Jump to content

Talk:Salman Khan

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 90.213.243.182 (talk) at 11:26, 22 September 2011 (→Kanchana: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Talk:Salman Khan/Archive 1

No advertising

Why Salman is not referred as a Superstar when the whole of India knows that Salman is one of the biggest superstar of the Indian Film Industry.This has been proved when the newspaper,magazines,journalists and other medium has always referred to him as Superstar.This has been proved by his astounding success and his very unique and successful run at the box office.The things which support this is the magazines,articles,Journals and news channels and the film industry people who have always referred to him as superstar. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sidds83 (talk • contribs) 10:32, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's NOT OK to use an actor's appearance in ads for that product to advertise that product. Zora 05:16, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Salman Khan hosting a new show

Salman Khan is hosting Dus Ka Dum on Sony Entertainment Television why haven't u guys added that information with the source for shah rukh khan u all can add new information but why not for salman khan.A R Ansari —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.229.75.229 (talk) 11:54, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lucky's revert

Lucky, I know that some Indians dislike the term Bollywood, but it is widely used in India and the West. It will definitely be the most familiar term for Westerners. (Bollywood is considered "cool" now.) Salman Khan appears in Bollywood films, not in Tamil or Telugu or Bengali films, and that's important enough to say in the first para. First para for other Bollywood actors contains the word Bollywood.

As for your reversion of the section headings -- the accepted style for Wikipedia titles (articles, sections, sub-sections) is an initial cap and no caps after that (unless title is a proper name). You restored headings that broke the style guidelines. Zora 06:34, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Zora's revert

Adhishb 05:46, 12 March 2007 (UTC) Zora, Bollywood, still remains an Informal Term, even according to Wikipedia [1][reply]

Yes, it's slang, just like "Oscars" is slang for Academy Awards. That doesn't mean that it isn't the main term used. Zora 09:51, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Further, your suggestion that the Term Bollywood is included in the Introductory section of the Actors is not entirely correct, prominent Actors Amitabh Bachchan and Shahrukh Khan are also termed as Indian Actors, their Work Place comes later as Mumbai (Hindi/Urdu)Film Industry.

If someone has removed Bollywood, it needs to be added. Zora 09:51, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That Bollywood is considered Cool is a personal opinion and an Indian Perspective, it is a derogatory term from the West's point of view.

Dude, I'm not Indian. I'm a Westerner. I grew up on the west coast of the US and I live in Honolulu now. I read the New York Times every single day and they use BOLLYWOOD. It is not a derogatory term. Zora 09:51, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actors these days are a part of a Global Village, their introduction by large should be understandable to every part of the globe.

The Term Bollywood is still Alien to many Audiences, the first impression sounds exactly like Tollywood, Kollywood and Lollywood for example.

One must always strive for a genuine Identity.

Bollywood IS the Western identity. Too much so -- the other regional industries are often ignored. I suppose I'm as guilty as most, as I know little of Indian films outside Mumbai. Zora 09:51, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Salman Khan's debut Hollywood film is about to be released, which will then classify him as an International Star, tomorrow he or others may step into Mainstream Hollywood films, for that matter even in a South Indian Film, so how will you then classify them as appears in Bollywood films alone?

No, look at the article for Amrish Puri. He appeared in films from many different industries, including Hollywood, and it is so noted there. Zora 09:51, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Therefore the classification has to be an Indian Actor working in Hindi Film Industry, Mumbai, popularly known as Bollywood, Or Telugu Film Industry etc.

It is quite understood that an Indian Actor will be working in the Indian Film Industry as a whole and not in the Bangladeshi Film Industry for instance.

Therefore it is inappropriate to include it in the introductory term.

No one is eliminating the informal name Bollywood completely, a detailed description about Bollywood can be read in the Career section to determine Salman Khan's appearence in Hindi Cinema and not in South Indian Cinema for instance.

To chop off the fact about Salman Khan was voted as the 7th Most Good Looking Man by the People's Magazine, U.S. accounts is totally unreasonable.

Every dang film or celebrity magazine runs polls, and if we noted them on actors' profiles we'd run out of room. This is ephemera. It doesn't count. The rest of us who edit Bollywood articles are deleting the polls whenever we see them. They don't mean a thing. Zora 09:51, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He is Dating An actress denotes Present tense, it does not mean he is dating someone in the past. Therfore the use of He is currently dating doesnot make much sense.

