with negativity. All of us are here for a purpose, to build and extend this encyclopedia. Thank you. Secret of success (talk) 15:13, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

As of now, I have not given my opinion and before I jump to conclusions, could anyone layout the matter clearly as this one seems to be a bit haphazard? I will invite other editors to add their comments. Based on a deeper look, I think the text needs to be amended before it can be considered for addition, and that requires discussion. Thank you, again. Secret of success (talk) 15:13, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Its a very well-known fact of life that each person's career and life faces ups and downs. There will be phases where it seems that the person's career is down in the dumps. For Khan, there has been significant talk of a "midlife crisis" and other such stuff which certainly merits inclusion in the article. Having said this, I feel that the matter of maximum importance is how the content is placed in the article. Reaching neutrality in such paragraphs is (obviously) difficult. I would suggest that we channel our energies towards formulating an acceptably neutral inclusion of content without adding any of the fancy additions our Indian media loves adding.

P.S. - I'm a fan of Khan, and of Aamir Khan as well, but I do not allow that to cloud my judgement, and I hope Ms. Meryam can also follow suit. Cheers, ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 16:48, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

So Ankit, what's your opinion? Should we have the information on ageing? -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 17:02, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Why not? If we have to get this article to higher standards (and believe me, this article is destined for a lot more than a measly B) there needs to be wholesome but non-controversial neutrality. Which is why, again and again, I am going to emphasize on the how rather than the what. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 17:51, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

So if many sources have published similar opinions about Khan, does User:Meryam90 still thinks it to be TOI's point of view? §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 18:08, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

TOI isn't the problem...The problem is the content being added was regading his endorsement deals..How his age is making him losing his "position" in the ads world...IBOS is not a reliable source and both CNN and MSN do not speak of the issue of endorsements...and regarding AGING, if I remember correctly, he is a human being no? unless some of you don't expect him to ever age. So, no the issue still stands, there is no reasoning for the adding of the material regarding endorsements, esp that there is an article that clearly puts him at #1 in the advertising world (as I stated in my first paragraph) and considering those are FACTS and the TOI article is not based on any facts whatsoever and is only some weak analysis by a journalist...it should not be added to this article...--

and I am not going to comment on "the neutrality of the article" talk...That's just immature rubbish from some immature ppl, I wont even bother... Meryam90 (talk) 20:28, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

I find your view on this matter immature, rather than calling the entire issue immature. I am leaving this matter, maybe someone else can get something done. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 07:12, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

There are sources which talk on his aging, and TOI adds to it after their research work (the article is very recent one) that he is loosing his endorsements deal. Whats the problem if we are aiming at neutralizing the article? -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 08:50, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Much as I can understand the need for neutrality, I would like to point out that name-calling and pot-shots will not be tolerated. If you guys are so vehement on neutrality, could some of the esteemed editors here point out why the article of Satyamev Jayate reads like a fan piece dripping with nothing but the most fullsome praise for the show? i distinctly remember reading an non-positive review from Subhash K Jha (a noted film critic) which, quite ironically, finds no mention in the article. Look at yourselves before attempting to insult others. Do not belittle the hard work of other editors. Consensus can be reached without unnecessary frills. Thank you.

P.S. - Yes, I am aware of WP:BURDEN, and I will place the necessary sources in the said article's talk page. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 14:37, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Ah, evidence provided in the talk page. Have a look. Till then, this discussion should come to a halt. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 15:09, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

I request Ankit hereby to discuss on the issue, and not divert the discussion. We are here to balance the neutrality of the article, and not to criticize the living person. -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 10:47, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

I've never come across this kinda condition in any Wiki discussion before: "First go and do this, then come and talk here." A mere un-intentional missing of some reviews in the critical response section of the Satyamev Jayate article is completely out-of-context and not related in this discussion. I fail to understand the connection between the two.--Msrag (talk) 12:50, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

The connection is this :- some esteemed editors who are going on a name-calling spree and mocking the contributions of a user, in addition to talking about neutrality non-stop, have completely failed to uphold the very same neutrality in another article they worked on. Ironic. Karthik, there are ways to balance the article's neutrality without demeaning other editors, and that applies even more strongly for Msrag. Get my point? Stay in limits. And please tell me how those reviews were "missed un-intentionally" after four shows (and four weeks) have passed. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 15:05, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't think I (or anybody else) need to explain you (or anyone else) as to why those reviews were missing in that article for the very simple fact that editing Wikipedia is not one's duty but rather an interest. No one gets paid for it but derives pleasure of it. Everyone over here edits as per their convenience and comfort. FYI, I've collected more than 100 news articles from various sources to be updated on SMJ, and would be doing it as and when I get time. Now this does not mean that you have to question the completeness or neutrality of the article. As said before, if the neutrality of that article bothered you so much and if you had the sources ready with you, you could've updated that stuff yourself. Did you do that? No. Did anyone stopped you, opposed you or reverted you? No. Therefore you are no one to question me (or anyone else) about missing stuffs on any article as neither you nor me nor anyone else own any Wiki article here. Hope you get this clear now? And well, I will and you too should Stay in limits. --Msrag (talk) 06:56, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Full Protection?

Why is this page fully protected ? please someone explain this to me .....--Napsync (talk) 08:18, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

There has been Edit warring/Content Dispute about a "controversial" content [which was published by a news paper] to be added or not. click to comment on The ageing controveresy (Just above). DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 09:58, 23 May 2012 (UTC).

1990s films and undue coverage of some films

1990s films need a bit more coverage. Major films such as Raju Ban Gaya Gentleman, Koyla have not been mentioned. Undue weight have been given to 2010s films. Ra.One does not even deserve 3 lines, given that DDLJ has 7 lines in the article. At present, Ra.One has been discussed for a good meaty paragraph -- definitely needs merciless editing. Same goes true for My Name Is Khan.--Dwaipayan (talk) 19:31, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree abt the first part...The 90s films haven't been entirly covered...for lack of informations or just because I haven't gotten there yet...but I don't agree on the 2nd part at all, those two films esp have been a milestone in his career and the things written abt them are basically necessary, esp for Ra.One since he played a big figure in the making of many aspects of the film. and It's not about calculating how many lines a film got...DDLJ should be expended, but just because only 7 lines are written abt it, it justified reducing the paragraphs for an other. --Meryam90 (talk) 19:55, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Haha, LoL!! Milestone? Ra.One?? Even if it is, sentences like "While filming, he admitted he found difficulties with the rubber-made costume that was specially designed for his character; he also could not eat or drink anything between shoots, resulting in a weight loss of ten kilos. Khan also injured his left knee during filming, causing him considerable pain. Despite this, he postponed his knee surgery till after the release of the film." are totally unneeded details in an article on the person. Those sentences may be needed in the article Ra.One, but not here. The paragraph on Don 2 may still be acceptable, it does not overburden the reader.

Please try to improve information on those films that are overall regarded as major films of him, including those from 1990s. I see a fleeting mention of Kuch Kuch Hota Hai which is probably a major product of his lover boy days. Chak De... seems to be well covered. DDLJ, Swadesh, Mohabbatein may need some improvement. However, that does not entail an injury during the shooting or a delay in elective surgery. On the other hand, the Newark Airport incident during My Name is Khan is important and appropriate mention.--Dwaipayan (talk) 13:49, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

As a follow up of this (and not getting any response in 3 days after the last comment), I did do major changes in 2010s section of Acting career. The changes involved straight deletion of many material, and change of language (such as joining two sentences, or changing the tone). The good thing that it provoked was some copyedit from User:Meryam90, after s/he revertedmy above mentioned edit.

At least, finally you are deleting some info it seems. Anyway, Meriyam you told "too much information" was deleted. Can you please point out which information did you think were too much that were deleted? Difficulty with rubber made costume? Or not able to eat or drink? No other films contain details like that not even Chak De or DDLJ or Swadesh.

It used to read "it witnessed a level of publicity campaigning previously unseen in Indian films and the use of several new technology equipment never seen before in the cinematic history of Bollywood". I changed it to "it witnessed massive publicity campaigns and the use of several technology equipments unused in Bollywood before"; where is the loss of information? Rather, it is toning down to more encycloped-alike language as opposed to more magazine-like writing.

You may have a point if you tell that I removed some quotations from critics. Yes I did. For My Name is Khan, I removed The Telegraph review comments, and kept Variety comments (as that is more prominent film recview source). For Ra.One, I removed both the review coomments, and kept the gist of reviews (Ra.One paragraph was alreday long, so removed those two comments). Why specifically are those 2 comments necessaery, when you alreday have told the theme of the reviews?--Dwaipayan (talk) 20:28, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Neutrality of this article

Since this aspect is becoming the topic of high drama in the Indian cinema task force, I believe it would be in everybody's best interests to discuss the entire issue here. I am noticing wild ideas of having extremely illogical and demeaning "votes" on neutrality issues, plus a lot of unnecessary insults such as "your views are stupid" or "this is the most biased article on Wikipedia" which are reeking of negative troll behavior. This needs to come to a halt, and instead we should concentrate on the content to be added and the way it should be written. It is more than clear that those who are wanting neurtality are effectively pushing for a mass of their hatred, which is where checks and balances need to come up. I am completely for the inclusion of a Controversies section, but a rabid negative section (which is exactly what some editors want) will be removed without delay. And that will not be a violation of neutrality. The very same applies equally well to a rabidly positive section or self-contradictory section, which is what certain other editors want.

I suggest we break these down into four steps :-

• Collection. We go around the Web and start collecting the controversies Khan has ended up in. We collect topics and all articles related to it. I emphasize on this because I know that certain editors will indulge in selective article showings (both positive and negative), so I will tell you in advance that everybody can access the Web, so if you miss an article, it can be found by others. An unwritten rule is that the sources should be reliable.

• Discussion. All editors shall engage in discussion over a single controversy at a time, throwing ideas as to how and what to place for the particular controversy. All suggestions are welcome, but please be restrained in your behavior and try to keep the atmosphere amicable.

• Voting. Once a particular controversy has got some text to describe it, all editors will vote as to whether to allow the content to be moved into the main article, or whether further adjustments are required (such as day-to-day updates). Any opposition should have a valid reasoning.

• Placement. Once there is general agreement that the content should be added in the particular form, an editor can copy-paste the text into the article under a "Controversies" section (if the text is the first to go, then the section should be created).

The process will repeat for each controversy. It may be long, but considering the amount of trolling that this issue faces, shortcuts have no place here. I hope we can all discuss this and make the article better. I have sent messages to all the editors directly involved in the dispute; however, you are strongly encouraged to bring other editors as well into the discussion so as to be able to collect a wider array of views and information. This is, of course, under the condition of "no canvassing". ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 15:30, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Comments prior to starting

• Personally, I am against adding the stuff in a separate section titled "controversies". Secret of success (talk) 16:12, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose: I am with User:Secret of success on this, we can add the controversies (if considered major) to the career section (or the appropriate section) in the year in has happened (similar to his detainment in America which has been added to the My name is Khan section or controversies regarding IPL witch have been added to the section of ownership of IPL) and any controversies regarding affair rumors or fights with other celebs is gossip and it goes without saying that it finds no place in here. --Meryam90 (talk) 16:28, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure that would be a very good idea. His controversies extend beyond his films as well (such as the recent IPL one) and such controversies can't be placed properly under any part of the Career section simply because such controversies don't deal with his film career. I conditionally support the inclusion of a Controversies section, provided it is neutral and is acceptable worded. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 16:36, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

I second Ankitbhatt on adding a Controversies section provided it is neutral. What I'm worried about here is not mud slinging, but promotion happening in such a section. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 17:03, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

His recent IPL MCA controversy in itself is added to IPL5 article because it happened with him as the owner of KKR, which means it finds a perfect place under the ownership of IPL team section.--Meryam90 (talk) 17:36, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

It is quite obvious that SRK's article is a troll magnet. If that is the case, it is always best to avoid these sections. THe IPL controversies, could be included under IPL section, while the film ones (which are not as much as the IPL ones) could come under his career section, depending on the chronology. Secret of success (talk) 05:05, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

• Support: Strong support for criticism section, provided it is neutral. If he is been criticized for something, there will be someone praising him. Even, those should be added, to balance them :) -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 17:48, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

I would like to add that http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Controversy_sections#Avoid_sections_and_articles_focusing_on_.22criticisms.22_or_.22controversies.22 clearly states:

Rather than create a section dedicated to criticisms, instead try to incorporate negative material into the appropriate topical or thematic section that the negative material relates to (such as a particular event, policy, or product). It is asked to use sections as reception (but those are for articles about books/films/plays...) as for a living person, Likewise, sections or articles dedicated to "controversies" should be avoided.

Do you have a valid rationale for your argument, Karthik? Secret of success (talk) 05:05, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I never mind if the controversies are present in the appropriate section. Wikipedia, being a collaborative effort, I would support all possible stuff for betterment of the article. Thanks! -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 08:10, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

• Support: I support to add a Controversies and Criticism sections, provided its neutral and backed by highly reputable sources. Without getting into much detail, I would simply like to highlight the fact that several top actors articles on Wiki do contain a similar section including the likes of George Clooney, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Tom Cruise and our very own Amitabh Bachchan. Please have a look. I'm not sure if those articles comply with the policies or not but SRK's page too can have the section in a similar manner. Moreover, I suggest we baseline some rules or guidelines after the end and as per the outcome of this discussion so as to implement the similar rules and guidelines in other articles. --Msrag (talk) 06:15, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

You have not given any actual argument to justify why the controversies section is necessary and why we cannot mix it with the rest of the text. Your only two points in your above comment are 1) Other articles have it, and 2) It can be neutral and reliable. Please note that "being neutral (by word) and verifiable" are not the only requirements for this issue. We also have to take in to consideration other parts of policies and existing guidelines. Secret of success (talk) 06:37, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps I can chip in and make clear why some of us feel that a Controversies section is necessary. A biography article must be complete in all aspects, and controversies directly regarding a person must obviously be present in the article too, since the controversy is a matter in which the person was involved. The necessity for a separate section dealing with this aspect is required primarily because :-

• Readers would like to see similar information grouped together for easier reading, rather than having to read through large blocks of text which contain information they are not looking for.

• Its a generally used guideline in BLP articles. The BLP policy states, "Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, so long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone." See here.

