Jump to content

Talk:Shah Rukh Khan

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Aaaxlp (talk | contribs) at 02:45, 28 May 2008 (→‎This page:: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This is not a forum! This is not a forum for discussing Shahrukh Khan.
Such messages may be deleted. Please discuss the article instead. Thank you.

Taj Mohammed Khan Tanoli

Shahrukh Khan was born a famous tribe of his father pashton Tanoli .. full name is Taj Mohammed Khan Tanoli .... Tanoli origin is pashton But in india pakistan in many tribe pashton not speak Pashto, that many tribe pashton 're forgetting their language .. Taj Mohammed Khan Tanoli also wise not speak Pashto language was (peshwari) (هندکو Hindku) Language spoken by Hindkowans Pathan in Pakistan in Peshawar and Hazara. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.3.45.215 (talk) 21:03, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


srk and world envirnment

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


Total cruft

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

  • You've removed many sources claiming they're unreliable. Tell me please what does make them unreliable. Let me inform you - boxofficeindia.com is the official site of box office figures in India. Likewise many other sources are reliable. The fact that most of these sites' titles consist of the word Bollywood, doesn't mean that they're unreliable.
  • What does make you feel that this article resmbles a fansite? Examples? Comments?
  • See Jolie (FA). She has award in both the infobox and a similar table like this one here.
  • The images are 100% permitted. Why did you remove before even checking it? The license is clear, well-written, it is not copyrighted, and even supported by administrators. Please turn to User:Yamla.
  • Why did you insert this {{unsourced|section}} template into the filmography section? Doesn't IMDb satisfy you?
WP:RS explains what type of sources are reliable. Please go through it. And who is boxofficeindia? Who made them the "official" site for BO figures in India? Who runs it? Are those who run it acknowledged experts in the field? If so, show me the evidence. And the image I removed has been tagged for deletion. Please go and make yourself heard there before you put it back. And I dont care whether Jolie has an infobox repeated. Feel free to go and remove it there. On this article, I see that it serves no purpose. And no imdb isnt RS for the same reason that wikipedia isnt RS. We both could edit imdb just as we edit wikipedia. And all the images being used here are not "100% permitted". There's many problems with the way you're using it, but I will hold off on removing them until I can investigate them fully. But the non-RS sources will go and if they're not replaced with proper sources in a week or two, I will blank content. Thanks. Sarvagnya 07:08, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I won't go through it. NO! I want YOU to bring the evidence of these sites which are used here being non-RS. First of all there are special tags for it. What a surprise! Yes there are, and they have to be used IN the reference template. You can't just remove and tah with citation needed.
You said, "And who is boxofficeindia?" - and who are you to invalidate it? According to what. You can't just direct me to WP:RS. I want the indicating quotes HERE. Plus, featured articles use it. See Lage Raho Munnabhai. It is used --> it is permitted and was even featured in the "today's featured article" section. Yes!!
As for the image, OK.
All these tags cannot be used above because you discussed nothing. Just nothing apart from the RS and the images.
"if they're not replaced with proper sources in a week or two, I will blank content." - NO - You won't!
Shahid • Talk2me 07:24, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
no. i dont need to quote rs verbatim on every page which uses non RS sources. RS, NOR, V are among the most basic editing principles and you need to familiarise yourself with it before you start being so sure of yourself. and NO, i dont need to prove that boxofficeindia is a 'nobody'.. it is for you to prove that they're acknowledged experts because you're the one claiming so. Yes everytime you use a source, you're making a claim that they're reliable and that they're experts. So it is for you to back up your claim with evidence. and it is a fansite as long as you dont bring proper sources to the table so that we can see what is genuine and what is nonsense. 07:38, 3 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarvagnya (talk • contribs)