It's a nuance. It makes it clear that as of this writing, he is dating her. It may be out of date tomorrow. Zora 09:51, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that Salman Khan endorses a few products, does not advertise the manufacturer extensively, it's only a mere mention of the name of the products for news value.

Actors are endorsing products right and left, and advertisers are using that as a hook to get their products into Wikipedia. We delete advertising wherever we see it. Otherwise this encyclopedia would be overrun with advertising. I spend half my time removing linkspam. There is NO NEWS VALUE in product endorsements. Actors shill, they get paid. This is not newsworthy. Zora 09:51, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your suggestions for Headlines were incorporated.

Best Regards ~LuckyS~

You know that your use of caps is ungrammatical and highly idiosyncratic? Zora 09:51, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First go back and learn basic spellings and grammar, before preaching your first world hypocricy. Wikipedia is not the domain of self styled editors like you.

Keep your Vandalism off bay! ~LuckyS~

Cruise was on the People Magazine list thrice - Khan once. Given the rest of Cruise' list, don't you think there's a slight difference between Khan & Cruise? --Plumcouch Talk2Me 13:51, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Salman's ethnicity

I've read that Salman Khan's mum Salma Khan is a Marathi who convreted to Islam after marriage. Atleast its a common knowledge in Maharashtra. Could somebody possibly check this assertion? If it is backed up with sources then perhaps we can include it in the article. File:England flag large.png अमेय आर्यन DaBroodey 08:04, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

His mother is the great dance queen Helen. She may have converted at the time of marriage as per Islamic law, which prohibits Muslims from marrying non-Muslims. Rama's arrow 02:59, 2 October 2006 (UTC) Sorry, I didn't know that Helen was his "step-mom." Rama's arrow 03:02, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Helen isnt his mother, shes his step mother. Salmans mom is Salma Khan

Fixed article again

This is an encyclopedia, not a film magazine. I have toned down the language and fixed the erratic capitalization. Zora 07:49, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed article yet again

Someone had rewritten the account of the car crash in a tortured and convoluted way that seemed to blame the car and not the driver. Since Salman was given special treatment by the police, and not tested for blood alchohol, we'll never know if this "loss of control" was due to drunkenness; however, that remains an open question as far as many people are concerned. I rewrote to leave the question of responsibility open.

Someone also rewrote with lots of caps, incomplete sentences, and lavish use of hyperbole and bold lettering. Look, this is an encyclopedia, not a film column. Categorizing movies as flops and blockbusters is just too informal -- there's no real definition for either. Zora 22:58, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism of the article yet again by User Zora

  • Do you know anything about the case? First go educate yourself about the subject before twisting the facts to suit your propaganda.
  • Salman Khan wasn't given any special treatment by the Police! If it was the case, then prove it, give us sources to back your claim!
  • He was tested for blood alcohol, if he wasn't, show us a report to prove your point.
  • If he was that much drunk to drive negligently, that he/ his car didn't lose control, it wouldn't have waited to reach that far, it would have collided at a point much before the Bakery.

There is no proof that it was him who was driving. The matter is sub-judice, it shouldn't be speculated in this Encyclopedia in the first place.

  • Salman Khan has been proven Not Guilty By the Courts for Vehicular Homicide. If you know what it means.

Sources- http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/3076990.stm

http://www.bollywoodmantra.com/1238_witness-turns-hostile-in-salman-khans-hit-and-run-case.html

http://www.apunkachoice.com/happenings/20050805-0.html

  • Unless you are a jealous and insecure fan, in the guise of a neutral user of one of his Rival actors such as SRK. This seems most certainly the case with you. A film magazine will still have some truth to their story, while all you make is assumptions with no facts to prove your points.
  • You need to check any other article in Wikipedia, if you are pretending to be oblivious of the facts that Caps are used in abundance in every article to indicate/ highlight the importance of a word.
  • Blockbuster is an encyclopedic word. There is, as much a difference between an All Time Blockbuster and a Hit film as there is between a Cat and a Cow.

Unless you don't know the meaning or are jealous/refusing to accept the facts.

  • Unless you are the Biggest Ignorant on Wikipedia, you didn't even realise that the word Blockbuster was in Bold and interlinked to its entry in Wikipedia itself.
  • And what is your obsession with the term Bollywood, a term which Wikipedia itself defines as an Informal. There is no place called Bollywood in India, unlike Hollywood in the U.S.

