Talk:Ranbir Kapoor

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as stub, and the rating on other projects was brought up to Stub class. BetacommandBot 19:33, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Ranbir Kapoor launches his own official website

http://myranbirkapoor.com/ --hello (talk) 19:00, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

According to this page, it appears to be legit. Copana2002 (talk) 03:53, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Definitely legit, see this article in Economic Times. Copana2002 (talk) 18:51, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

frd

hi i m ur big frd........... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.170.21.219 (talk) 11:07, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Pending changes

This article is one of a small number (about 100) selected for the first week of the trial of the Wikipedia:Pending Changes system on the English language Wikipedia. All the articles listed at Wikipedia:Pending changes/Queue are being considered for level 1 pending changes protection.

The following request appears on that page:

However with only a few hours to go, comments have only been made on two of the articles.

Please update the page as appropriate.

Note that I am not involved in this project any more than any other editor, just posting these notes since it is quite a big change, potentially.

Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 20:17, 15 June 2010 (UTC).

Origins

Although it states that the Kapoor family are originally from Peshawar, this reference states that they had settled in Punjab. Should not this be mentioned too? Thanks--SH 15:20, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

This source clearly says "Raj Kapoor told me that his family hailed originally from Peshawar, but his grandfather retired as Tahsildar from Samundri and settled there" Kapoor family have spend more time in Mumbai than Punjab(Samundri), does that make them Marathi? Other sources refer to them as "Pathan". Winston786 (talk) 15:26, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

His Grandfather was born in Samundri, and clearly it meant something to them, as he longed to be there. Its their background, so what is the harm in mentioning it? In any case a he (Ranbir) seems to be described as a Punjabi Munda and when I met his father years ago, it was exactly how he described himself (although that is not relevant here)? Thanks--SH 16:44, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

His grandfather(Raj Kapoor) was not born in Samundari, he was born in Peshawar. The sources clearly say that it is a "Hindu PATHAN" family. Somebody else has decribed him "Punjabi Munda" in a Suggestive manner.Winston786 (talk) 16:54, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Not born in Samundri? Oh really? Maybe this article is wrong "Prithviraj was born on November 3, 1906 at Samundri near the town of Lyallpur (now known as Faisalabad in Pakistan) to a middle-class family of Punjabi Khatri origin. He could speak Punjabi, Hindi and Hindko. "? or maybe this Thanks--SH 17:02, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Also note this "Like his father, Raj Kapoor spent much of his childhood in Peshawar. Born in Samundari on 14 December 1924 he was the only one of Prithviraj's children to speak Pashto and imbibe Pathan culture directly. When his father went to Bombay" from this, page 371. Thanks --SH 17:06, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

He is not his grandfather, its RAJ Kapoor. Read again what Raj Kapoor said, "family hailed originally from Peshawar, but his grandfather retired as Tahsildar from Samundri and SETTLED there" i.e at best only one generation was born there and spend time there. Winston786 (talk) 17:07, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Four generations of their family have lived in Mumbai and two of them have born there, calling them a Marathi family is more viable than PUNJABI family. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Winston786 (talk • contribs) 17:11, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

There are 3 refrences that state Pritviraj was born in Lyalpur Samundri, so which one of them is wrong? Thanks --SH 17:14, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

You are wrong, his grandfather was RAJ Kapoor not Prithiviraj and once again please read what Raj Kapoor said, ""family hailed originally from Peshawar, but his grandfather retired as Tahsildar from Samundri and SETTLED there" i.e at best only one generation was born there and spend time there, just coz one generation was in Punjab doesn't make them Punjabi. Not to mention, Raj Kapoor was born in Peshawar and spent his youth there before moving to Mumbai, after him all(including his brothers) have no Punjabi birth or childhood(not forgetting that they are not Punjabi at first place.) Winston786 (talk) 17:22, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

why us Raj Kapoor also described as a Punjabi here? Thanks --SH 17:28, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

There are more sources where they are described as PATHAN, like this as per which "Prithviraj always considered himself a Pathan". Winston786 (talk) 17:33, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

But why not mention their Punjabi roots as mentioned here. What is your objection to this? I have posted several refrences. Thanks --SH 17:39, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

What Punjabi Roots? Prithviraj Kapoor(who considered himself a Pathan) was JUST born in Punjab(after his father settled there from Peshawar). He went back to Peshawar, studied there. Raj kaoor, his son and Ranbir's grandfather was again born in Peshawar. Winston786 (talk) 17:43, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

So in Summary:

1. I have established the press describes Ranbir Kapoor as a Punjabi Munda
2. His gradfather Raj Kapoor is described as Punjabi here
3. His Great Grandfather was born in the Punjabi village of Samundri here.