If we can get this article going, then similar movements can also take place in other BLP articles such as Salman Khan or Shahid Kapoor. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 07:07, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Agree with you Ankit, similar stuff's should go-ahead with other articles too. Thanks! -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 08:11, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I too agree with Ankit. I don't wanna read all stuff about production and co-stars and collections and success of MNIK when i actually want to read only the Airport fuss. We shouldn't disguise info. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 08:44, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Agree with Ankit for his two points. Moreover, not all controversies can be included with the rest of the sections. For eg., the ongoing aging and losing endorsements issue cannot be clubbed with his acting and film career and then his MCA scuffle and smoking in stadium for which he was served legal notice has got nothing to do with his ownership of IPL team. So all these can be put under one 'Controversy' section. Had the team of KKR got into some legal trouble or if he's got into some trouble with his team or on behalf of his team, then those could be put under the relevant section. But not in the two cases I mentioned above. Another, if at all we decide to include the Sirish slapping incident, where and why do we place that in his Career section or Personal Life section? We cannot do that since its got nothing to do with his films unless we elaborate the matter which is nothing but pure gossip of Sirish making fun at Ra.One release and then SRK taking revenge.. blah blah.. So how are we going to relate it to the existing matter to give the reader a flow without distracting or deviating him with a sudden jerk. Hence to avoid all that a separate section, without any relevance to all his existing career and works should be brought in. --Msrag (talk) 08:53, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Here, I agree with Msrag. Not all controversies can be part of his films section. I press to include Sirish slapping incident, but where will the content be part of? -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 09:52, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Valid arguments, Msrag. I suppose that now we can start the process of Collection as stated above. I would like to advise Meryam to please help us in our effort to improve this article's quality. Nobody here wants to defame SRK (and that's anyway explicitly forbidden) and any content that seems suspicious shall be removed and discussed upon. Let's join together and make this article a better read :). ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 15:06, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Due to the fact that I am finding it difficult to explain my arguments, could I suggest that we re-open this discussion, about whether to have a separate section or not, once we make a list of all controversies relating to SRK in the section below? From what I can comprehend, there needs to be a clear explanation on what all brawls we must include and what all we should not. Unless I am mistaken, there are arguments above, which are pressing to include the SRK's slap incident, and I would like it bring it to the attention of every editor that there was a discussion here in which the consensus was to not include that incident. Let me know if you guys have any questions. Secret of success (talk) 16:21, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't think the ppl talking abt including the "slap gate" issue to the section are actually serious...I am still opposed to it, not only because I find it quit Un-encyclopedic but also because the time and effort it will take to actually try to phrase the most neutral and balanced paragraph about each one of those controversies is gonna be tiresome and long. Sorry, but I am not gonna be any part of that section when created.

Please sign your messages Meryam. Thanks. Regarding your concerns, the notability of the controversies will be discussed thoroughly, though I don't agree with you regarding the slap matter. The incident received significant coverage. Our job is to add the information in a wholesome manner, and we shall do just that. Assuredly, nobody will be slack when it comes to this matter. I hope you understand, and I'm sorry to hear that you would not like to be a part of this. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 07:32, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Please note that the consensus in this talk page cannot apply anywhere else. If you wish to make a common agreement, in a range of articles, use a common noticeboard like WT:IN or WT:INCINE. Secret of success (talk) 07:49, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Meryam90, I'm disappointed with your decision to exclude the slap incident. I see no reason to exclude it. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 10:28, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Our job is to add contents dependent on its notability, and I'm sure the slap incident was very much notable. -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 10:34, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

RSrikanth05, please check the link I gave before becoming "disappointed" with users and jumping to conclusions. Thanks. Secret of success (talk) 14:32, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

SOS, I did read it and I think it must be there. The whole industry was talking about it for days. Amul even made a cartoon about it. Why exclude it. It certainly is notable. It would form a part of Khan's falling out with Farah Khan and Kunder. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 06:03, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Just read that whole long stuff and what i can make out was that it really did not made any sense to add that slapping controversy that time since that would be the only one to be added and a separate section for that single thing would be obviously ridiculous. So that consensus stands right that time but now since there are other stuffs to be added, we can def include that as well. And coming to notability, it was indeed quite notable. Will soon provide the most "notable" links in the Collection section below. Verifiable? Yes. Can it be called gossip? No since all parties involved agree to it. We can add Farah's statement and also Sajid's effort to patch up.--Msrag (talk) 09:04, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Just because the media spoke of something for days doesn't make it "encyclopedic worthy"...A star slapped a producer/director ofc all gossip sections would go wild over it, the notability here is not was it "widly talked about", it's about "how would it look being added to an "encyclopedia". Ridiculous is the answer to that. How many times have stars fought or have there been "cat fights" between actresses reported in the Media? does that mean it justifies adding it here? I don't think so. It remains gossip...--Meryam90 (talk) 10:33, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Firstly, will you [Meryam90] please sign your comments. -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 10:04, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose the inclusion of a specific "criticism" section. I haven't read any of the above comments. In general, I am against inclusion of a separate "Criticism/Controversies" section because it will be slanted towards recent events, and it will be a vandal magnet. It just makes people uneasy and inflames people. First of all, lets get some perspective into this: How important are these incidents in an encyclopedia? For most of the incidents, I'd say: Not worth giving more than a one-line mention. So lets merge these one-line mentions into respective sections: the MCA incident into a section regarding KKR, the Shirish Kunder incident into a section about his public life/films (I really don't think that the incident is worth mentioning at all) etc etc. On the existence of criticism sections in other similar articles, I consider "Other stuff exists" to be a naive argument in this case; unless you're talking about comparing a GA or FA which has criticism sections. IMO, if you filter out the tabloid nonsense, you'll really get only 2-3 incidents, which aren't really notable in a big way; not enough to fill in a whole section anyway. Lynch7 16:55, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

  On the topic of other stuff exists, our FA on Richard Nixon doesn't have a "Controversies" section (you'd generally expect it to have one, what with Watergate and all). Just to get a perspective. IMO, good encyclopedic writing is to "let the reader choose" what to believe. Not having a "Controversies" section makes this more easier. Lynch7 17:52, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose Adding a separate section for "criticism" to any BLP is against the Manual of Style and creates an imbalance in the article. Notable critiques if any, should be a explained in appropriate sections. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 17:27, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Collection

Please start adding the controversies Khan has faced under this line of text. Preferably add the different controversies as bulleted points.

Origins

• It has recently been established, via interviews by his family members in Peshawar, that the origin of SRK's father are not in Afghanistan but Kashmir. Apprently the family's elders moved from Kashmir some generations ago to Kashmir via Hazara where they resided in Tanawal area for some time - this accounts for his father being known as Taj Mohammed Khan Tanoli- after which they moved to Peshawar. There are articles in various publications to this effect. I think this recent revelation demands amendments to this article. Moarrikh (talk) 22:15, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

MCA scuffle, Wankhede ban

• In this link, SRK has been christened the "controversy king". Secret of success (talk) 05:50, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

• For the sake of balance: Im not apologising and SRK's Wankhede incident brought us closer: Webster and finally Bollywood backs SRK in Wankhede fiasco On a second thought, I think I am gonna like the paragraph regarding the MCA controversy. --Meryam90 (talk) 10:37, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Sirish slapping

• Times of India, IndiaToday, NDTV, Hindustan Times, Indian Express, Asian Age, IBN Live, India West --Msrag (talk) 09:40, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Support: The controversy was very much notable. -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 10:42, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

May I ask why do U find it so very much notable? lol --Meryam90 (talk) 14:01, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Karthik, notability does not automatically get satisfied if tons of reports in newspapers are printed. There is also stuff like weight and WP:BLP. Secret of success (talk) 14:34, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Party after Mumbai blasts

• Times of India, Economic Times, Indian Express, Mid-Day, World News --Msrag (talk) 09:46, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

General

• Here is the link of Hindustan Times, which lists "Top 10 Shahrukhan controversies" . DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 12:43, 30 May 2012 (UTC).

Many of them are irrelevant for addition. We can't really say that "SRK slapped Kunder" or "SRK was a brother to Salman, later turned a smother" or "SRK is rumored to be linked up with Priyanka" or "SRK and Aamir are enemies, because Aamir is friendly to Salman" or "SRK was blasted by Bhattacharya seemingly for failure of credit." Only the airport controversies, the Shiv sena incident and his ban from Wank stadium need to be mentioned. All the others are seriously un-encyclopedic. Secret of success (talk) 14:44, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Again, I share the same view with User:SOS here.--Meryam90 (talk) 10:40, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

• Similar one by New York Daily News. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 13:59, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Comment

I'm sure everyone has forgotten about this discussion, which shouldn't be the situation. -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 13:14, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Mother's native place

SRK's mom is from Hyderabad, India. Not from Pakistan. The given source in the article is some unavailable and seemingly low quality source. Here are some good sources to confirm the place:

• When G-One took Chitti's help - "My mom is from Andhra Pradesh. So when she gets angry, she breaks into a Hyderabadi dialect."
• SRK: The lad from Tolichowki - "This [Hyderabad] is my mother’s city. I would come here every summer to spend my holidays with her family and I probably have a million relatives here. We had a big family, those old-fashioned houses and amazing Hyderabadi food. I miss all of that. I miss roaming around Charminar and one day I would like to bring my children here to show them the city I grew up in." Secret of success (talk) 14:51, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, in the article it is stated: Ethnically, he describes himself as being half-Pathan through his father and half-Hyderabadi through his mother, with his paternal grandmother being Kashmiri.

I know U are speaking abt this part "while his mother's family came from Rawalpindi." and looking at it right now, seems like U're right and it does need to be deleted.--Meryam90 (talk) 15:00, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Suggestions

please try to incorporate my following suggestions or corrections:

INTRO -he has won 15 filmfare awards not fouteen (third line)

ACTING CAREER -please use the range for years as 1988-92, 1993-1997, 1998-2003, 2004-2006, 2007-2010 because overlap is creating confusion. -red chillies not red chillis and there is not even a single mention about the company under that heading 2004-2007.

STAGE PERFORMANCES -addition: now or never concert in 2002 december in durban, south africa featuring many actors like amitji duggu sanju pri etc http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=Now or Never Concert srk&page=1

-correction: awesome foursome were akki-juhi-kajol-srk no salman no twinkle http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=Awesome Foursome concert srk

BRAND SRK -you can easily add 20 more popular brands of india to the list in that paragraph in 2 more lines like pepsodent etc.

IN THE MEDIA -mushtaq sheikh has written 1 more book in addition to still reading khan http://www.amazon.com/Shah-Rukh-Can-Shahrukh-bollywood/dp/8187108266

again please

-Bubblelubble (talk) 08:05, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

awards and recognitions

CRATER NAMED AFTER SRK

http://www.lunargeographic.org/srkhan/index.shtml Bubblelubble (talk) 21:57, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

That's not the case, according to this:

http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2010-01-28/news-interviews/28119019_1_crater-moon-lunar-embassy --Meryam90 (talk) 22:40, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for confirming your stupid and weird behaviour. I am giving you an official site link and you are giving me a useless TOI link. Enough said. Bubblelubble (talk) 15:44, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for that :D but if u have READ the TOI link I gave you u'd know that that lunar geographic society or whatever it is, is FAKE and is NOT recognized by any official organization: Meaning it is NOT notable. U got that? Mind ur damned language. --Meryam90 (talk) 17:21, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

elevation

SRK is the King of Bollywood and the article also looks very good, with everything well written and detailed. But I still dont see why it is not an FA nominee. Can it at least be elevated to GA status? Kailash29792 (talk) 13:02, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

The article must become a GA before FAN. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 13:27, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Appreciation

I have been watching this article for quite some time now, and i am very happy with the work done by all the editors, esp.AnkitBhatt.First of all, congratulations on handling such an important and hectic :p article ! Now, i think it is time we all collaborate ( for one week or so) and then someone will nominate it for Ga and ultimately Fa. Because i think this article has every potential to be a featured article. So i suggest some minor edits to begin with  :

• The lead section is stuffed with to much intricate details, i mean do we need to mention what he played in Chak De India, or devote 3 lines in explaining his popularity, global appeal and wealth ?
• Add one image ( with proper rationale) either from DDLJ or, Kuch Kuch Hota Hai, both of which are the major turning points in his acting career.
• The In the media section is written in a weaselly fashion and many unnecessary , insignificant events or awards have been included., instead of mentioning different tags or names inside in several places, we could use a single sentence, explaining the fact, and mentioning one or two titles.

I am waiting for the response from other editors. Thanks. Bineet Ojha |BINEET| 17:58, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Bollywood

There is a big mistake that Bollywood films are misunderstood as Hindi film, but infact, language of Bollywood is Urdu. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.246.122.239 (talk) 16:47, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

what "big mistake"?? are you crazy??...get the facts correct man, the Mumbai based Hindi film industry is called Bollywood......For other regions its kollywood. tollywood etc. "language of Bollywood" is not "Urdu".. nor it had ever been..though in bollywood many films used a lot of Urdu dialogues....some of them are "nikah", "mere mehboob", "bahu begham", "mughal-e-azam", " Pakeezah" etc. etc. so don't state personal opinion as "fact"--Adamstraw99 (talk) 13:30, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Mr Adam Straw must be hindi names and not English at all because they belong to an Indian. What distinguishes Urdu from Hindi is the vocabulary: Urdu uses Arabic, Farsi and Turkish (with some Pashto) words and Hindi uses their counterparts in Sanskrit. Unfortunately not only in Bollywood but in general usage what passes for Hindi includes most of Urdu words. Even the word Hindi is of Arabic/Farsi origin. To this day the Arabs refer to Pakistanis and Indians as Hindi. Paradoxically the term Hindu was originally used for a native of the Indus valley i.e. Sindhu. So Mr Straw you want a history lesson I am willing. The language may be written in Devanagari but it is identical except in religious terminology. In fact in popular usage they shukria, mubarak and salami etc. There are virtually hundreds of thousand Urdu terms used in the same way as in Urdu. It is only the continuing pressure of fascistic Hindu parties that use political clout to demand demotion of Urdu back in the close of 19th century and beginning of 20th century. They wanted to replace Urdu words with Sankritic ones but alas despite change of script their objective has not been achieved after a century. 'Hindi' at best can be called Hindustani, the term for commonplace Urdu but not a separate language from Urdu. If Bollywood made filmed in Hindi then it would have limited appeal outside India in the same way as Mahabharat and Ramayana which are in Hindi proper. Moarrikh (talk) 21:05, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

And why, pray, is that a matter of debate in Shahrukh Khan's article? Smarojit (talk) 04:37, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

It is a matter of debate because the article clearly states that his is a Pashtun - this then is a matter of accuracy of an encyclopedic work. Secondly, I have raised his issue on the talk page not the article. Moarrikh (talk) 20:44, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Lol. Would you have raised the issue in the "article" and not the talk page if given a chance? :P Secret of success (talk) 04:28, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