It is a mere informal reference to the Mumbai based Film Industry of Indian Cinema.

  • Most importantly, each and every sentence in his article is verifiable, it does not violate any copyright. Unlike your vague ideas.
  • Lastly, you've had a fortunate run on Wikipedia so far, You can't even spell things right, you need to learn the language first before running down and Vandalising articles.

One look, at your user page and your replies, your spelling mistakes glare at the readers face.

Even while stating your claims here, you have misspelt the word Alcohol.

  • Work on it and stay away from vandalising Salman Khan's article.

--LuckyS 18:00, 9 October 2006 (UTC)LuckyS[reply]


LuckyS, please note that referring to another editor's good-faith edits as vandalism is a personal attack, and as such is prohibited by Wikipedia. See Wikipedia:No personal attacks, and also the warning I've put on your Talk page. KarlBunker 15:53, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Third opinion

User:Plumcouch requested a third opinion about this edit, which User:LuckyS reverted as "Vandalism of the Highest Order." That is quite an exaggeration, IMO. LuckyS needs to be more cooperative with other editors and tone down the rhetoric. The objectionable part seems to be this change:

Old New
Khan ... remains one of the most successful movie stars in Indian Cinema. (The Mumbai based Hindi/Urdu language film industry, popularly known as Bollywood). Khan ... remains one of the most successful movie stars in one of the regional Indian movie industries called Bollywood.

I am not qualified to judge the accuracy of what is called Bollywood, but the new version certainly has better grammar and punctuation. LuckyS also said that rediff.com is a spam/hate site, but on (relatively cursory) examination, I found no evidence of that. It looks to me like a news site with standard "celebrity gossip" pages. LuckyS will need to provide some evidence of that not being a reliable source for it to be discredited.

Additionally, Plumcouch converted the inline footnotes to reference-style footnotes (see WP:FN). While I agree that this latter style is superior, Wikipedia:Citing_sources#How_and_where_to_cite_sources clearly says that an editor should not change the footnote style without consensus. I think if you ask here, Plumcouch, you won't meet much resistance on this count. (PS, I also moved some of the lengthy talk to an archive page. Feel free to move it back if any of those discussions are still active.) --Flex 02:58, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]


~Celebrity gossip can never be a part of encyclopedic content

Instead, Plumcouch will have to provide creditable proof of all the allegations levelled in the Rediff article.

-The objectionable part is not just that change.

If you have no idea, what Bollywood is, you cannot contradict someone who knows what it stands for.

Besides Plumcouch himself had changed the footnote without concensus, you cannot blame other editors alone.--LuckyS 17:43, 21 October 2006 (UTC)LuckyS[reply]

About the footnote:
User:Mardus added these kind of references back in June 2006,[2] and neither I nor Zora, Slytime, Danianjan, Pa7 or any other editor had a problem with them. As for Bollywood and what it stands for: I think this belongs into the corresponding article Bollywood, given it is verifiable and not POV.
While I agree that gossip should never be included in articles, Rediff has been a reliable source in the past. Changed the link however to TimesOfIndia.com, if this one suits better. As for the creditable proof: I provided them, Lucky deleted them and linked Katrina Kaif's article. I think Ouroborusing isn't useful.

Best regards, --Plumcouch Talk2Me 18:30, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~User plumcouch had himself linked the TimesOfIndia article Badboys in lieu of the Rediff article and himself asked user LuckyS to change it with a better article which is credible,(-- Lucky, if you're not happy with the link provide a new one - for further discussion, also see Khan's talk page). Thats exactly what I did, The badboys article of Times of India's website was another halfbaked gossip news item, which is what user Plumcouch seems to prefer. He was the one to link the controversial Rediff article, then one second thought, changed it with the Badboys article on the pretext of proving just one point, a mention of actor Salman Khan's present and ex-girlfriends which were mentioned in just two lines, the rest of those articles contained slanderous allegations, deemed as facts by User Plumcouch. How fair is that, can user Plumcouch provide verifiable facts over all those allegations levelled in the articles? If not, then what else would qualify as the Highest form of biased Vandalism by an old user? Incase user plumcouch hadn't noticed, the fact that actors Salman Khan and Katrina Kaif are dating was even mentioned in Kartina Kaif article other than verifiable links provided, besides user pc was the one to ask for ‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.› [citation needed]. The user seems to personally dislike the subject and is using his powers to manipulate the situation. --LuckyS 19:47, 27 October 2006 (UTC)LuckyS[reply]