But we are not allowed to mention, Punjab or Punjabi connections to do with Randhir Kapoor. Why?--SH 17:46, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Coz it is not important enough unless you want Punjab to have a Kapoor family endorsement. Winston786 (talk) 17:56, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

In my Summary

1. Family originally hails from Peshawar not Punjab — Preceding unsigned comment added by Winston786 (talk • contribs) 17:58, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
2. Prithiviraj Kapoor always considered himeself a Pathan. (As per given source).
3. Only one generation of the family has anything to do with Punjab.
4. He and his father was born in Mumbai, his grandfather was born in Peshawar.

Still you want to add PUNJABI CONNECTION? Winston786 (talk) 17:52, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

No need to shout it is rude. This talks about his Punjabi roots in Samundri. This given source apart from being pretty poor and not legible does not dispute they had a Punjabi connection. What is your objection to adding a Punjabi connection, give that is have added:

What you mean by "Punjabi roots in Samundri"? Roots are in Peshawar. This source is asserting them being Pathan. Why don't you add Marathi connection? after all he has "roots" in Maharashtra too. Winston786 (talk) 18:06, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

1. I have established the press describes Ranbir Kapoor as a Punjabi Munda
2. His gradfather Raj Kapoor is described as Punjabi here
3. His Great Grandfather was born in the Punjabi village of Samundri here.

Please state your reson before I ask for WP:Mediation. Thanks --SH 17:58, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

What you mean by "Punjabi roots in Samundri"? Roots are in Peshawar. This source is asserting them being Pathan. Why don't you add Marathi connection? after all he has "roots" in Maharashtra too. Winston786 (talk) 18:05, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

OK, it is clear you do not want to engage in WP:Consensus, I will leave it to the Admins to sort. Also have a read of this. Thanks and Bye--SH 18:07, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Ranbir(and his family) are not 'Pathans of Punjab', as per 'Pathan of Punjab's defination "they are originally Pashtun people (Pathans) who have settled in the Punjab region of Pakistan and India. These Pashtun communities are scattered throughout the Punjab". Ranbir, his father, his grandfather even his great grandfather were not settled in Punjab(only his great great grandfather i.e one generation). Winston786 (talk) 18:24, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

(od) Not sure why this is such a big deal but I notice that the mother is listed as being from a Sikh family. Unless I'm mistaken, Sikhs are generally Punjabi. Just a thought. --rgpk (comment) 19:09, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Would we say that Rahul Gandhi is from an Italian family? Winston786 (talk) 19:24, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Wouldn't we acknowledge his Italian heritage? His mother is Italian, so that makes him half-Italian, ethnically. --rgpk (comment) 19:34, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

We will write that his mother is from Italy, we wont say that he is from an Italian family. User:Sikh-history wants to write that "Ranbir is from a Punjabi family". Winston786 (talk) 19:40, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually I don't but you have an objection to include anything to do with Punjab:

1. I have established the press describes Ranbir Kapoor as a Punjabi Munda
2. His gradfather Raj Kapoor is described as Punjabi here
3. His Great Grandfather was born in the Punjabi village of Samundri here.

The links speak for themselves. Thanks--SH 19:44, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Repeating again and again...how come if some journo(not even a well recognized one) call him a PUNJABI MUNDA makes him a Punjabi, how can he be a Punjabi when he is a Pathan and his great grandfather was just born in Punjab(only member of the family), Vivian Leigh was born in India, does that make her INDIAN? Winston786 (talk) 19:53, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

And your link do not speak for themself, most of them are unreliable. Winston786 (talk) 19:54, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I dont know why u want to add a Punjabi link in all of this?