This is going borderline WP:NOTFORUM. Please guys, refrain from discussing stuff that is irrelevant to the subject and his biography. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 08:44, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Restructuring

I have been trying to work on this article for quite some time, and its probably been the most difficult one to date. In my opinion, the article needs a major restructuring. Is it necessary to have a different section on "Production" and then have information repeated about the success/failure of his films? Also, the "spine injury" sub-section in the "career" section seems to be a little out of place. What does everyone feel about this? Smarojit (talk) 05:34, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

You are correct about this....please go ahead...--Adamstraw99 (talk) 08:14, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

There is different article on Filmography which should be fused to it to make this short and easy to refer. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shahrukh_Khan_filmography

Here is the filmography from IMDB for easy restructuring. http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0451321/filmoyear — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nizil Shah (talk • contribs) 10:30, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Brand SRK

I agree with the edits by "Meryam90" there. given the article topic(celebrity name) "brand SRK is appropriate"... i request "Secret of success" and "Meryam90"'s content dispute resolves here. The current heading is justified and definitely notable and recognized as per the references mentioned in the first para itself..--Adamstraw99 (talk) 23:54, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Sub-sections shouldn't refer to the subject of the article, such is the nom here. Brand-SRK is the "nickname" given to him for his extensive brand endorsements. We do not use nicknames as sub-sections because of the simple fact that they represent the person himself. To put it simple, look at it like this: What is the section about? It is about SRK's brand endorsements, isn't it? Is it about "brand SRK"? Yes, but we would lose specificity here, by doing so. And specificity is the key aspect to naming sections. Why not you go on a naming spree and name the section about his film career as "King of Bollywood", the subsections as "King Khan", "King of romance", etc. They are the common nicknames for his involvement in Bollywood films. Please see some sense and do not go out-of hand here. Secret of success · talk 13:56, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree with what Secret of Success has to say. We tend to forget that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a fan site. No matter how much we love and adore Shahrukh, let's keep the tone neutral. And this goes out not just for the "Brand SRK" header, but for all the other heaps of praises directed towards him in the entire article. He is one of India's biggest superstars, I agree, but we don't have to go on and on and on about that. --_{S.M.A.R.O.J.I.T (talk)} 16:15, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 4 December 2012

Open the link below:- Bollywood ‘demigod’ Khan casts spell on Moroccans Shah Rukh Khan is God Of Cinema

Hello Sir

In last 4 to 5 days back, Shah Rukh Khan was Medal of Honoured in Morocco International Film Festival few days back. There Shah Rukh Khan was Introduced as Demigod of Cinema. So, I want you to add another other names of Shah Rukh Khan as "God Of Cinema".I am sending you various websites that are showing Shah Rukh Khan as DEMIGOD OF CINEMA. Please check it below various websites for your confirmation.

<"http://dawn.com/2012/12/04/bollywood-demigod-khan-casts-spell-on-moroccans/">

<"http://www.topix.com/arts/cinema/2012/12/bollywood-demigod-khan-casts-spell-on-moroccans">

<"http://www.indianexpress.com/news/bollywood-demigod-khan-casts-spell-on-moroccans/1040362/">

<"http://m.timesofindia.com/articleshow/17475128.cms">

<"http://www.ptinews.com/news/3184500_Bollywood--demigod--Khan-casts-spell-on-Moroccans-">

<"http://topic.worlds-luxury-guide.com/article/04He9lcbHIfbr?q=Morocco">

<"http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2012-12-04/news/35863527_1_shah-rukh-khan-indian-cinema-bollywood">

<"http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/17475128.cms">

<"http://www.allvoices.com/news/13533511-bollywood-demigod-khan-casts-spell-on-moroccans">

<"http://www.tvballa.com/2012/12/shahrukh-khan/moroccans-casts-khan-bollywood-spell-demigod">

<"http://stcommunities.straitstimes.com/movies/2012/12/04/bollywood-demigod-khan-casts-spell-moroccans">

<"http://www.straitstimes.com/breaking-news/lifestyle/story/bollywood-demigod-khan-casts-spell-moroccans-20121204">

<"http://www.movieballa.com/2012/12/bollywood/casts-bollywood-spell-demigod-khan-moroccans">

<"http://www.bollywoodstatus.com/bollywood-news/bollywood-demigod-khan-casts-spell-on-moroccans-indian-express/">

<"http://www.coastaldigest.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=48296">

<"http://www.emirates247.com/videos/the-best-of-bollywood-honoured-in-marrakesh-2012-12-05-1.485937">

<"http://english.alarabiya.net/articles/2012/12/04/253220.html">

Bharatpandey2007 (talk) 07:22, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

So?--Dwaipayan (talk) 07:29, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 10:09, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Various website on internet showing Shah Rukh Khan is Bollywood's "DEMIGOD" as it was represented in Morocco Film Festival where SRK was honoured. Check out various internet websites. So, I want you to add "GOD Of Cinema" in other names of Shah Rukh Khan in wikipedia. I have already showed you various link. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.59.38.160 (talk) 09:57, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Shahrukh Khan Image!

It is an old problem in Wikipedia, often some editors change images in infoboxes of popular article just to have their own uploaded image featured in Wikipedia articles. This change was unnecessary! --Tito Dutta (talk) 16:16, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

The current version is more better than the previous one. SRK looks so ugly in the previous one!----Plea$ant 1623 ✉ 18:02, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

That's my old good signature! Anyway... it is not about looking good, it is changing an image unnecessarily.. If just looking is an issue, someone will upload another image and mention in their image SRK looks better! --Tito Dutta (talk) 18:11, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Tito Dutta. Unnecessary image changes lead to edit wars. GleekVampire (talk) 13:15, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

jhgj 'mnjbjnb,m — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.11.126.60 (talk) 07:17, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 4 December 2012

Bollywood ‘demigod’ Khan casts spell on Moroccans. Shah Rukh Khan is God Of Cinema Hello Sir

In last 4 to 5 days back, Shah Rukh Khan was Medal of Honoured in Morocco International Film Festival few days back. There Shah Rukh Khan was Introduced as Demigod of Cinema. So, I want you to add another others names of Shah Rukh Khan as "God Of Cinema".I am sending you various websites: <"http://dawn.com/2012/12/04/bollywood-demigod-khan-casts-spell-on-moroccans/">

<"http://www.topix.com/arts/cinema/2012/12/bollywood-demigod-khan-casts-spell-on-moroccans">

<"http://www.indianexpress.com/news/bollywood-demigod-khan-casts-spell-on-moroccans/1040362/">

<"http://m.timesofindia.com/articleshow/17475128.cms">

<"http://www.ptinews.com/news/3184500_Bollywood--demigod--Khan-casts-spell-on-Moroccans-">

<"http://topic.worlds-luxury-guide.com/article/04He9lcbHIfbr?q=Morocco">

<"http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2012-12-04/news/35863527_1_shah-rukh-khan-indian-cinema-bollywood">

<"http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/17475128.cms">

<"http://www.allvoices.com/news/13533511-bollywood-demigod-khan-casts-spell-on-moroccans">

<"http://www.tvballa.com/2012/12/shahrukh-khan/moroccans-casts-khan-bollywood-spell-demigod">

<"http://stcommunities.straitstimes.com/movies/2012/12/04/bollywood-demigod-khan-casts-spell-moroccans">

<"http://www.straitstimes.com/breaking-news/lifestyle/story/bollywood-demigod-khan-casts-spell-moroccans-20121204">

<"http://www.movieballa.com/2012/12/bollywood/casts-bollywood-spell-demigod-khan-moroccans">

<"http://www.bollywoodstatus.com/bollywood-news/bollywood-demigod-khan-casts-spell-on-moroccans-indian-express/">

<"http://www.coastaldigest.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=48296">

<"http://www.emirates247.com/videos/the-best-of-bollywood-honoured-in-marrakesh-2012-12-05-1.485937"> <"http://dawn.com/2012/12/04/bollywood-demigod-khan-casts-spell-on-moroccans/">

Bharatpandey2007 (talk) 09:33, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 10:09, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

That's just ridiculous. The quote is "I am pleased to present the star, the icon, the demigod of Indian cinema, Shah Rukh Khan." Maybe we should add nicknames as "the star" and "the icon" along with "the demigod", right? Wrong! Other names and nicknames are those that a person is referred to very often by many different sources, not once. BollyJeff | talk 13:23, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Dear Sir

Yes ! you are absolutely right sir. I am also saying you should add name as " DEMIGOD OF CINEMA ". I am not talking about nicknames & other names. I am just saying you should add whatever you said nick names " DEMIGOD OF CINEMA " or just "DEMIGOD".

Thanks & Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bharatpandey2007 (talk • contribs) 09:32, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

How can I change his picture?

I have uploaded a file on wikimedia commons but how do i replace it with this one?? plz help *new to wiki* Maleehakhan97 (talk) 13:16, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Edit request

- Please revert this unsourced, BLP, OR violation. 216.93.234.239 (talk) 02:17, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

 Done. BollyJeff | talk 02:36, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Spelling mistake

Please request update of Movie name Kal Ho Na Ha. This name is incorrect and meaningless. The correct name is Kal Ho Naa Ho. Please see http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0451321/

 Done --smarojit ^{(buzz me)} 13:52, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

A new book on Shah Rukh Khan (the first one in French)

Is it possible to add the following text in the bibliography section ?

• (in French) Gin Piau, L'univers Shah Rukh Khan, Editions Tensing, 2012 ISBN 9782919750221.

He is no more King of bollywood so please remove all that data, as he is not popular anymore. Keep your information up to date. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.211.89.74 (talk) 14:38, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

He was never the King of Bollywood either, as Bollywood is not a kingdom... but the media and people had created the term for him, and it is supposed to stay with him. He is no more popular and no more the king of Bollywood is entirely your perception and assumption, and that is not the case. He still reigns in trades. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.203.222.130 (talk) 06:17, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 1 March 2013

Dileepp89 (talk) 08:51, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Not done: Empty request. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 16:56, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Acting style and analysis section

This section is entirely fanboyish and doesn't adhere to WP:NPOV and WP:RS. It quotes contemporary film directors such as Karan Johar and Aziz Mirza, and not real film critics and experts. Moreover, it cites less notable sources such as indianexpress.com.

It labels SRK as "natural", however he is often noted and is notorious for his heavy "overacting":

• The joke going around then was that Shahrukh Khan had no more than five expressions to play about with and by cleverly juggling them in film after film, made his mark as a superstar. - Everybody Wants a Hit: 10 Mantras of Success in Bollywood Cinema by Derek Bose

• Someone give the man an oxygen tank before he overacts himself unconscious. - The Herald, Volume 38, Issues 1-3

• There is real depth and emotion to his performance and, mercifully, none of his trademark overacting. - Newsline, Volume 17, Issues 7-9

Would you call this section acting analysis or sheer praise by contemporaries who worked closely and are friends with him?

Fideliosr (talk) 08:26, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

The sources that you have given seem no neutral, solely in a trial to crate negativity of an actor. The directors and all should be the people as they crate a movie and they understand it. Some good critics also can be included. But see, there is not a 2 3=5 type pf definition and rule for acting. It is always varied, and depends on person to person. The fact that he has achieved so much as an actor in life itself concludes how big and thorough he as an actor is, it doesn't need any person's certification. A top most professional is deemed to have excelled in his profession. There should be no question mark in this section, only because some sources say otherwise. It happens everywhere, for everyone. Many professionals face this. But wikipedia should present such top ones in such a way that it should reflect their status generally, not for some people/sources view points. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.49.40.21 (talk) 04:44, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Not neutral? You kidding me? Derek Bose is a TOP Bollywood critic. The Herald and Newsline are two notable publications as well. On the other hand, people like Aziz Mirza and Karan Johar are his pals. And of course there are rules for actors. Britney Spears has also achieved so much as a singer but that doesn't mean that she's a great singer. This is not how Wikipedia works! We should only include expert and neutral opinions, not friendly cheering and false praise. SRK is notorious for his overacting. Period! Fideliosr (talk) 18:53, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Your talking ways, replying ways say it all.. What kind of a person and what mentality you possess.. Strange that personal hatred oriented people are using this portal. You you kidding yourself here. And SRK is always praised by his supreme acting abilities, everywhere and his excellence in that profession says it all, I repeat. No one is better than cinema, when it itself has made someone so big, leave all others, be it anyone. Comparing Spears to SRK is your another foolishness evident.. One accepting it a knowledgeable person, all other protesting are as kiddish as maybe you and your "Top Bollywood Critic" are... It is very neutral to say SRK is a good actor, anything other than this is not neutral. You talk about notability of the source? Then what about the other enormous notable sources given in that section? At times, personal views by editors on notable publications can hamper its overall reputation. But what is generic and common is always known and accepted. You are over-reacting to a very general thing only because of your personal hatred. Periods ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.203.222.130 (talk) 05:56, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Did you say "Periods !"? LOL. See, Wikipedia is not based on personal opinions, but reliable sources. What I've put forward is reliable sources. And please do check WP:PA. Nobody would tolerate any personal attacks in the future. Cheers. Fideliosr (talk) 09:44, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

And by the way, Britney and SRK have one thing in common. Britney has been criticized by music critics for her "unnatural" vocals, while SRK has also been criticized by film critics for his (a large chunk of his work) "unnatural" acting. And that's what I'm saying. I'm not denying that he's a very popular actor and megastar. Fideliosr (talk) 17:18, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

This section should be removed soon now. Fideliosr (talk) 19:34, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Rather than removing it, why don't you (using reliable sources) modify it to include the valid criticisms? The good and bad should both be in there. BollyJeff | talk 20:04, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Done. Thanks. Fideliosr (talk) 11:28, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 18 March 2013

1988 is not helpful please change 1988 to 1983 117.207.63.122 (talk) 12:44, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

 Not done He is primarily an actor, and the sources say he started acting in 1988. What is special about 1983? BollyJeff | talk 12:51, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Article too lengthy, repeated Infos & too much unnecessary issues

Hi,

SRK friends Salam/Adab. Well, I just read the whole passage and it seemed to me pretty naive. This article is now neither a biography nor an Essay; just some junk information arranged in a drastic way. What I want to see is just cut out those repeated information which are provided again and again & keep "just" necessary information as if you can say, yes-it's an article! If necessary, just make another page where SRK's business related incidents could be arranged. Right now this page is an Epic fail. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shah-E-Zaman (talk • contribs) 12:25, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Sharukh the brand ambassador of West Bengal picked up by Mamata Banerjee