Rewrote article

I removed the fangush and added references to some of the past scandals. The language in the article is extremely sober and non-slanderous and readers can draw their own conclusions if they click to the original articles -- for instance, if they don't think the news source is sound. None of the sources are blogs -- they're all published newspapers. This article should not cover up Salman's past problems (though it shouldn't exaggerate them either, and I think the way that it is written now doesn't exaggerate). Zora 02:16, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Different POVs

Lucky, the basic Wikipedia principle is NPOV. Neutral point of view. If there's a controversy about something, we don't take sides. We just detail what each side of the controversy says, and let readers make up their own minds. You are trying to censor the article and remove links to newspaper articles that say things you don't want people to read. If you are so sure that those articles are wrong, then trust the readers to see through them. If there is an article (published by a reputable newspaper, magazine, or website) that gives your side of things (Salman is being persecuted), then find it and we can link to that too. You can't just declare your POV right and exclude all others. Zora 22:09, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reasons for deleting Relationship troubles

I deleted segment called Relationship troubles because under the Policies for Biographies of Living Persons, it specifically states that "Biographies of living people must be written conservatively and with due regard to the subject's privacy. In case of doubt, the rule of thumb should be "do no harm". Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid. It is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives.", and this was clearly the case here.

The circumstances regarding the Rai's incident seem questionable. There is no official information, the incident is not documented by reliable third-party sources, and the charges were dropped, so it is impossible to uphold NPOV (by copying information from tabloids). This article should in general abstain from making judgments about Mr. Khan's personal (love life). I use as precedent David Copperfield article where the whole Claudia Schiffer section (their relationship controversies) was deleted and brought down to one factual sentence, "Copperfield was engaged to the supermodel Claudia Schiffer, but the couple parted ways in 1999 after a six year relationship." Much like, "Despite tumultuous relationships with ex-girlfriends Aishwarya Rai, Somy Ali and Sangeeta Bijlani, he is regarded as Bollywood's most eligible bachelor. Currently said to be dating Katrina Kaif." Anything more really feels like tabloid exploitation rather than encyclopedic material.

In "the audio tape scandal" he was vindicated. Meaning he had nothing to do with it, therefore it is not important. Even referencing to it implies that he had (most people will overlook the "it's a fake" bit, and remember the gritty details) and amounts to defamation. Nandana23 10:09, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd crop the "said to be dating" part. "Said to be" sounds like gossip and WP has regulations for that. --Plumcouch Talk2Me 22:23, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mm yeh you're right Plum. Wikipedia has to be based on pure facts, --Shahid • Talk2me 22:37, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 19:40, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Automated peer review

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Shahid • Talk2me 23:12, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why Superstar term not used for Salman when he is one???

Why Salman is not referred as a Superstar when the whole of India knows that Salman is one of the biggest superstar of the Indian Film Industry.This has been proved when the newspaper,magazines,journalists and other medium has always referred to him as Superstar.This has been proved by his astounding success and his very unique and successful run at the box office.The things which support this is the magazines,articles,Journals and news channels and the film industry people who have always referred to him as superstar. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sidds83 (talk • contribs) 10:51, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I am sorry I thought I was reading wikipedia and not watching WWE. Superstar is a media manufactured term. It has no factual basis whatsoever. Is there any mathematical or scientific definition for "superstar"? Do you have to earn a certain amount of money at the box office before you call be called one? NO. The definition of "superstar" by us Indians is this:- "when hero or heroine reign over hearts of many people he is superstar." In short "superstar" is NOT a term, that's why Salman is not referred to as one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.194.225.131 (talk) 14:38, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

READ THIS IT IS IMPORTANT

PLEASE READ THIS ARTICLE AND ADD THE REFERENCE IT SAYS THAT SALMAN KHAN AND SAIF ALI KHAN ETC ARE PATHANS http://afghanland.com/culture/guyana.html

--99.229.145.116 (talk) 05:24, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

THIS INFORMATION IFOUND IS VERY IMPORTANT READ IT AND THEN ADD IT TO THE ARTICLE OF SALMAN KHAN HERE IS THE WEBSITE http://www.dnaindia.com/report.asp?newsid=1199609 21 OCTOBER 2008 (UTC). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.229.145.116 (talk)