1. Family originally hails from Peshawar not Punjab
2. Prithiviraj Kapoor always considered himeself a Pathan. (As per given source).
3. Only one generation of the family has anything to do with Punjab.
4. He and his father was born in Mumbai, his grandfather was born in Peshawar.

I don't see a reason for any Punjabi touch here. Winston786 (talk) 19:59, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Summary of links below:

Pathan family Links

1. [1]
2. [2] ISBN link
3. [3]
4. [4]
5. [5]
6. [6]
7. [7]
8. this
9. [8]
10. [9]

Punjabi Links

1. Punjabi Munda, Ranbir Kapoor,Ranbir, Ranbir.
2. this and ISBN link on page 371.
3. this
4. here Page 181 and ISBN link
5. this
6. This
7. Kapoor family site.
8. [10] The Guardian article - "Kapoor's stardom was rooted in a Punjabi dynasty, founded by his grandfather,"

Edit request from Nithindnaik, 21 June 2011

{{edit semi-protected}}

Please replace with the following as first line under Career section:

"Before starting off his career as an actor, Kapoor worked as an assistant director for the films Prem Granth (1996)and Aa Ab Laut Chalen (1999) . Kapoor later worked as an assistant with director Sanjay Leela Bhansali, where he was involved in the making of the film Black (2005). "

Nithindnaik (talk) 14:32, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Not done for now: IMDB is not a reliable source. Please provide a better source and we can include these informations. -- Arfaz (talk) 15:00, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

File:RanbirKapoor82.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:RanbirKapoor82.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status What should I do? Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 17:11, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

File:Ranbir1.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Ranbir1.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do? Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. 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. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 10:57, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

personal life

hey what about his relationships with kaif and fakhri?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.161.33.12 (talk) 16:53, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

File:Ranbir BSE11.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Ranbir BSE11.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:Ranbir BSE11.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 15:02, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Inappropriate use of table

Per the manual of style "Tables are a way of presenting links, data or information in rows and columns. They can be useful for a variety of content presentations on Wikipedia, though should be used only when appropriate; sometimes the information in a table may be better presented as prose paragraphs or as an embedded list" and "Often a list is best left as a list. Before you format a list in table form, consider whether the information will be more clearly conveyed by virtue of having rows and columns. If so, then a table is probably a good choice. If there is no obvious benefit to having rows and columns, then a table is probably not the best choice. " There is no obvious benefit to placing the filmography in a table, other than it will consume inordinate amounts of time and frustration dealing with the crappy table markup system used by Wikipedia. Oh wait, that is not a benefit. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:40, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

These are your thoughts and the trials that you face with tables. That is not a reason to remove something. I would like to see inputs from all the regular users and editors of this page, and then achieve a consensus, until then DONOT remove the table format. You cannot make a controversial edit and then come and notify in talk page. Its the other way round. These removal of tables are being challenged, and hence correct method is to ahieve consensus first and then proceed with replacing the table. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 12:54, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

You have yet to show any benefit, much less any obvious benefit of having the table format. A local page consensus does not override the Wikipedia wide consensus on Manual of Style. And it is not "just my opinion" "If the information you are editing is not tabular in nature, it probably does not belong in a table: Try not to use tables for putting a caption under a photograph, arranging a group of links, or other strictly visual features. It makes the article harder to edit for other Wikipedians." -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:59, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Firstly, why do you suddenly feel the urge to lecture me on MOS? I hope you are not doing that, coz it sounds patronizing and I'm pretty well aware of WP MoS'. Next, I agree whenever the tables are not needed they can be replaced with list, but this is not the case here. Like any expanding filmography of Indian actors, this table will go on increasing and its not an empty table also ,specifying just the film name. The table cateogrizes the awards that the film won, the artist character name in the film role, any extra miscellaneous information altogether. I repeat, this is not MY consensus and MOS:TABLE is just that, a MOS. Not a thumb rule or a policy. So that is not a concrete reason to remove a table and replace it with a list. I admit, taht in articles like Arjun Kapoor etc, it is better to have the list, but not here. I would request input from other users or I would open a RFC. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 13:06, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