The west bengal chief minister mamata banerjee picked up sharukh khan as the brand ambassador of west bengal state. Sad is sharukh is now a brandambassador of a government which govertment is top of the list in crime all over India...that is mamata banerji's government shame ! shame ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.181.184.210 (talk) 07:15, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Got any sources? BollyJeff | talk 15:38, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Please may I request that the reference to Shahrukh's father being a Pathan is removed. Being from Peshawar does not make anyone a Pathan just as a West Indian born and bred in London is not an Anglo-Saxon. SRK's grandfather hails from Kashmir and not from Afghanistan - this is testified by his cousins and uncles who live in Peashawar. Please do some research on the 'net and find the reality of his origins. There are numerous Kashmiri castes who have adopted Khan as a surname. It is very common in India to assume that anyone with Khan as a surname must be Pathan/Pashtun. Moarrikh (talk) 18:07, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Got any sources? BollyJeff | talk 00:28, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Shah Rukh Khan's son's name misspelled

Please change "Abram" to "AbRam" because that is the name of the new baby boy. This can be verified here: http://ibnlive.in.com/news/shah-rukh-khan-confirms-his-surrogate-babys-birth-names-him-abram/405323-8-66.html The image at the bottom of the news article contains Shah Rukh Khan's official press statement, with the baby's name mentioned as "AbRam". Thanks! 2001:4898:80E8:ED31:0:0:0:5B (talk) 23:36, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 Done - It was that way in the existing source too. BollyJeff | talk 00:27, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 4 August 2013

Shah rukh's place of birth is NEW DELHI! Winstonbpinto (talk) 14:11, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. The sources cited support the text in the article. RudolfRed (talk) 05:13, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Place of birth

There appears to be a new conflict of interest regarding his place of birth. This source from TOI (http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2013-08-04/news-interviews/41034283_1_south-indian-india-gate-mangalore-port) features a quote from Khan saying that he was born in Mangalore. However, there are many other sources that claim he was born in New Delhi. Any thoughts? --smarojit ^HD 12:56, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Is this his official website? It says New Delhi. I don't know about that article; seems strange to contradict every other source. Has anyone seen his documentary "Inner and Outer World"? BollyJeff | talk 13:11, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

The documentary is available here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T-TUP-qw5BI --smarojit ^HD 13:16, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

At 5:19 into the video he says, "I am from Delhi". BollyJeff | talk 09:29, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

I think that the best source would be Anupama Chopra's biography of Khan. Does anyone have the book? --smarojit ^HD 13:18, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

On page 27 of the book it says, "born on November 2, 1965 at Talwar Nursing Home, in New Delhi". BollyJeff | talk 09:33, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

I confirm this, and there is no mention of Mangalore anywhere in the book. All it says is he spent is summers in Bangalore.--PremKudva^Talk 03:25, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

I think if we see the tone of that article.. There he seems to be talking about his memories about maternal grandparents and his time spent in their house in Manglore. There should be no doubt or argument about the fact that he belongs to Delhi. born and brought up in Delhi. Its all over in his biographies at numerous sources .----Adamstraw99 (talk) 13:21, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

True, but the surprising part is that he directly quotes this: "I was born and brought up in Mangalore till the age of five." --smarojit ^HD 13:23, 6 August 2013 (UTC)--smarojit ^HD 13:23, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

hmm. he is clearly quoted for that statement. in India, whether Hindus or Muslims, its a ritual that women go to their parents' place for giving birth to babies. I think its ok to consider it as an extended vacation(for all mothers and newborns) but I think permanent address is the correct one for DOB Reference (which, in this case is Delhi). considering this I will be voting for Delhi as his birth place. Thank You.--Adamstraw99 (talk) 13:36, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Yeah! In a 2009 interview he says "Dilli ka munda, ya, that's me. I was born here, in Talwar Nursing Home. I lived here for more than two decades in Rajinder Nagar." Note the name of the nursing home mentioned in SRK to run for Delhi Also I am given to understand that in the biography there is no specific mention of a "birth place" and so Delhi is assumed. --PremKudva^Talk 03:38, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Sigh!!! Self-contradiction. I found this tweet from him saying Mangalore is where he was brought up (doesn't mention the exact birth place though): https://twitter.com/iamsrk/status/14541992207 So what should be done? --smarojit ^HD 03:44, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

News sources often goof up. Maybe he told he was brought up in Mangalore, but newspaper added born. I think asking Khan himself could be the best. Ask the question in twitter maybe?--Dwaipayan (talk) 03:55, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Nope not news goof up, in 2010 after the Mangalore air crash the tweet clearly says "i was brought up in mangalore. my grandfather was the engineer in chief for the mangalore port. all my childhood pics r taken there." so the contradiction is by the actor. And yeah someone should ask him on Twitter about that tweet.--PremKudva^Talk 04:10, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

I am not really comfortable using twitter, very very infrequent. Anyone twitter-friendly here?--Dwaipayan (talk) 04:16, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Haha, not me either. --smarojit ^HD 04:20, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Heh! I am not even there, I registered and deleted my a/c perhaps within a matter of days as soon as it had started :) Surely there will be others here on Twitter who can ask that question? --PremKudva^Talk 07:12, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

joining twitter, then asking and waiting for his reply seems to be a long process.. So, for now it will be manga-lore or Delhi in this article?--Adamstraw99 (talk) 08:50, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Given the video and the book that are referenced above, I would go with New Delhi. We can also add a footnote mentioning the contradictions. BollyJeff | talk 09:35, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

I am not read the book, but have it at home. Will check and see if there is anything regarding his birthplace. Here everyone in Mangalore is all wondering about this new information. But this blog link Shah Rukh's Mangalore connection mentions it in 2010 itself.--PremKudva^Talk 11:56, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

See my previous posts above about the video and book. BollyJeff | talk 13:18, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Bollyjeff,As per your post.. I think its now OK to immediately change the birthplace to Delhi in this article. ?!--Adamstraw99 (talk) 13:30, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

He WAS born in Delhi. Every major book written about him states so.--Meryam90 (talk) 14:27, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Should be changed to Delhi. Maybe an explanatory note should be written regarding the self-contradiction (per Bollyjeff). --smarojit ^HD 14:40, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I will take care of this soon. BollyJeff | talk 14:45, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Ok Ok. No need to ask the guy on twitter. Some1 has done it for u. He was asked on E24 while promoting Chennai Express. He says 'I WAS BORN IN DELHI' https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BWU9KoDn5DI MIN 5:45. I hope this put this discussion to an end. --Meryam90 (talk) 14:59, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

thats what we call - 'happy ending'.. thanks Meryam90 ----Adamstraw99 (talk) 15:12, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

• • Ahh thank you E24!! :D --smarojit ^HD 15:21, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
    •  Done. Have a look now. BollyJeff | talk 15:35, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
      • That's that then. Now time to go on Facebook to tell everyone that he wasn't born in Mangalore BUT not to despair since he continues to say that he was indeed brought up in Mangalore for the first 5 years --PremKudva^Talk 04:50, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 13 August 2013

115.249.244.82 (talk) 05:54, 13 August 2013 (UTC) naveen chouhan

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. Jackmcbarn (talk) 16:26, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Shahrukh Khan

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Shahrukh Khan's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "all time":

• From Deepika Padukone: "Chennai Express crosses Ek Tha Tiger worldwide in ten days". Box Office India. 2013-08-19. Retrieved 2013-08-19.
• From Rani Mukerji: "Top lifetimes grossers worldwide". Box Office India. Retrieved 8 January 2008.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 10:27, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

First movie of shahrukh khan

His first film was "CHAMATKAR". It's not deewana. In which Urmila Matondkar was in opposite of him and Nasiruddin Shah was in supporting role. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.203.164.92 (talk) 18:38, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

According to their articles, Deewana (1992 film) was released 25 June 1992, and Chamatkar was released 8 July 1992. BollyJeff | talk 18:53, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 3 October 2013

13 films of srk over 100cr worldwide Mohammedanirfan (talk) 13:11, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Dana boomer (talk) 16:53, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 5 October 2013

source boxofficeindia.com after chennai express Mohammedanirfan (talk) 12:37, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. Also, Wikipedia is not a reliable source so you can't point to one article for the source of another. RudolfRed (talk) 20:26, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 12 October 2013

13 films of srk over 100cr after chennai express source boxofficeindia.com 59.92.221.9 (talk) 06:39, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Not done:. Please state exactly which statement in the article you want changed, what the new text should say, and please give the exact page that serves as the source. --Stfg (talk) 12:42, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 26 October 2013

Could you quote in the bibliography the following ebook available on Amazon Kindle Store: Gin Piau Shah Rukh Khan's Universe Éditions Tensing, 2013. ISBN 978-2-919750-35-1 E.jacquet-lagreze (talk) 08:04, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Partly done:. I have added the book to the bibliography, but haven't linked to the Amazon page, as that is an "individual web page that primarily exists to sell products or services", and we don't link to those. By the way, you may wish to note that Google Books doesn't recognise the ISBN you gave. --Stfg (talk) 09:48, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Family Photograph

Shouldn't we include his family photograph? http://www.hindustantimes.com/entertainment/bollywood/i-see-the-next-srk-in-my-son-says-shah-rukh-khan/article1-1146994.aspx?htsw0023 — Preceding unsigned comment added by TinyToddler (talk • contribs) 11:32, November 4, 2013

What is the copyright status of that photograph? See Wikipedia:Image use policy. --Geniac (talk) 04:44, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Duplicates source and in lead

According to WP:CITELEAD, there are undoubtedly too many sources in the lead. Also, I just saw someone add two identical sources, one to the lead and the other in the body. It would be better to use one citation in the body with a name tag <ref name=namehere> and then ref that in the lead with <ref name=namehere/> if needed. BollyJeff | talk 14:03, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedily deleted because...( i edited wrong i didnt wanted to delete this article) --Jthj2012 (talk) 21:11, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 January 2014

Pankaj Chaudhary 21:36, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Note: No request was made. --ElHef (Meep?) 01:07, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Reader feedback: about him becoming the ambassador of korea

202.53.13.146 posted this comment on 31 October 2013 (view all feedback).

about him becoming the ambassador of korea

Any thoughts? I have found the link from india times. dont actually know where should i relate to on the wiki page. help me. this is the link Daan0001 (talk) 10:19, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

REMOVE PHOTOGRAPH

I propose to remove the image in Humanitarian causes section. SRK is not looking good in that image, i wanted your permission...so what do u think guyz? GauriKhan (31 January 2014). —Preceding undated comment added 14:00, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

You're not serious about this, are you? Nadesai (talk) 12:16, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 February 2014

Samarthamovies (talk) 05:59, 19 February 2014 (UTC) sharukhan khan is the best

The template that you used is for requesting an edit to be made on your behalf to a semi-protected page, that I don't find here. If you want "sharukhan khan is the best" to be included in the article, I am sorry it can't be included since it is a subjective opinion and it can't be included in an encyclopedia article per our Neutral Point of View policy. -- SMS ^Talk 10:09, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 February 2014

zczc musssla kanhi ka 115.242.41.249 (talk) 19:14, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Not done: If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to any article. - Arjayay (talk) 19:18, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 April 2014

Dheeraj.kumar.wadhwa.vip (talk) 13:30, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Not done: Empty request. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 14:14, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

For GA

Hello there, I have an important notice. For the next few days I'm going to work and improve this article so that it can meet GA standard. For that I will make some major changes. Please use this talk page if you think any of my change is not appropriate but please do not start an edit war on the article. And I will also request not to make major changes for sometime so that we don't meet any edit conflict. Anyway, I'm also placing a {{Under construction}} tag so that others can understand the changes. Many thanks and happy editing! Jim Carter ^(talk) 09:01, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi there, the part about him being the 2nd richest actor in 2014 needed to be made shorter so I did that. There is no need to add names of American actors in the intro and since this has been reported on all major news outlets around the world the sources I added are more appropriate (USA, UK, India).--KptnKangaroo (talk) 15:57, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Glad to see someone taking this on. I hope that you don't plan on straying too far from the look and feel of other Bollywood actor GAs out there with your major changes. Also, can we try to avoid the super-long ref names? I have had trouble with those in the past. Good luck and let me know if you need any help. BollyJeff | talk 17:16, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Now I finished my work with the article and it is ready for GA review after discussing with another editor who has not contributed significantly. Now I'm nominating it. Please do not make major changes while the article is on review. Many thanks. Jim Carter ^(talk) 08:17, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for being a party pooper, but the article has definitely not improved. For future reference, removing maintenance tags, wrongly citing WP: OVERLINK, and tweaking the text slightly does not constitute as an "improvement". Several claims don't have citations, and the references have not been formatted correctly, and that's just two of the major issues. Not ready for GA yet! -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 09:18, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, Krimuk90 according to me this article do not need much improvements. Remember I have removed maintenances tag such as {{When}} after clarifing. And according to our policy poorly or unsourced material can be removed. No need to use {{Cn}} templates in this case, just remove it. And as for reference format, I can't see any such source which need format change according to WP:CITEVAR. And I see you have added those Wikilinks again to the lead. Please see WP:LEADLINK before doing those things again. Thanks Jim Carter ^(talk) 10:06, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Emm... please see other GA-FA articles on actors before getting so defensive. The references are not properly formatted, and no, citing policies and not implementing them is not what Wikipedia is about. So please read them properly. It's funny how you removed the links for some films while keeping the rest of them. Why the cherry-picking, and which policy were you following there exactly? -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 10:09, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Krimuk90 I was using AWB to delink those films and you may know about a bug for which it has not detected and resulted cherry-picking. Please see above this page This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately -I follow this policy. If you think that the ref format must be changed then why don't you do it yourself? Jim Carter ^(talk) 10:21, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't, because you have to follow WP:BURDEN. As for the rest, I am not condemning your effort. All I am saying, is given my work on several biographies, this article is not ready for GA. So if you would be willing to revoke the nomination, I intend to look into it and improve the article in the near future. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 10:23, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Krimuk90: The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution.-I'm not the editor who added those unsourced materials. Well okay, I will revoke the nomination for now. Let's improve it together. Jim Carter ^(talk) 10:33, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

I'll probably work on the article next month. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 14:20, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

You want to collaborate? SRK deserves it, but I have been reluctant to take it on alone. BollyJeff | talk 13:57, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

RfC to change article title

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Proposed move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved. No clear cut common name, so WP:BLP carries the most weight. Jenks24 (talk) 10:27, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

---

Shahrukh Khan → Shah Rukh Khan – "I propose moving the article from 'Shahrukh Khan' to 'Shah Rukh Khan' based on WP:COMMONNAME:

• Google search provides 35m hits vs 5m for the current title. Number of search hits is similar.
• It is the name used on IMDB.
• It is the preferred name of the subject himself as explained in the first reference in the 'Public image''Wealth and popularity' section and by his twitter account title.