Salman Khan made a new Script for his New Movie Veer

Salman Khan has made an script about war and historian. the period of time that the movie is going to shoot is 1820 to 1930. The movie is going to directed by Anil Sharma and expected to release in 2009. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.108.54.8 (talk) 20:24, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Controversies Section needs to be Updated for both Actors Shahrukh Khan and Salman Khan

http://thenewsdose.com/2008/07/26/shahrukh-and-salman-khan-fight/

Biggest spat between these two actors have been the HOT topic of over a year now and still Wikipedia has not updated the profile showing that...They need to update both Shahrukh Khan and Salman Khan Profiles

Salman's film Main Aurr Mrs Khanna is not a flop film

Yes guys main aurr mrs khanna is not a flop film it had collected RS.21 - 22 Crores at the Box office, after reading the article that has been posted by INDIA-FORUMS which is a reliable source here is the link http://india-forums.com/bollywood/article.asp?id=11667

please add it to the Salman Khan section and main aurr mrs khannna section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.229.117.131 (talk) 03:47, 19 November 2009 (UTC) [reply]

You're right actually. It was not a flop. It was a disaster. Shahid • Talk2me 12:51, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Spouse

I heard Slman Khan's girl friend is Katrina Kaif, someone please edit the article accordingly.-:Yucatann: 02:46, 20 November 2009 (UTC).

What? Shahid • Talk2me 14:23, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

salman khan also belong to pathan family

please you have to notice is their profile also belongs the Salman Khan Pathan tribe also have to add in wikipedia he is pathan like shahrukh khan

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lGiP6nez9kI

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IxeI1VGRySU&NR=1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.42.209.167 (talk) 21:38, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

i love u salman khan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.255.198.142 (talk) 13:58, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request

{{editsemiprotected}}

Points to be added in the section Personal Life

Salman Khan is associated with many charitable organizations, and also runs a charitable organization by the name of "Being Human". He is also an amateur painter and all the proceedes from the sale/auction of his works go to his charitable organization. If by Wiki standards this cannot be added in the section personal life then i suggest that we have a new section dedicated to the Humanitarian/charitable work done by the actor. Links: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/25300544.cms http://www.salmankhanlife.com/2009/07/13/786275/salman-will-auction-his-paintings-for-charity/index.html http://www.facebook.com/pages/Support-salman-khan-charity-foundation-Being-human/256344502702 Prakhar1705 (talk) 02:58, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: Welcome and thanks for wanting to improve this article. The {{editsemiprotected}} template requires a 'Please change X to Y' level of detail or, if you prefer, you can also leave the suggestion here without the template. Either way, only the first source is even possibly a reliable source and it only supports the "associated with many charitable organizations" claim. I say "even possibly" because it has no byline and reads like a press release. You would want to find more reliable sources before adding this. Celestra (talk) 13:42, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request from Shailish, 6 April 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} New Movies salman khan Dabbang no entry 2 partner 2 {tom&jerry} judwaa 2

Shailish (talk) 23:57, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rephrasing edit request: Add the new movies that are currently in development for Salman Khan, including Dabbang, No Entry 2, Partner 2, Judwaa2, and Tom and Jerry. I had trouble reading this request, so I assume others will as well. Goodvac (talk) 01:01, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Needs a reliable source to verify.  fetchcomms☛ 01:10, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Don't know about the other two, but Dabang is definitely in production, see here for source—--Managerarc(talk) 05:44, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]


I AM HALF HINDU AND HALF MUSLIM, SAYS SALMAN KHAN

PLEASE ADD THIS INFORMATON THANKS [3] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.229.140.85 (talk) 04:50, 11 April 2010 (UTC) [reply]


Pending changes

This article is one of a number selected for the early stage 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:

Comments on the suitability of theis page for "Penfding changes" would be appreciated.

Please update the Queue page as appropriate.