"Like any expanding filmography of Indian actors, this table will go on increasing and its not an empty table " seems to be that you are making predictions. But in any case, the fact that the filmography may likely be expanding is an even greater reason to ditch the fucked up table markup and use the clean and easy list format so that any potential future films may be easily added and edited by any editor. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:32, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand the sudden objection to tables here by TRPoD, Nightocean, and Flowers of the world. Filmography tables are everywhere on Wikipedia and recommended by the WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers here: Wikipedia:ACTOR#Project_style_recommendations. It is also listed as appropriate right at MOSTABLES here: MOS:TABLES#When_tables_are_appropriate. Are you gonna take this on at every actor's article now? BollyJeff | talk 13:00, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

The fact that crap may be everywhere is not a valid excuse to spread it further. While there may be some occasions where putting a filmography is table form is helpful to the reader, there has been no justification for why the table format is helpful to the reader here. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:12, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

The justification here is the same as for every other filmography table; there are four pieces of related data that cannot be displayed as effectively by putting commas between them on a bullet list. The table makes this possible. You are not making it clear why here it is different from any other actor articles? The fact that it is crap seems to be only your opinion since, as I pointed out above, these tables are recommended by the groups who set policies for these types of articles. BollyJeff | talk 17:36, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

if there were four related items of data for each entry there might be a valid table set up. However, this table is evidence that that is not the case. There are 3 pieces of data, and then the miscellaneous grab all trivia column of "notes" which for half of the items on this list/table show that the item should not actually be listed at all because a filmography is a list of films made and half of these are not yet even made. The three pieces of data that do exist are cleanly and easily displayed in a simple list with the format

• Film (year), as Role.

for the few that have awards related to them, they can be identified in the text or a stand alone section.

Yes, I understand that illiterate people of today flock to table format to create eye magnets so that people wont have to read actual words and sentences, but really we don't have to play that game.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:41, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

I think you should take this up at the talk pages of the two links that I mentioned above, and get a consensus for how many potential entries are needed to make the use of a table valid or not. It should not be up to any random editor to decide that a filmography table is okay for actor A and not for actor B, and then try to force his decision on others. BollyJeff | talk 21:08, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

The community's consensus is already clearly stated at MOS:TABLES " [Tables] can be useful for a variety of content presentations on Wikipedia, though should be used only when appropriate; sometimes the information in a table may be better presented as prose paragraphs or as an embedded list." "Often a list is best left as a list. Before you format a list in table form, consider whether the information will be more clearly conveyed by virtue of having rows and columns. If so, then a table is probably a good choice. If there is no obvious benefit to having rows and columns, then a table is probably not the best choice." What is the obvious benefit for table formatting on this article? "All the other kids are doin it" is not an obvious benefit.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:12, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Okay, we have gone back and forth enough on this. Three editors think it should be in, and three think it should be out, although two of those are suspected sock puppets. Let's see if anyone else chimes in (that does not mean that we should canvas for more supporters). Have a nice day. BollyJeff | talk 21:19, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

3 people think it should be in "because all the other kids are doin it" - which is not one of the reasons that is acceptable under the MOS. Wikipedia is not based on vote counts. It is based on weight of arguments as they measure up to policies and guidelines. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:51, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

It all comes back to choice, we think it passes the MOS while you or those socks think it doesnt. I will notify the film wikiproject to chime in their opinion and come to consensus and also notify mos:table talk page. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 02:41, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

It all comes back to choice, - no it doesnt. It comes down to policy and guidelines. The MOS guidelines are dont use tables unless there is obvious benefit. You have not only not named an obvious benefit, you have not named any benefit to the reader (or to editors). -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:42, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I have pointed out that those information won't be possible to have in a list and its better suited for a table which will show the info in a formal, categorized manner, rather than the scattered list that you proposed. And ysm it comes down to choice and that's how the MOS interpretes it. Its a guideline, not a pillar of Wikipedia. And you my dear haven't pointed out any benefits of removal of tables and replacing them with hard to read bullets. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 05:37, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I have in fact pointed out the benefits of not tableizing - even though the MOS puts the burden on the table format to provide obvious benefit - the simple list is in fact very easy to read, and easy for ACCESS. In addition it does not act as an eye magnet to give excessive visual weight to visually expansive but content empty table, and probably most important the simple list format is simple for every editor to make any additions or corrections. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 05:50, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