Lead sentence will change to "Shah Rukh Khan (born Shahrukh Khan, 2 November 1965)" --Relisted. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 07:17, 5 July 2014 (UTC) BollyJeff | talk 14:40, 6 June 2014 (UTC)" rfc modified to move request by User:SpacemanSpiff. —SpacemanSpiff 05:36, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

I support the change. But, are you sure that 'Shahrukh' Khan is his birth name? Why not say "...also credited as Shahrukh Khan"? -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 01:13, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

The source that I mentioned above from Time magazine says "Born with the name Shahrukh (meaning "Face of the King"), but prefers his name written as Shah Rukh Khan and is widely known as S.R.K." Of course, it would be better to get a couple more sources to back this up. If not, I am okay with "also credited as". BollyJeff | talk 00:54, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Oh I see. Fair enough. :) -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 01:20, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

• Why WP:RFC when WP:MOVE is the way to do this? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 06:15, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't know. You want to change it to a move? BollyJeff | talk 12:24, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Seems like if this is the way the person says his name should be written, then it should be written as such. The edit of the first sentence above seems clear. Editingisthegame (talk) 20:33, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose: I don't see a ground for change based on Google hits since "Shahrukh Kahn" yields 5.5 mill hits on Google while "Shah Rukh Kahn" yields only 4.9 million hits.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 12:19, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Well that is puzzling, because when I did it the other day, current name yielded 5 million hits, whereas the proposed name yielded 35 million hits. I just tried it on Bing and got 5.9 million for current vs 7.2 million for the proposed. That aside, given that they are close, you don't think the other reasons are enough? BollyJeff | talk 13:03, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Its the name in the IMDB and britannica. I am for the proposed move.[[1]] [[2]]

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Shah Rukh Khan/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: AB01 (talk · contribs) 01:19, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

I'll take a look at this article. AB01 ^{I'M A POTATO} 01:19, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Early life and background (DONE)

• The Youtube source (ref #10) is not reliable since it comes from a random Youtube user. I found a better link for the same interview here
• Same for ref #1, and that video is probably also copyright infringement.
• His tweet doesn't say he was born in Mangalore. The TOI interview does. Maybe use that source instead
• Add his grandfather's name
• Ref #13 doesn't mention his father's name or occupation
• Again, ref #14 is unreliable. This source would be better

I don't see how his own words are unreliable, but I will use your source. BollyJeff | talk 13:25, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Youtube as a source is looked down upon, in particular, when the video is from a random user. So, if in a situation when you can replace a Youtube video with something else, that's better AB01 ^{I'M A POTATO} 22:42, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

• Ref #17 isn't needed (I don't think it relates to the text). #18 is enough

17 says "Shah Rukh’s grandfather (on his mother’s side) Shahnawaz Khan was a general in Subhash Bose’s Indian National Army." which is disproved by 18. But yes, I suppose 18 tells the whole story. BollyJeff | talk 13:25, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

• "but spent much of his time at the at Delhi's"
• Ref #26 says his father died when SRK was 16 not 15

The sources differ; I may have to say 15 or 16. BollyJeff | talk 02:39, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

In that case, "mid-teens" should suffice AB01 ^{I'M A POTATO} 03:11, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

• "Khan was very attached to his parents as a child and describes their early deaths as a turning point in his life and as his biggest motivation for hard work"- This is copied word for word from the source. Change the wording please
• Use ref #24 for "They have a son Aryan..."
• Shouldn't the image caption be Gauri Khan?
• "they married even before he began his film career"

1988–92: Television and film debut (DONE)

• Dilip Kumar should be wikilinked in this section, instead of in "2004–10: Dominance at Filmfare"
• Ref #28 does not say he received his first film offer with Hema Malini's Dil Aashna Hai
• Juhi Chawla should be linked here, not in "International recognition"

1993–94: The Anti-Hero (DONE)

• Ref #47 does not say the film failed. This would be a better source

I don't see it in that source. It can be said to be a failure by omission from this list. BollyJeff | talk 01:28, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough AB01 ^{I'M A POTATO} 01:59, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

1995–97: The Romantic Hero (DONE)

• Wikilink to Raja Sen
• I wouldn't call Army a commercial failure if BOI calls it "Average". You could rewrite is as "...none of the film were box office hits"
• "Fimfare Awards" should be linked here, not in "Television"

1998–2002: International recognition (DONE)

• "Khan delivers a compelling performance [...] He plays the part with taut restraint, and expresses exasperation superbly." (because the quote has been cut)
• So far, there's been mostly reviews by Rediff.com. If possible, I'd like you to change some to other websites

Maybe later. :-) BollyJeff | talk 01:28, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

• Last sentence of Para #1 would better read as "The film failed financially in India, but emerged as a commercial success overseas..."
• As per ref #64, Baadshah wasn't an average grosser. It underperformed
• "The film emerged as a box office success in both India and abroad." Ref #66 does not say anything about overseas income
• "He next collaborated with Karan Johar again"--> Try "He next reunited with..."
• First mention of Devdas should be wikilinked, as well as in the image caption
• Refs #78 and #79 alone do not say Devdas earned 84 crores worldwide. Add in ref #52
• BAFTA nomination for Devdas not sourced
• Ref #80 says Devdas earned 9, not 10 awards
• Amitabh Bachchan should be linked here, not in "Stage Performacnes"

2003: Spine surgery (DONE)

• Para 1 would be better off in the previous section, as it talks of events happening prior to 2003. You could start this section off with "He shot Chalte Chalte (2003) in acute pain and continued with the shoot for Kal Ho Naa Ho (2003). By the beginning of 2003..."

Yeah, but this is here to keep all of the related information together. I will consider it. BollyJeff | talk 15:23, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

• Also, remember to wikilink film titles on first instance of their mention. Chalte Chalte, Kal Ho Naa Ho and Main Hoon Naa have been wikilinked on second instance, instead of first

Is it that critical? I would like to link it where they are described in full, rather than the first minor mention here. BollyJeff | talk 02:39, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

It says here to link "at the first occurrence after the lead." AB01 ^{I'M A POTATO} 03:29, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

• Ref #87 does not mention Kal Ho Naa Ho as being the top grossing film of the year (overseas)

2004–10: Dominance at Filmfare( DONE)

• I wouldn't call Main Hoon Na a major commercial success. Major commercial successes would be "super hit" films or above
• Veer-Zaara as an overseas hit is unsourced
• "...fetched Khan appreciation; with Rama Sharma from The Tribune who wrote"
• Paheli being screened at the Sundance Film Festival is unsourced
• Kabhi Alvida Naa Kehna as biggest overseas grosser is unsourced. Use ref #61 or #79. Same for Don
• I think you need to add in ref #61 wherever you mention a film's commercial outcome in the overseas market.
• Wikilink Chak De! India on first instance. Second instance of the title needs a space
• Ref #108 should be used for the statement: "Chak De! India became the third-highest grossing film of 2007"
• Om Shanti Om's worldwide gross is unsourced. Add in ref #52
• You've stated twice that SRK won Best Actor for Chak De! India
• Dulha Mil Gaya and Billu have not been identified as cameos in his Filmography article. I'd refer to them as small parts

I am pretty sure that "extended special appearance" is the official title on his role in Billu. BollyJeff | talk 02:39, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Okay, fair enough AB01 ^{I'M A POTATO} 03:29, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

• Unsourced that Slumdog Millionaire is an Oscar-winning film. Both sources say that it won at the Golden Globes
• "Whenever you're dealing with a disorder or a near atypical situation, the first thought is that the sort of parameters you have to set that in no which way you are derogatory or deriding the disorder [...] The second part is you have to come as close to reality in depicting that characterization and so one had to study a lot and one does get worried"
• My Name is Khan as highest grossing film overseas. Needs a source.
• Link Arjun Rampal in this section, not "Stage Performances"

2011–present: Blockbusters ( DONE)

• Heading is an overstatement. "Commercial success" is more appropriate

But he has always had commercial success. Here, several films were record breakers. BollyJeff | talk 02:46, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

I see where ur coming from, but Blockbusters as a heading is an overstatement, considering only CE is one (per BOI). Like, for Salman, it would be ok. How about something like "Rs. 2 billion-grossing films" or "Major commercial successes"? AB01 ^{I'M A POTATO} 09:32, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

• JTHJ should be wikilinked in image caption, and add the date
• Ra.One is seen as a flop in the eyes of the media. I think you could add something like "Despite negative media perception, the film emerged as a box office success..."

The existing sources imply mixed reception. Do you have sources for negative? BollyJeff | talk 13:15, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Wait, I don't mean critics-wise, but media-wise. Like, in the media it's been reported through several sources that the film failed (one of the sources u've provided in fact states that it bombed) and stuff, when in actuality it did make money. This has happened with films before, like Tees Maar Khan, Jai Ho, etc. I don't know if I'm making much sense :/ You can check Katrina's article. It says "Despite overwhelmingly poor reviews from critics, and negative media perception, the film (TMK) was moderately successful at the box office" So what we can put in SRK's article is "Despite negative media perception over the film's box office performance, Ra.One emerged as a box office success, with a gross of INR 2.4 billion and received mixed reviews from critics." Also, I just realised, there shouldn't be a full stop b4 ref #125 AB01 ^{I'M A POTATO} 13:49, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Okay, but I will still need a viable source for "negative media perception". BollyJeff | talk 14:27, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Ref #124 should be enough for that, as it is questioning the film's financial performance AB01 ^{I'M A POTATO} 01:33, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I do not see that. If you mean "Indian cinema must evolve; Ra.One not urban centric: Shahrukh Khan", that was before release. Which one? BollyJeff | talk 02:45, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, it's ref #125 now: "Some movies have done well for you but if I look at movies like Ra.One, they completely have bombed" AB01 ^{I'M A POTATO} 03:29, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

One more concern: KANK (2006) has been listed as "India's biggest grosser in the overseas market" and Don (also 2006) has been listed as "the highest grossing film of the year in the overseas market". I think you mean the second highest grossing film for Don AB01 ^{I'M A POTATO} 03:29, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

• "Khan is in his element and endearing as superhero G.One, but annoyingly [over the top] as video game creator Shekhar"
• "Khan's only release in 2012 was Yash Chopra's last romantic drama" (this is repeated later anyway)
• "Chennai Express...became the fastest film to enter the coveted Bollywood 100 Crore Club."--> Not anymore. Add "at the time of release"
• No source for gross of CE. Use this
• HNY is in post-production, as per this
• I would split this section into two, as we can't be sure that his commercial success will continue to the "present". So, I suggest changing the title to "2011–12: Commercial success", and transfer the last para of this section under the heading "2013-present: Recent work" When HNY releases, you can transfer CE to the previous section, and change the heading to "Recent work" or "2014 onwards", etc.

Television (DONE)

• Change Buenos Aires to Argentina, as per source

Stage performances (DONE)

• As per source, Khan performed alongside Rani Mukherji, Arjun Rampal and Eesha Koppikar at the Army Stadium concert. Neeraj Shridhar isn't mentioned
• Temptations Reloaded 2008: the source says the tour started (not ended) at the Ahoy in Rotterdam
• Karishma Kapoor already linked before

Endorsements (DONE)

• Media should be in lower case
• There are too many examples of brands which he endorses,unnecessarily increasing the article's length. Most GA/FA articles list only 5-7 (most prominent) brands

I don't know which are the most prominent. Should I remove them all and summarize by product category? BollyJeff | talk 02:46, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

I would list: "Some of the prominent brands Khan has endorsed include Pepsi, Nokia, Hyundai, Dish TV, D'decor, LUX and TAG Heuer". I think those are the most prominent and a decent mix of products. AB01 ^{I'M A POTATO} 09:32, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

• Caption should be Khan not SRK, and add the date

I don't know the date BollyJeff | talk 02:46, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Google says 2012 AB01 ^{I'M A POTATO} 09:32, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

• This is nitpicking, but full stop not needed after the caption
• "In addition to promoting products, Khan has been called upon to represent sport leagues, resorts and even states..."
• In the 2nd para where you're listing examples of sport leagues, resorts and states, include the years in parantheses

Not sure how to do this and keep the descriptions. What's wrong as is? BollyJeff | talk 02:46, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

It sounds really wordy like this. What I suggest is do it like this: "Force India, the Formula One racing team representing India in international motor race championships (in 2007); the live entertainment theatre and leisure destination Kingdom of Dreams (in 2010), the Champions League Twenty20, an annual international Twenty20 cricket competition between the top domestic teams from major cricketing nations (in 2011)...." AB01 ^{I'M A POTATO} 09:32, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

• Ref #181 doesn't say he doubled his fee. Also need a source for the claim that it is the largest deal for a Bollywood celebrity (ref #181 doesn't say that either)

The source you added in says the deal is one of the biggest deals, not the biggest. And I don't think it is the biggest deal. I know this source isn't entirely reliable, but it says that Aamir has a Rs. 88 crore deal. So you should change the statement, accordingly AB01 ^{I'M A POTATO} 11:58, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Haha, okay I will change it. BollyJeff | talk 12:32, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Ownership of IPL cricket team (DONE)

• Again, nitpicking...full stop not needed after the caption. Also, it should read "Khan interactsing with the media after KKR's maiden IPL title"
• Kolkata Knight Riders (KKR)
• Adjusted, or unadjusted, for inflation? (I'm not sure)
• I think 3 billion rupees can be removed. US dollars is enough
• No source for KKR victory in 2014
• Add Katrina Kaif for 2013 IPL performance

Humanitarian causes (DONE)

• Lower case for humanitarian work
• Help, not HELP! (per source)
• Ref #197 says Subhash Ghai donated Rs. 2.5 million, not SRK. Source does say that Shah Rukh Khan, Rani Mukerji and Karan Johar collectively donated Rs 1.15 crore to the PM's Relief Fund
• "Pyramide con Marni award for his charity engagements and social commitment towards providing education for kids"- This is copied word for word. Change wording please
• "During his 2009 appearance..."- Ref #204 says "last year's item number hit, Sheila Ki Jawani," therefore 2011, not 2009. And also, ref #204 says in 2011, he adopted 11 villages and ref #205 says in 2009, he adopted five

Artistry (DONE)

• Ref #207 doesn't say he's an "icon of romance in India"

Wealth and popularity (DONE)