NO! You have to provide. Thousand of pages use this source. I've even heard its mention on an Indian talk show. It is a net source, just like every other source on other pages, so we can use it. Now if you think that we can't, so please give reasons. What is the reason? I can come to another page and say that most of the references are non-RSs. So what? YOUUUUUU have to prove. Shahid • Talk2me 08:06, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read WP:RS? =Nichalp «Talk»= 13:23, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I have. So what? There are no indications for these sites being unreliable. Many of them appear in featured articles. While your tags here are definitely exaggerated. Why does this sound as a fansite? It doesn't. Please I ask everybody too read before making themselves important persona and tagging articles with unnecessary tags, and that's all, without providing ANY minor explanation. I'm waiting for replies. Best regards, Shahid • Talk2me 13:57, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Quote: "To me it reads like..." - To you? To me it readsvery very well. And to The Times of India, the largest seeling daily newspaper in the world, too. Now I understand why you don't want it - just because y-o-u don't like it. Whether it's the official or not, it's reliable, and that's according to the site. One more thing, maybe not the United Nations' secretary, maybe for the Indian Govt., but The Times of India, again, a newspaper, (and nobody here has the authority to invalidate it...) does make a use of it. Spartaz gave his support. Why can't you do that, dear Sarvagnya. Best regards, Shahid • Talk2me 00:33, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Well reliability is not an easy task, but box office india and ibos network are RSes; the disclaimers and the "about us" pages on these sites are clear. As it was requested, I have found an evidence, proof that box office india is reliable, and the proof is that RSes like The Times of India cite box offcie india as their source of information. That's a perfect evidence for this site being reliable. Shahid • Talk2me 12:50, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I'm familiar with your arguments, Shahid. I spent the better part of yesterday reading through them on various India-related project pages. I disagree with your conclusions. ToI itself is not a reliable source most of the time. First of all, it is not totally necessary to include film reviews in articles dedicated to articles, except if the film is notable. In other words, we do not have to write about every movie and we do not have to include reviews for all of them, just the important ones. What are SRK's biggest hits? DDLJ, KKHH, KANK? That itself is POV, but those films were undoubtedly well-known so it is OK if a couple of comments about them were included. Comments about them, not box-office statistics all the time. We don't have to write about Chak de India and other recent offerings. They may have been hits but were clearly not as 'big' as DDLJ et al. Whoops, there I go sauntering into POV-land.... Ekantik talk 22:13, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well ToI is a reliable source, not because it is my PoV, but because it is supported by WP:RS and its conditions. I'm sorry but I'm not going to argue over this issue, I've had enough of it, and have some better things to do. ToI is a newspaper, a famous newspaper. I strongly think that editors don't have the authority to invalidate its reliability or usage on Wikipedia. Saying that it is unreliable most of the time - this is the PoV here. I'm talking about box office figures, and box office india is reliable, just like ibosnetwork is. If you follow these sites, you will notice that, everything these sites state, is well supported by other reliable sources. But apparently, you are talking about reviews. Well, I tend to agree with you partially. The case is that in our particular Bollywood-related BLP articles all the mentioned films are notable. We don't mention films like Guddu, English Babu Desi Mem, Hey Ram, Chaahat and so forth, but only notable films. It can be perceived as PoV too, but if you look at it, it's actually not my PoV. I'll later post a detailed reply to you, I'm just too busy these days. My best regards, Shahid • Talk2me 23:41, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sorry? "hero-worshipper editor of Bollywood actors."?! "It is useless arguing with hero-worshippers"?? Dear Ekantik, if you could calm yourself a bit, I would be extremely grateful. I'm usually very very nice, but if you want to see me like that, please do not attack me personally, calling me a "hero-worshipper" which I find very impolite. Please refrain from commenting on what, according to you, I think. What exactly are you talking about? Could you explain yourself?
Let me inform you that I don't give a damn for box office figures when it's compared to information about the actor and the film itself. I'm not here to glorify actors, nor am I a big fan of box office checks, but for commercial actors like Shahrukh Khan, box office is an integral part of their film career. Do you disagree? As for boxofficeindia.com -- it is used in newspapers, in one WP:FA, and in addition to that, two administrators supported my evidence for it being reliable. Chak De India is, correct me if I'm wrong, the second biggest hit of the year. And OSO is the highest grosser ever, as it was indicated in several reputable sources, so we definitely have to mention it. On the other hand, Paheli, for example, was quite unnoticed. And Swades too, doesn't really require a box office report, as it was a kind of an art film, just like Amitji's recent The Last Lear, and its success remains unharmed regardless of box office collections. These are only examples. As I said before, I agree with you in parts. Shahid • Talk2me 19:39, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My question is, what exactly are you trying to say/do? Shahid • Talk2me 19:56, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Religion