And I have also pointed out that the table is beneficial for catgorizing the information which is difficult to read as a list. And the table is not empty you very well know it. And it is an expanding table, and frankly, that the list is a case of WP:ACCESS, I'm not buying it at all. The list may be easy to add, but content reading and access wise it is difficult to read and gather information. And this is the last I'm saying on this as we are going to and fro. Consensus has not been reached until others give their thorough input in this. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 06:02, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

any claim that this is in any way more "difficult to read" than this monstrosity is complete bullshit. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 06:28, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Don't get frustrated dude, let others comment and don't shove down your agenda by their throat. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 06:39, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

i am not "frustrated", i am simply calling out bullshit as bullshit -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 06:51, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Errr can I remind people here about WP:CIVIL. I really do expect experienced editors to use better language. Thanks SH 13:46, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

I expect editors to base their editing on the policies and guidelines and to provide valid justifications for their edits based on policy and guidelines. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:27, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Over glorification - Artcile needs to be re-worked

Excessive Trivia is appearing in this article at present. Is wikipedia a gopssip column. Why such a huge introductory para when these things are already appearing in the Sections - Debut and success (2007–10)and Rockstar and beyond .

Why is double standards being followed in wikipedia? On one side - all Bollywood actors (those especially who did more than 100 or 150 films )who worked between 1930-1999 have been deprived of a proper wikipedia artcile - detailing their achievements and on the other side actors like Ranbir Kapoor are having wikipedia artciles which are excessively detailed with unnecessary trivia - although they are just 6 or 10 films old

• Him engaging in charity work finds mention in many paras and also about his films like Yeh Jawani Hai Deewani reappears at many places in the article.

1. Rocket Singh: Salesman of the Year and Anjana Anjani both not a commercial success - but this is not mentioned clearly.o
2. Excessive gossips have been mentioned in personal life sections and excessive POV in the section in IN THE MEDIA

.

• In artciles on senior actors - who have worked for more than 100 or 150 films - their success in many films does not find a mentionm whereas in case of Ranbir Kapoor article - revenue earned / commercial success or not etc - has been mentioned though Ranbir is just below 10 films oldVerify50123 (talk) 14:34, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

.

note the complaining user has been blocked as a sock. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:46, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

how isit relevant whether the complaining user was blocked? What steps have been taken to stop glorifying actors who are just 10 films old and to remove trivias from articles of most of the articles on Hindi film heroes who have debuted after 1995

Every claim in the article has been backed by reliable sources, so there is no question of over-glorification. If in doubt, please provide reliable sources to back your claims. --smarojit ^HD 14:38, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

The complaining user has shown very clearly that they don't understand Wikipedia policies, and don't care about them, and that is why they are blocked. For that reason, their complaints are given less weight than complaints that are actually policy based. (If there had been some merit in the complaint, it would have been considered, needless to say, but it is still important for other editors to know that the editor is a blocked sock puppet so that, e.g., they don't ask questions of him that they will never get answer to.) --bonadea contributions talk 14:47, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Punjabi

Since Kapoor is a Punjabi tribe that is why an edit is requested to include Ranbir kapoor written in Punjabi along with english lead. Vishesgirl (talk) 16:03, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

We generally do not add the ethnicity of a person to the opening sentence unless it is relevant to the person's notability. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:36, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 August 2014

In Wake Up Sid, he acted as Siddarth Mehra, not Siddarth Malhotra Weibowil (talk) 20:16, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Done Thanks, Stickee (talk) 23:34, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 August 2014

Ranbir Kapoor is the cousin of Saif Ali Khan's wife; Katrina Kapoor. His girlfriend is Katrina Kaif.They are not married yet; but soon there will be a new "indian celeb" engagement! Kit-Katter (talk) 08:41, 17 August 2014 (UTC)