• US dollars is enough for the valuations
• Didn't get top slot on BOI's Top Actors in 1996, and remove unnecessary details: "Khan occupied the top slot of Box Office India's top actors list for the first time in 1994, and repeated the feat in 1995, 1996, 1998 and for majority of the 2000s—from 2002 to 2008."
• In 2005, Filmfare ranked him 2nd, not 1st on their power list. Also, no source saying that he ranked 1st in 2004
• "and a Rs. 4 billion villa on the Palm Jumeirah in Dubai"- The one property is not Rs. 4 billion. His properties in Dubai holistically are worth that amount
• Unsourced that he ranked 3rd in Eastern Eye's 2008 Sexiest Man list

In the media (DONE)

• "in the 2007 time frame"--> change to "in 2007"
• No source for "Shah Rukh Can" book
• Full stop b4 ref #257

Selected filmography (DONE)

• Deewana character is spelt "Raja Sahay" in his Filmography article
• Dil To Pagal Hai character doesn't have last name

Lead (DONE)

• Badshah--> Baadshah (as in text)
• Legion of Honour--> Légion d'honneur (as in text)
• "Khan subsequently earned wide critical appreciation..."- the films hear should be listed in chronological order

References (DONE)

• DNA India should be changed to Daily News and Analysis. There are 6 incidences of the word in the whole article
• Sify.com-->Sify (there are 5 incidences throughout the article)
• ref #5 -->link to Time mag (don't link in #81)
• ref #7 -->incorrect author (both a and b)...b has no author
• ref #20 -->no need for quote in ref
• ref #29 --> ditto
• ref #50--> wrong title
• ref #65--> first name is Paresh C. (C. doesn't go in last name section)
• ref #71, #80, #90--> Filmfare as publisher, not TOI
• ref #83--> incorrect title
• ref #84--> missing date
• ref #85--> 2 authors; one is missing
• ref #94--> url is http://www.tribuneindia.com/2004/20041114/cth2.htm#4
• ref #98--> incorrect date
• ref #129--> author is subhash k. jha
• ref #130--> date missing
• ref #131-->incorrect title
• ref #132--> ditto
• ref #137--> ditto
• ref #144--> missing author
• ref #19, 143, 144, 145, 162, 174, 182, 192, 197, 232, 255, 263, 264--> access dates missing
• ref #148--> missing author and date
• ref #164--> ditto
• ref #179, 181, 182--> missing author
• ref #192--> incorrect date
• ref #195--> missing author
• ref #200--> incorrect date and impossible access date
• ref #207--> missing date
• ref #208--> ditto
• ref #209--> missing author
• ref #210, 214, 215, 217, 218, 222, 224, 231, 235, 244 --> missing author and date
• ref #219--> incorrect date
• ref #234, 253-->missing author
• ref #246--> cite web not cite news
• ref #251--> capital R for Review

Done with this last section. I will get to the rest in the coming days, thank you. BollyJeff | talk 22:34, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

I think that all of these points have been addressed now. Let me know if you see anything else. BollyJeff | talk 02:00, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Okay, my last suggestion would be to order the refs in chronological order. Like, for eg. [26][23] should be [23][26]. I think there's a tool to do this. Also, ref #81 needs to be archived. For some reason, some of the sources from The Hindu are not working anymore (refs 6b, 24). Is this is a temporary issue? AB01 ^{I'M A POTATO} 03:14, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Done. I just replaced one that had no archive versions. BollyJeff | talk

Awesome! I shall pass the article now. Well done, Bollyjeff :-) AB01 ^{I'M A POTATO} 01:08, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 August 2014

Madhu.hope (talk) 05:59, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Not done: No request supplied. -- Alexf^(talk) 13:11, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 August 2014

Realwaqasabbasi (talk) 13:08, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not requested a change.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to any article. - Arjayay (talk) 13:12, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Second richest in the world

Shah Rukh is world's second richest actor, leaving behind Tom Cruise and Johnny Depp. 2014 is yet to get over so the use of the word "WAS" should be probably avoided and "is" be written instead. Moreover, his wealth stated in section "wealth" is $560million, lesser and contradictory to wealth stated in first paragraph- $600 million. (talk) 21:38, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Was is okay. That way we don't have to update it come 1 Jan. The wealth section also mentions $600 million in the next sentence or two. It shows a progression over a few years and from a few different sources. BollyJeff | talk 02:25, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

SRK-Kajol

I think an image regarding the famous Bollywood couple (I wouldn't be wrong if I call them supercouple) has to be in the article. I did upload an image of the couple but I am scared if it goes wrong as it's currently an FLC. Just a suggestive image File:Shah Rukh Khan & Kajol unveil the special coffee table book 'DDLJ'.jpg.--FrankBoy _(Buzz) 14:35, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

I think it can be used in the 1995–98 section. I am going to have to make additional changes as more comments are coming in, and will add it, thanks. BollyJeff | talk 14:39, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, suit yourself! The article belongs to you. Kudos!--FrankBoy _(Buzz) 15:07, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Ha ha, it doesn't belong to me: WP:OWN. You can add it yourself. BollyJeff | talk 15:20, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Well I know it's not yours. I just mean it as a compliment as the article has seen a major improvement because of you.--FrankBoy _(Buzz) 15:27, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 February 2015

182.178.0.58 (talk) 19:32, 8 February 2015 (UTC)pakistani sapoter

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. --Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 19:39, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Review notes

From this verion:

• Khan started his career in theatre, and he appeared in several television series in the late 1980s.
  • The sentence is phrased rather awkwardly, but more importantly, the Career section of the article begins with television, not mentioning a career starting in theatre.
• WP:NBSP needs review throughout.
• Switch in tense:
  • ... the Government of India honoured him ... the Government of France has awarded him ...
• Review throughout needed for "Currently" and missing as of dates, sample:
  • Khan is currently co-chairman of the motion picture
    • Should be something like, As of <year>, Khan is co-chairman ...
• Image captions that are full sentences should end in punctuation.
• Please review MOS:CURRENCY-- the first time the reader encounters the currency symbol, they need to be told what it is. Also deal with conversion and as of dates. Also, the first time the $ sign is used, the reader should be told if it is US$.

I will review it. BollyJeff | talk 01:01, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I am not sure exactly what you are looking for here. $ was shown as US$ the first time (and every time it's in a conversion template). It looks okay to me. BollyJeff | talk 01:48, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

• "Khan receives a large amount of media coverage in India, ... " D'oh. What film star doesn't? Does the source say this, or is it original research?

Yes, I think even by film star standards he gets a tremendous amount of press. I believe we say similar things about Pitt and Jolie.♦ Dr. Blofeld 23:07, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

• Please remove the scroll box from the citations-- that invalidates them on mirrors, etc. I haven't looked at citation formatting since they are in a scrollbox.
• I picked one section to look at prose: Too much going on in this sentence:
  • Khan starred in seven films in 1995, the first of which was opposite Salman Khan and Kajol in Rakesh Roshan's melodramatic thriller Karan Arjun, which became the second-highest grossing film of the year in India.
• Too much going on in this next sentence, and why is it called his "release", when he was an actor. Did he produce it?
  • His most significant release that year was Aditya Chopra's directorial debut, the romance Dilwale Dulhania Le Jayenge, in which he played a young Non-resident Indian (NRI) who falls in love with Kajol's character during a trip across Europe.
• "Initially displayed antipathy"? Simplify ... was ambivalent, or something to that effect. Sentence is awkward.
  • Khan initially displayed antipathy towards portraying the role of a lover, but this film is credited with establishing him as a "romantic hero".
    • So, based on the first three sentences of one section, I suggest calling in Eric or RHM22.

RHM22 did a copyedit, and chose not to alter those 3 sentences, but I have changed two of them. I believe the term "his release" is very common for actor articles, is it not? Certainly on every one that I have been involved with. BollyJeff | talk 01:01, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

• ... In 1996, all four of Khan's releases failed critically and commercially, ... why?

I don't know why; it's just a fact to show that not all is roses here. BollyJeff | talk 01:01, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Just a start: I do not believe the prose or technicals (MOS) are at an FA-readiness level just yet. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:59, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I have addressed most of this now, and it has been copy edited by others as well. BollyJeff | talk 01:01, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Informal review

Hello, everyone. My name is RHM22 (talk), and I'm conducting an informal review and copyedit of this article by request. I have very little experience in the area of Indian cinema, so I will be able to assess whether or not the article is navigable from a novice perspective. I will add questions and comments here when I have them.

• These two sentences are very confusing: "Khan's first starring role was in Lekh Tandon's television series Dil Dariya, for which he began shooting in 1988. Because of its production delays, the 1989 series Fauji became his television debut." Is Fauji the same series as Dil Darya with a different title, or is it an entirely different work? Either way, it should be reworded for clarity, because the reader doesn't know which "if" is referring to.-RHM22 (talk) 20:29, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

• "Baazigar, in which Khan played the "consummate anti-hero"," this needs an attribution in-text. In other words, it should say something like "Baazigar, in which Khan played the "consummate anti-hero" according to X,"-RHM22 (talk) 23:14, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

• "India Today described him as an "energiser bunny", who "just goes on and on and on"." I would probably delete this as lacking relevance.-RHM22 (talk) 04:25, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

• Several times now, I've encountered the word "appreciated" used. I understand what it means, but it sounds a little unusual to me. Is it British or Indian English usage? If not, maybe something like "praised," "reacted positively to" or "reviewed favorably" would be better. Please ignore this note if such is common expression in British or Indian English.-RHM22 (talk) 05:13, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

• Why are the production costs for Devdas given in U.S. dollars but not Indian rupees? It should be consistent with the rest of the articles, preferably using the INR conversion template.-RHM22 (talk) 04:18, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

• "To provide an accurate portrayal of a suffer without disparagement..." This sentence doesn't make sense. It seems as though "suffer" is being used as a noun here, which is incorrect. Maybe "sufferer" was meant?-RHM22 (talk) 18:50, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

• "Although Khan's "unidimensional character" was criticised..." This needs an in-text attribution.-RHM22 (talk) 19:05, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

• Can the last sentence of 2010–present be updated?-RHM22 (talk) 19:09, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

• "In addition to his pre-film career television appearances..." I don't really like this wording, but I'm not sure how it could be improved.-RHM22 (talk) 21:51, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

That's all that I have for now. I didn't check the references, but the prose seems mostly good, in my opinion. There may be some assorted MOS issues. Additionally, there is some content that some reviewers might view as trivial or unnecessary.-RHM22 (talk) 22:17, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you so much for the terrific copy edit. I will see what I can do about your comments here. BollyJeff | talk 23:24, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Finished. BollyJeff | talk 01:03, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm glad to have been of assistance, and I hope that my edits were useful. I think it looks pretty good now, but of course, more eyes will be useful.-RHM22 (talk) 03:51, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Another informal PR

This is in pretty good shape already, although a good copy edit is probably needed to get the prose sharp enough to pass FAC.

• There's a few places where "Khan" is used which could be swapped for "he", just to lessen the repetition a little.
• There's a few places where there are three or four cites supporting something that doesn't look like it needs that much. Make sure that you trim down on the excesses without leaving anything vulnerable to challenge

Early life

• There's quite a lot on his family background that I'm not sure merits inclusion

Specifically? I would rather include properly source information now, to stave off editors from re-adding poorly sourced info later. There tends to be some "he is from my town" activity on these types articles about very popular Indian people. BollyJeff | talk 13:47, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

1988–92

• "which earned him considerable recognition": I'd add "according to ..." after that, just to be safe. (or strike the claim altogether as the next sentence makes it clear that the programme led to other work).
• "but he was not interested in film acting at the time": anything in the sources on why not?

1995–98

• "established him as an icon of romance in India": definitely some inline attribution needed for such a big claim

1999–2003

• "What is "a sub-company"?
• "Subsequently diagnosed with a prolapsed disc, he attempted multiple alternative therapies. None provided a permanent solution to the injury, which caused him severe pain while shooting several of his films" Should be reworked (possibly as one sentence broken with a semi colon), as it reads awkwardly as two.

I hope these help, but before a stab at FAC, I'd get a good copy edit on the article to iron out some of the less fluid sentences. I've not delved into the intricacies of the references, or seen whether the more technical niceties of the MoS need examining, as I'd focus on the prose first to get that right before you go onto other bits. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 10:19, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you @SchroCat:, it helps, but I have a question. This article has been reviewed and copy edited many times already, but it still manages to some up short to some eyes. How does one go about finding someone capable enough to get it to the professional level needed for FAC? I am not an English professor. Should I send it back to the GOCE again, or is there another avenue to seek help? BollyJeff | talk 12:26, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Cheers @SchroCat:, much appreciated. Yeah the prose is something people keep mentioning, I've looked over it, so has RHM22. We need more pairs of eyes as Indopug puts it to really look at this and help copyedit it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:08, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 March 2015

Thank You all the wikipedian to write an article about the famous superstar Shahrukh Khan.....By the way,as a regular reader of wikipedia, i want to edit this and add a few words that praises him alot.Please help me for performing this action.Again, thank you!! 117.194.252.179 (talk) 12:02, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

I've declined this request. As the template states, you need to post after the template "a complete and specific description of the request, that is, specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. "Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form "please change X to Y". I would also note that "words that praises him alot" will need citation by reliable sources. 331dot (talk) 12:04, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

He doesn't need any more praise; that will only hurt the article. BollyJeff | talk 12:27, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Good source

I just came across a good source on Khan's career pre-1995 here. Bollyjeff you may want to use it. Cheers! --Krimuk|90 (talk) 08:56, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 September 2015

I would like to write up something on Shahrukh khan as many things of his past movies and life are not stated here I know sooo much about him so if you dont mind i would like to be able to write something SMKUniverse (talk) 19:57, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Cannolis (talk) 20:02, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

The article is considered quite large already, whcih was an issue during the featured article test. There are other sub-articles that may already contain what you want. Please see Shah Rukh Khan filmography, Shah Rukh Khan in the media, and List of awards and nominations received by Shah Rukh Khan. If the information is not there, then please state exactly what you would like to add, with sources to back it up. BollyJeff | talk 20:07, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Edinburgh university

Maybe a mention of his honorary degree from Edinburgh Alexis Ivanov (talk) 06:47, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

It's in Shah Rukh Khan in the media. Doesn't seem relevant here. BollyJeff | talk 12:23, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

perhaps the world's biggest movie star?

flagging a WP:POV issue here, third sentence in the lead reads: "Khan has been described by Steven Zeitchik of the Los Angeles Times as 'perhaps the world's biggest movie star'." This guy is an entertainment news staff writer for the LA Times, pretty much a minor journalist of limited notability. Should it really be given prominence in the lead? It reads to me like promotional copy, and i don't believe the quote is appropriate for the lead. Are there any objections to its removal? Semitransgenic _talk. 18:14, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