Khan's family is Muslim, and he was brought up by none other than his parents. However, living in Cosmopolitan India, he grew up with Hindus for most of his life, and was fascinated with Hindu festivals like Ramlila.[1] !-- DO NOT SIMPLY DELETE OR MODIFY THIS STATEMENT. REFER CAREFULLY TO THE CITATION PROVIDED OR GO TO THE DISCUSSIONS PAGE - THERE IS A TOPIC ON THIS. IT WAS ALREADY DISCUSSED AND ACCEPTED. IF YOU HAVE CONCERNS, DISCUSS IT FIRSTLY THERE; GENTLEMEN / LADIES -- I HAVE KNOWN HIM FROM CHILDHOOD, HE WAS NEVER RAISED 'BY' HINDUS, BUT WE ALL WERE RAISED 'WITH' HINDUS AND THOROUGHLY ENJOYED THE COSMOPOLITAN INDIAN CULTURE AND TRADITIONS; CELEBRATED EACH OTHER'S FESTIVALS AND LIVED ALL INDIAN CULTURES TO THE HILT. THERE IS DEFINITELY A TYPO ERROR IN TEHELKA ARTICLE, INSTEAD OF SAYING 'RAISED WITH' THEY HAVE TYPED 'RAISED BY', THAT IS IT. -- Khan has claimed to be a devouted muslim , according to BBC asia.[[1]]

I've removed all of it from the article. There is absolutely no reason to include the religion of the people he was raised by in the article.-xC- 06:03, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm with you. It's the best thing we can do for now. We can later discuss further. Regards, Shahid • Talk2me 07:34, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Formatting

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

Fixed. Thank you, Shahid • Talk2me 11:56, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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


NOT PATHAN/PASHTUN

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

The Image is used Without Permission!

The picture used for this article is from a private collection! It was taken on Schiphol Airport Amsterdam in 2005. Mr Khan was leaving after the IFFA Awards 2005 in Amsterdam! So my request is to remove this image and use another one. He has much more pictures! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.85.111.47 (talk) 20:26, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ethnicity

While I see arguing about Shah Rukh Khan's religion is everyone's favourite sport, I'd like to bring up a new one. This article lists him as a Pashto, but the article on Hindkowans lists him as Hindkowan.[2][3][4][5] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dalmatianfan52 (talk • contribs) 08:37, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Shah Rukh Khan's family comes from the city of Peshawar in Pakistan and that city is about 99.9% ethnic Pashtuns. So what's the chances of him being Pashtun? Isn't the word "Pathan" used for all ethnic Pashtuns? Many sources say he is Pathan, he himself claimed many times he is of Pathan origin. Why is everyone so oppose to or so hostile to the idea of him being of Pashtun ethnic background?

The city of Peshawar has been part of Afghanistan for ages, until it was lost to the Sikhs in approximately in the mid 1800s. It became part of British India then Pakistan as of 1947.--119.30.66.179 (talk) 12:46, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Family

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

Can think of adding criticisms too

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

This page:

Needs work; I'm on it

  1. ^ "Interview with Shah Rukh".
  2. ^ ABPL Group: Shah Rukh, Dilip Kumar invited to Pakistan
  3. ^ Afghanland: Afghans of Guyana
  4. ^ Naachgaana: aThree hours with Shah Rukh Khan
  5. ^ Rediff: Peshawar - The Shah Rukh Khan Connection
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Shah_Rukh_Khan&oldid=215418518"