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

Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 23:55, 16 June 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Move

I totally oppose to the move of the page as done by User:Kneale. Salman Khan, the Indian actor, is the most notable person under this name. The educator may be mentioned in the disambiguation page (and it may be better to just mention him on the top of Salman Khan's page. A simple Google search may easily clear this out as most if not all hits refer to the actor. Shahid • Talk2me 16:44, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't he an actor? Kneale (talk) 00:47, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kneale please see WP:TWODABS; As a general rule, if there is only one other topic besides the primary one, then no disambiguation page is created – it is sufficient to have a hatnote on the primary topic article pointing to the other topic. - M4nag3r(-)rC[Reply] 11:02, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I totally agree witht the move of this page, Salman Khan a educator has gain high fame and status due to his website the khan acadmemey. Many newspaper (namely Time) has featured him, how about bollywood star Salman khan?? I dont think so. I think we need to move the page. I have never heard of the indian superstar anyway. 15:06, 30 November 2010

Salman Khan the actor is still much more famous - make a google search and you'll see who the first page names actually refer to. Shahid • Talk2me 22:55, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Shahid here. Salman is one of the most famous actors in Indian cinema. The assertion that "Salman Khan a educator has gain high fame and status due to his website the khan acadmemey" is laughable. Scieberking (talk) 10:33, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A comparison of page-view statistics for the actor and the educator for December shows that the former's article gets 30 times as many hits.—indopug (talk) 08:30, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Salman Khan's New Movie Ek Tha Tiger With Katrina Kaif

Salman Khan is going to start filming for his new movie Ek Tha Tiger on July 2011Filming begins July 2011.[1] Salman, Katrina in Ek Tha Tiger. and film is going to be released in 2012, I have added it to the filmography of Salman, PLEASE ADD THIS INFO ITS FOR SALMAN KHAN FANS, NOT FOR HIS HATERS.--99.222.120.110 (talk) 03:10, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New Picture

I think it's time to get a new picture for this artcile. It would be great if someone could manage so.


References
  1. ^ "Salman, Katrina in Ek Tha Tiger". Retrieved 2011-05-04.
Wikipedia is not a fanbase. The information is already in the article, just needs to be accepted. Tbhotch* ۩ ۞

Add Ready in the introduction since it has crossed the 100 cr mark

Ready has crossed 100 cr at the box office and so it needs to be included in the introduction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.176.41.241 (talk) 11:25, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Extended Appearance

Salman Khan had extended appearances in Phir Milege, Saawan - The Love Season and Saawariya. Please put it as extended appearance in additional notes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.176.139.136 (talk) 19:52, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do check this news Salman Khan is an original Pathan

Salman Khan is am Afghani Pathan from his father´s side.[1]--99.222.143.171 (talk) 20:55, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

references

  1. ^ "Afghan traces Bolly Khans' Pathan roots". MiD DAY. 18 May 2011. Retrieved 2011-06-18.

re lead

If there is such claim as "most successful", everything else is unnecessary in the same sentence and turns it rather journalistic. "successful" and "leading" are practically the same thing in this case, and "prominent is just too strong a word and looks like fancruft. This is an encyclopedia, not a fansite. I appreciate that info is finally being properly cited, and well, I've been perhaps the most active editor on this page so I know the efforts put into this. Having said that, the less the better. Shahid • Talk2me 06:33, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm just good with adding references to uncited claims and that's it. I'm not even a Bollywood buff or anything. But at the same time, I see editors, particularly fans of other stars, pushing their propaganda and trying to put article's subject in a bad light, which I think is really unfair. Yeah, I'm aware of and appreciate your long history of great contributions to Wikipedia, Shahid. Keep up the good work! Regards, Scieberking (talk) 05:17, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request from Jay234, 22 July 2011

salman khan had a another semi hit at the box office in 1999 which was humm saath saath hain we stand united and in 2000 he starred in the moderly successfull har dil jo pyar karega

Jay234 (talk) 12:10, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Treating request below as updated version. Mato (talk) 12:48, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request from Jay234, 22 July 2011

salman khan had a another semi hit at the box office in 1999 which was hum saath saath hain we stand united and in 2000 he starred in the moderly successfull har dil jo pyar karega , in 2001 he got a above average hit ,which was chori chori chup chup ke and 2002 Hum tumere hain sanam which was a semi hit. please write the films in the bracket areas where in the top he has his latest hit films.

Jay234 (talk) 12:14, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: the lead section at the top of the article is for listing his most commercially successful films. As you say yourself, these films were semi-hits or only moderately successful at the box office. For any further changes, please file a new request. Mato (talk) 12:52, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Prem

Ha ha. Now that the filmography is sortable, you can see that he has played a guy named Prem in 13 films. Is this some kind of record? BollyJeff || talk 02:22, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kanchana

Please can u add that salman khan will release Kanchana next year eid and sher khan is on hold

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Salman_Khan&oldid=451831008"