It passed the scrutiny of both FAC and TFA reviews with this sentence in there. Why are you getting so upset now? I could probably find many more sources to back this up, but I am kind of busy now. BollyJeff | talk 19:11, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

not upset at all, saw the article on wiki front page, by chance, and was surprised to see what is essentially promotional POV in the opening paragraph of an FA. let's keep it in context. For example, if this Zeitchik guy said, "Robert De Niro is perhaps the worlds most famous actor" or, "Laurence Oliver is perhaps the greatest actor to have ever set foot on earth," or any number of similar questionable assertions, would we run with it in the lead like that? I don't think so. A sourced consensus statement, one that represented the opinion of a group of notable film critics, would be a different matter. Semitransgenic _talk. 20:07, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Does anyone else have an opinion on this, please? BollyJeff | talk 22:05, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

To me, it does look like promotional. There's not a universal consensus for "perhaps the world's biggest". Also, the world "perhaps" sounds a bit unencyclopedic for the lead section, even if it's a direct quote. Fideliosr (talk) 13:13, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Semitransgenic, but it can stay unless someone can find a better source/quote. (How do you measure the size of a star, anyway? Box office receipts? Fan surveys?) Brutannica (talk) 16:25, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

if the qualifier for "biggest" equals net worth, or revenue generated per anum, we need it presented in that context, however, it says already that he's "one of the richest actors in the world," but not "the richest actor in the world" so that's out. If it's a question of fame, we are suggesting, in terms of "biggest," that he is the world's most famous actor, again, dubious, and especially if based on that one quote. Semitransgenic _talk. 19:19, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

• Here are the exact words quoted by Fareed Zakaria of CNN: [3]
• Here is from The Guardian: [4].
• Here is from The Times: [5]

Must I continue?? Which of these would be best to cite, if the original is not good enough? BollyJeff | talk 02:36, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi Bollyjeff. You've indeed done terrific, commendable work on this article but the most sources you've mentioned are 4-5 years old. And this is important because the statement is not mentioning the biggest star of all time, or in the history of (Indian) cinema. It is evidently dated and don't forget WP:PEACOCK. Maybe off topic but I remember many notable Indian critics saying that his popularity is declining, he's not a top star in India anymore, and he needs a clean hit to prove his stardom when he'd a dry spell of below average movies. So that's the opinion of less notable critics and journalists, and not that of authoritative film historians. My two cents. Fideliosr (talk) 09:06, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

I've taken this all on board, made a change that reflects what we have here, it's "reportedly" the case, I've moved slightly to allow for context. Semitransgenic _talk. 09:10, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

I've reverted to the TFA version as that was the most agreed about version than yours. Kailash29792 (talk) 10:27, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

not a reason, consensus changes, considering the points raised above, what are your arguments for keeping this POV quote in the lead in preference to something more accurate? Semitransgenic _talk. 10:51, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

I am happy with how it is now. Better more sources than just the one, but it should be in text as well, not just the lead. BollyJeff | talk 16:51, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Seriously? I mean the word "reportedly" is hardly encyclopedic. How about "one of the world's biggest movie stars"? Sounds better, eh? Fideliosr (talk) 17:14, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

it's a compromise, it's either that or we state "according to..." or similar. These are journalistic opinions, same claims are made for actors such as Tom Cruise, in fact more recently that for Khan, but these are not truths, they are speculations, and usually sound bites pushed by PR companies working on behalf of stars. Semitransgenic _talk. 17:38, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Current version "reportedly biggest movie star of the world" is ok. But we can improve it. Instead of "reportedly" we can write "he is regarded as the biggest movie star in the world". If we write "according to..." as in case of earlier version we wrote "according to LA times.." then we have to mention name of news agencies and not name of journalists or author who wrote it because writing their name in lead section of SRK is undue publicity for them. I think best one is "he is regarded as the biggest movie star in the world." --Human3015^TALK  19:36, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

well, not wanting to be pedantic, but if we say "he is regarded...," again, it suggests universally, we need to be careful, "he is regarded by some sources..." maybe that's better? as I said, other actors have had this label applied, it's publicity speak, something someone writes it in a press release pushing a new movie etc., it gets passed around, it gets printed, but is it demonstrably true? I don't think so, but that's just how I see it. Semitransgenic _talk. 21:28, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

I think you again came to original version. Original version was rightly attributing "LA Times" and it was rightly saying "perhaps" before "biggest movie star of the world". There was no need to change that version. --Human3015^TALK  23:35, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

yes there was need to change it, accuracy is important, it's an FA, we should not be offering dodgy quotes in the lead. And, let me reiterate, it was not the opinion of the LA Times, it was the opinion, in November 2011, of an entertainment news staff writer who works for the LA Times.You had one cite, now there are three, I don't see the issue. You instead want a 4 year old quote from a minor journalist presented prominently in the lead? Semitransgenic _talk. 07:51, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

The journalist may have minor notability in his country, but an American from a reputed newspaper making an acclaimed remark about an Indian personality, how can that not be sensational? Kailash29792 (talk) 08:06, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

there is nothing "sensational" in this, I think you need to understand how agents and publicists operate: it's called an international promotional campaign. Same way Tom Cruise gets pushed in Asia, exactly the same model. Most entertainment, film, music etc., writers get handed briefs, with press packs issued by publicists working for records companies, film studios, or individual clients, it's how that businesses works, it's not real journalism. Semitransgenic _talk. 08:37, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Ok, in my first comment itself I said "reportedly.." is ok. But I was thinking about some other option if possible. And just to give my opinion regarding your opinion about journalism, yes, there can be paid editing, but we can't keep on speculating everything as paid, there can be some sincere praise. If you read various sources, SRK is biggest star in terms of " population of fans" or "population of people who know him". India-Pakistan-Bangladesh are 3 of top ten most populous nations and nearly everyone in these nations knows SRK, but that is not case with Will Smith and Tom Cruise, they are famous in less populated countries, even entire population of Europe stands no where near population of South Asia. SRK is also famous in Middle-East and north Africa. So that journalist's opinion was based on these stats. --Human3015^TALK  09:10, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

if you want to rationalise it that way, do the math, I think you'll find it doesn't stack up, a number of American actors, such as Cruise, are known internationally, so let's assume they are globally recognized, now deduct your figures for India-Pakistan-Bangladesh from the world population, what are you left with? If you go down this route to quantify "biggest in the world" it just gets silly. Sure, for an Indian actor, this guy is huge, but appreciate that Hollywood has been pushing American films and actors on the international market for quiet a while, they've spent a fortune on publicity. Semitransgenic _talk. 10:55, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

"They are famous internationally" and your definition of "international" is 4-5 English speaking countries. (But India-Pak-Bangladesh, middle east is not international for you). You are talking like, out of South Asia, each and every kid and old man knows Tom Cruise. Jackie Chan maybe more famous than Tom Cruise if we add fan population of China, he has also done some international movies. Don't make it forum discussion, I was talking on the basis of sources. If you are fan of Tom Cruise then I can't do anything. You are exposing yourself, your removal of content from this page can be explained by WP:IDLI. Maybe you read some more news "paid" by SRK. SRK is more popular than Tom Cruise, (3.2 billion people knows SRK, 2.7 billion people knows Tom Cruise) also Shah Rukh Khan named richer than Tom Cruise in Hollywood-Bollywood rich list. (SRK is richer than Tom Cruise, so maybe SRK pays more to journalists than Tom to write such stuff.) Your comments are based on your personal opinion regarding journalism and favorite actors, but my comments are based on sources.--Human3015^TALK  12:01, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Are you seriously suggesting that I removed content because I am a "fan" of Cruise's? Can i remind you of WP:AGF. I would like to request that you please strike that allegation. My concern, as stated at the outset, is the use of a POV quote, from a non-notable commentator, placed prominently in the lead of an FA article, the subject of the article is unimportant to me, i do not care about Hollywood, Bollywood, this guy, Cruise, Pitt, Rajnikanth, whoever, not interested, what I am interested is accurate content and upholding standards. Re: international context, English movies are subjected to dub localization all over the world. Re: my "opinion" on journalism, that is actually how marketing and publicity works in the culture industry, it's well documented. Semitransgenic _talk. 13:12, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Ok, my apologies for any allegations, you can strike it. But article got FA and TFA status while that qoute in article, but anyway, we agreed on you by assuming good faith anyone did not revert you, but in replacement there should be better version. I have added a survey regarding popularity, hope you will not mind. I never intents to hurt you. Human3015^TALK  14:12, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

no worries. Semitransgenic _talk. 14:31, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Bollyjeff, please try and make the article more encyclopaedic, now that it has been crudely modified. I still hate the word "reportedly" as it is un-encyclopaedic and only signifies speculation rather than confirmation. Kailash29792 (talk) 16:39, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Reportedly is okay. Such a thing cannot be described as a fact anyway. I do not like the recent addition of a survey result in the lead though. That has to go. BollyJeff | talk 21:48, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

The way in which the "claim" is currently rephrased clearly fails WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. —Vensatry _(Talk) 15:32, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I'm talking about the lead. —Vensatry _(Talk) 15:35, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

that's why i prefer "reportedly", it avoids the issue of having to say "according to so and so" in the lead. Semitransgenic _talk. 17:03, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

I see a lot of arguments seem to have taken place. But the way in which it's currently said in the lead is a serious WP:NPOV issue. —Vensatry _(Talk) 18:52, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Also, we need non-Indian sources for this claim 'According to a popularity survey, 3.2 billion people around the world know Shah Rukh Khan, followed by Tom Cruise with 2.7 billion'. —Vensatry _(Talk) 06:33, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Do you want to claim that given Indian sources are not reliable? Those are independent reliable sources which fulfills our WP:RS, WP:V. Its like asking for non-US sources for any US actor.--Human3015^TALK  07:09, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Anyway, this short biography of SRK on TIME claims that fan base of SRK is 3.5 billion.--Human3015^TALK  07:31, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

To add more, this abc News article gives reference of BusinessWeek and claims that SRK's audience is more than 3.5 billion people. --Human3015^TALK  07:38, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

This Gaurdian article uses "world's biggest film star" in their headline and also in body they discuss that Bollywood has audience of 3.6 billion people while Hollywood has 2.5 billion. Also claims that half of the world's population know who SRK is. Means again 3.5-3.6 billion people.--Human3015^TALK  08:02, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

I think this will clear doubts, British daily The Times says in this article that, "Who is world's biggest movie star? Brad Pitt? Tom Cruise? No, its SRK with 3.6 billion fans'". (subscription needed to read full article). I think anyone don't have any doubt now. I have provided many sources from non-Indian well known news dailies. Don't say that SRK provided money to all of these dailies to write such stuff. Our assumptions and speculations don't have any place on Wikipedia. Wikipedia works on reliable independent sources, not on our personal opinion and personal favorites. I think its time to close this issue.--Human3015^TALK  08:25, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Firstly, when did I say all Indian newspapers are unreliable? Since the claim is quite contentious, it's better to add sources from other countries. After all he is an Indian actor, so no wonder Indian newspapers praise him. Secondly, the statement reads pretty vague – 'Biggest' in terms of what? This should be clearly said in the article. Back to sources, the one from Time says he is 'one of India's biggest film star'. ABCNews (Title: 'Bollywood Rising: India's Biggest Movie Star Shah Rukh Khan') says 'He has a strong domestic base and his audience is already bigger than most Hollywood actors'. Furthermore, The Guardian says 'He is the biggest star in Hindi cinema'. The Times quite covers your claim. But then, this should really be taken as the viewpoint of the author. You're trying to fabricate sources, shall I take it that way? Yes, Wikipedia works on reliable sources, but not on the viewpoints of journalists. That said, I'd strongly suggest you read WP:SUBJECTIVE. You clearly lack the understanding of WP:NPOV. —Vensatry _(Talk) 09:45, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

I'll side with Vesantry's views here. There should either be "one of the world's biggest" or "according to {XYZ], he is the world's biggest". "Reportedly" is hardly an encyclopedic word and there's no universal consensus that he's the "world's biggest". Fideliosr (talk) 10:17, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I see no issue of NPOV here, in many sources he is refered as "biggest movie star in the world" and obviously he is biggest movie star of India. We can get sources for both. We writing "reportedly". In one of older version I wrote number of fans in in lead in front of "biggets movie star". But it is moved to body without any reason. We should write in lead that, "He is reportedly the repordly biggest movie star in the world, estimated fan base of Shah Rukh Khan is more than 3.5 billion people, more than any other film star in the world". (no mention of Tom Cruise). Or we can make it more simple, "He is regarded as the biggest movie star in the world in terms of fan base, according to some estimates 3.5 billion people around the world know him". And your argument that "Indian news will obviously praise him" is not policy based. Same can be applied to US/UK actors where sources of their own nations are used to praise them. But in SRK's case we have sources from US, UK and India. --Human3015^TALK  10:31, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

You are yet to read WP:NPOV, right? Yes that argument of mine was not policy-based, but I was trying to make a point that we should do away with subjective claims in our articles. I'm not the one who fabricates sources. —Vensatry _(Talk) 11:21, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

The claim that "obviously he is biggest movie star of India" is also controversial. Many trade publications and leading newspapers such as Box Office India and Times of India have repeatedly maintained that Salman Khan, not Shahrukh Khan, is India's biggest movie star. Anyways, I presented some suggestions but this debate is going nowhere: WP:FORUM. Fideliosr (talk) 13:03, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

It is NPOV to consider him as the biggest star of India, and there is no lack of neutrality. If Salman Khan is also considered as such, then write it on his article. Capitals00 (talk) 14:58, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Why is this still a problem? Will the dissenters please describe exactly what they would like to see? For instance:

• Example 1 - He (is reportedly) (has been called) the world's biggest film star. (UKsource), (USsource), (Indiansouce)
• Example 2 - (UKreporter) (USreporter) (UKnewspaper) (USnewspaper) has (have) called him world's biggest film star. (UKsource), (USsource)
• Example 3 - more ideas welcomed

Or is there absolutely nothing that will be acceptable? BTW, he does not have to be the biggest in India to be the biggest worldwide. BollyJeff | talk 22:19, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

can live with the current version or use of "reportedly" (which does not, as suggested above, have negative connotations; in common English usage it means "according to what has been said" or quiet literally "it has been reported," don't get the issue with this). Placing emphasis on non-notable reporters in the lead is not the way to go. Semitransgenic _talk. 00:10, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

The current version is not acceptable because it has a weasel words tag on it. @Vensatry: could you answer my question above? BollyJeff | talk 02:22, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

@Bollyjeff: I'd go with 'Example 2', but the 'world's biggest film star' should really be placed in quotes. —Vensatry _(Talk) 10:19, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

I totally agree with Vesantry's suggestions about the mention of publication as well as quotation marks. Fideliosr (talk) 13:09, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Okay, so I am thinking something like: "Various British and American newspapers have called him the 'world's biggest film star'" or "British newspapers The Gaudian and The Times, as well as the Los Angeles Times have called him ..." @Semitransgenic: would this be okay for you, mentioning the newspapers rather than the reporters themselves? It is hard to please everyone. BollyJeff | talk 13:35, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't see much better outcome of this discussion, this is case of WP:IDLI and some editors may not agree until we mention that "Shahrukh is reportedly biggest film star in the world but Tom Cruise is bigger star than Sun and Rajanikanth is beyond this Solar system". This is really becoming useless discussion. I don't know why some people have problem with accepting sources. As I mentioned above, more than 3.5 billion people knows SRK. I have given 4 reliable sources, we can mention that in lead.--Human3015^TALK  14:08, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I will try to work that in as well after we get consensus on the first part; not comparing actors, but just mentioning his numbers. Keep calm, there is still hope. BollyJeff | talk 15:45, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

@Human3015: Come on man, you're the only one who's trying to lead this discussion to WP:FORUM. Aargh! —Vensatry _(Talk) 16:02, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

the sources are out of date, the figures are speculative estimates at best, furthermore, the latest headline i can find about the "world's biggest star," in August 2015, claims it's Bradley Cooper! any such claim, about any individual, is, if you will excuse my French, bullshit. We should NOT be endorsing any such claim as FACT! Reportedly is what it is, these are entertainment news reports, it's BS news, utter crap, bottom of the barrel celebrity muck, it is NOT real journalism. Semitransgenic _talk. 17:25, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

See what I mean; it's hard to please everyone. The source does not need to be completely up to date if it says "has been called". BTW, Tom Cruises article says "One of the biggest movie stars in Hollywood" with no attribution other than the listed sources. Shall I take it that you plan to be stubborn in light of the other editors here agreeing in concept? BollyJeff | talk 17:37, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

I think Semitransgenic is not being stubborn, but he has a valid point here. I also mentioned this earlier. Can we bring a single 2015 source calling SRK the world's biggest film star? If so, that source would be more preferable as compared to what we have been mentioning on the talk page. Here's one 2015 article calling Amitabh Bachchan the world's biggest, and another one calling Brad Pitt the same. Fideliosr (talk) 17:54, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

seriously, wtf has Cruise got to do with any of this?? That's not even an FA, not even GA! Let me reiterate, I came to this FA via the Wiki cover page, as I'm sure did many, we should not have this kind of BS in the lead, not sure why people have difficulty understanding why it's problematic: its an FA, it's a BLP, therefore ropey claims, serve no place here without stating exactly the nature of the ropey claims (celebrity news reports). I'm getting the impression objectivity is lost here because it's essentially a fan page we are dealing with. Any edits that are perceived, erroneously, to be an attempt to undermine his aura of omnipotence are taken as personal attacks. Semitransgenic _talk. 18:06, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Here is more than a single source, from multiple countries making the claim in 2015, sheesh. I am not claiming total reliability on these, because I found them fast, but come on, he has been called that in the past. It should be good enough to say so even without these:

• 1) http://www.whaleoil.co.nz/2015/09/anmol-seth-shah-rukh-khan-the-bollywood-star-and-the-missing-money/
• 2) http://www.thenational.scot/world/profile-shah-rukh-khan-bringing-bollywood-to-edinburgh-university.8443
• 3) http://www.thenational.ae/arts-life/10-reasons-why-shah-rukh-khan-is-still-the-king-of-bollywood
• 4) http://www.dpa-international.com/news/asia/indian-superstar-shahrukh-khan-still-chasing-dreams-at-50-a-47140499.html
• 5) http://www.india.com/showbiz/shah-rukh-khan-turns-50-popular-dialogues-of-bollywoods-baadshah-674510/
• 6) http://atimes.com/2015/10/lifestyle-indian-superstar-shah-rukh-still-chasing-dreams-at-50/
• 7) http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/bollywood-superstar-shah-rukh-khan-meets-british-royalty-he-honoured-by-edinburgh-university-1524213

re:unsigned links provided above, what they actually say.

• 1) "...one of the world’s biggest movie stars."
• 2) "...is probably the biggest film star in the world."
• 3) "...one of the biggest actors in the world…one of the richest actors in the world...and only comes second to American comedian Jerry Seinfeld on the list of top earning actors."
• 4) "...His personal earnings were estimated to be 26 million dollars by Forbes in 2015 and it ranked him as the world's 18th most highly paid actor."
• 5) "SRK is known to be not the nation’s biggest star but the world’s biggest movie star."
• 6) this link is a reprint of item 4.
• 7) "Khan, who is hailed as the world's biggest superstar."

again, nothing definitive here. Semitransgenic _talk. 14:05, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Should we really keep this POVish stuff in an FA? —Vensatry _(Talk) 15:02, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

"Definitive" what? In one of my comment above I have given 4 sources which talks about his 3.5 billion fans, he is biggest star in the world in terms of number of fans. We can't say it as "POV" when we have reliable sources from established news papers from multiple nations. People can deny sources for any reason or they can misinterpret sources. But Wikipedia doesn't work in this manner. I think other parties should start discussion at WP:DRN, some non-involved editors can help in this matter. --Human3015^TALK  15:26, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

He probably has an "audience" of 3.5 billion, not 3.5 billion "fans". And talking in terms of population sounds silly. How many countries is he well-known in? That might be a better question. 117.192.176.236 (talk) 16:03, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

While I can respect you're a big fan of SRK, these surveys results are exaggerated and never reliable. Again, as pointed out by Semitransgenic, there's nothing definitive. Fideliosr (talk) 16:28, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

If you are calling me fan of SRK then maybe I can call you fan of Tom Cruise or someone else and you can't see such line in SRK's article. As far as my view is concerned I have never edited this article before this incident neither I have edited any of film page of SRK ever. If you are "hater" of SRK or you "dislike" SRK then you will find everything un-reliable and no issue of discussing this issue. I think we should restore pre-dispute FA and TFA version and should refer this matter to WP:DRN. This discussion is going nowhere.--Human3015^TALK  16:40, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

The DRN volunteer is now making edits to other parts of the article without discussion. Is this appropriate? How is it proper to remove early career television appearances, stage shows, endorsements, etc. from the lead? Per WP:LEAD the lead must summarize the whole article. BollyJeff | talk 01:56, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

You know, it just occurred to me that I probably shouldn't have made those edits because of my involvement at the DRN discussion. That's my error in judgment and I have no problem owning up to it. I will be reverting back to the version it was at when the discussion started and will be asking for page protection to keep from any more edits happening until the discussion is completed. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 02:22, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

The result of the DRN is here: Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 128. BollyJeff | talk 20:00, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Congratulations!

Congratulations to all the contributors to this featured article. You deserve a lot of applause, recognition and appreciation. What a wonderful article.

  Bfpage |leave a message  09:33, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Additional content

Great article, but I'm actually kind of surprised there isn't more. There doesn't seem to be a sense for who SRK is as a person. What's his personality like? What do his costars think of him? What about some evaluations of his acting in general? I realize some of this might seem like fluff, but most other actor articles have it and for someone as famous as Shah Rukh Khan I would expect it. Brutannica (talk) 16:28, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

It was cut down a lot because FAC reviews thought it was too big. There is sub-article called Shah Rukh Khan in the media that has the kind of content that you are looking for. Give it a look. BollyJeff | talk 02:17, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Vital article

Also, why isn't this considered a vital article? I would think he's more important/visible/famous than, say, Ian McKellen. Brutannica (talk) 16:32, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 November 2015

INCLUDE in the Introduction of the Person: Shah Rukh Khan received Honorary Doctorate from University of Edinburgh on October 15th 2015. Change Name to: Dr. Shah Rukh Khan Mahesh 03:37, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Added info to "In the media" section. Not important enough for the lead section. BollyJeff | talk 05:01, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 12 November 2015

Please change https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Shahrukh_interacts_with_media_after_KKR's_maiden_IPL_title.jpg (which is the main photo) To https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CEOHti_UIAAr8ko.jpg Because it looks better as a picture to reflect the person.

90.207.157.69 (talk) 17:13, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

 Not done Firstly, we don't use such photos in infoboxes of biography articles of people, this can be used in any relevant film article. 2nd thing is that photo should be free to use without any copyright protection to upload it on Wikipedia or Commons.--Human3015^TALK  18:52, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

he is started his life 1500 rs shah rukh khan goes delhi to mumbai starting his acting — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.202.118.190 (talk) 15:41, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 December 2015

I can add the updates the new images and information. I will remove the wrong information. ARNAB22 (talk) 13:31, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

 Not done This is not the right page to request additional user rights.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 14:59, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 March 2016

Er. SATYENDRA SINGH (talk) 09:42, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format.  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  10:02, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 April 2016

He is a good actor who has done many movies (Shibani Khaneja) 45.119.141.164 (talk) 13:35, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not requested a specific change in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
More importantly, you have not cited reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 14:51, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 July 2016

195.182.31.13 (talk) 14:39, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 14:51, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Unsourced

In the last para of lead section there are no sources proving those mentioned things are correct or genuine.. It has to be sourced right?? Ambeinghari (talk) 02:21, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Those items are sourced elsewhere in the article; look and you should find them. It is typical to not put a lot of sources in the lead, which is a summary of the whole article. BollyJeff | talk 02:45, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

WP:LEADCITE is the relevant guideline from our Manual of Style. While what Bollyjeff says is accurate, we shouldn't be afraid to add sources to the lead, especially for things that are likely to need accessible references, like for anything that is likely to be challenged, especially in BLPs (biographies of living persons). I would also extend this to anything that is likely to be vandalized, which in my experience are things like birthdates, financial values, ethnicity, ages, genres, etc. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:07, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I understand. But i think in last line of last para in lead section he is mentioned as one of fifty most powerful man in the world. Big statement like that, i think it should be sourced. Huge statement like that should be mentioned with proper source. Your views?? Ambeinghari (talk) 04:12, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

I added the source for that now. BollyJeff | talk 12:20, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Perfect. And thanks. I appreciate. Ambeinghari (talk) 14:52, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Image

Sir Bollyjeff please update a new image of Shah Rukh Khan. The image which is set is quite old, 2012's image at a media event of Kolkata Knight Riders. As per a celebrity, I think the image tells everything and it's Wikipedia, everyone's first choice to look or get informations. In that image he isn't look as well as he is. Thank You. ARNAB22 (talk) 08:51, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

@ARNAB22: Your request is kinda incomplete without you suggesting the replacement images. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 05:53, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Its not that easy. You cannot use just any picture due to copyright laws. Most of the pictures we use for Bollywood actors come from a specific sections of Bollywood Hungama's website, the parties and events sections. For example, something from here: [6]. They are then cropped and uploaded to Wikicommons with a permissions page and then reviewed by someone to make sure they are acceptable for use here. I think the existing picture looks good enough, and am not willing to do all the work to change it right now. BollyJeff | talk 13:18, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

So can I swap the image with the Shah Rukh Khan in the media image. Its quite new and he looks more attractive. Both are captured at a media event, so there's no problem isn't there? Thank you.ARNAB22 (talk) 14:15, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Sure. BollyJeff | talk 14:25, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

True,image shld be changed. Surajjaisawlani (talk) 03:44, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

What is the problem, whenever I am changing the image someone is coming and changing again it to the old one. Request to admins to do something. Thank You ARNAB22 (talk) 08:23, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Apparently people have differing opinions on which picture looks better. It's about as hard to get everyone on Wikipedia to agree on something as it is to obtain world peace. BollyJeff | talk 12:09, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Media referred titles

As a featured article i don't know whether i can query about this, but i read WP:PUFFERY it states that Baadshah of Bollywood", "King of Bollywood" or "King Khan" like references comes under WP:PUFFERY. I am not strong enough to argue about this. But i like to open a discussion about this. Expert Opinions... Ambeinghari (talk) 13:43, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

The article has passed a thorough FAC review, and none of these well-sourced titles were deemed problematic. It seems that Ambeinghari is persistent on raising meaningless issues on the articles of actors and actresses whom he doesn't like. You've previously been warned to not do this. So please, try and contribute more constructively to this encyclopedia. --Krimuk|90 (talk) 14:17, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

I know you are a fan of this man. So you want that to stay. Any other expert opinion pls, may be from non indian senior editors or master editors pls.. thanks. Ambeinghari (talk) 01:40, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm not a schoolboy to be a "fan" of any man. So you should just WP:DROPIT. Krimuk|90 (talk) 04:24, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 October 2016

SHAH RUKH KHAN is very briliant,superstar actor — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.64.213.50 (talk) 05:20, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 December 2016

sharuk khan nationeslity-pakistani — Preceding unsigned comment added by 43.226.2.246 (talk) 15:01, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Nope born in India. Bollyjeff | talk 17:04, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 December 2016

Please add to the page that CNN show GPS hosted by Fareed Zakari has named Shahrukh khan the biggest actor in bollywood and in the world as well. The link below is a source

http://www.cnn.com/videos/tv/2016/02/22/exp-gps-0221-srk-interview.cnn Ahmedmohammed6 (talk) 23:39, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

@Ahmedmohammed6:I'm assuming you are referring to the mention at the very beginning of the interview? If so, please listen carefully as it the view is clearly noted as being from the LA Times and that's already in the article. Ravensfire (talk) 00:57, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Honors and Medals

There should be a section or addition in his Key, for the various medals or Honors bestowed upon him from various countries and nations, like the Title of 'Datuk' he received from Malaysia amongst others, along with the ribbons and colors of each honor as is done for other famous people with titles, medals, or honors bestowed upon them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.161.175.119 (talk) 08:57, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

There are a few already mentioned. The rest can be placed in List of awards and nominations received by Shah Rukh Khan. Bollyjeff | talk 02:36, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 March 2017

173.220.86.250 (talk) 19:55, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Gulumeemee (talk) 01:47, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

up coming movies

Movie Name: Don 3 Release Date: 2018 Star cast: Shah Rukh Khan, Anushka, Katrina Director: Farhan Akhtar Producer: Shah Rukh Khan and Farhan Akhtar Genre: Action-thriller — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jitudas15 (talk • contribs) 20:55, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

What is the source? Bollyjeff | talk 23:25, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 August 2017

188.54.242.28 (talk) 10:03, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. nihlus kryik  (talk) 10:55, 19 August 2017 (UTC)