Talk:Shah Rukh Khan/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

GOOD NEWS

A LIFE STATUE OF SHAHRUKH WILL BE INSTALLED IN GREVIN MUEUSIM IN FRANCE SOON. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.251.3.16 (talk) 11:40, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Content submission

Khan has been chosen for the Ordre des Arts et des Lettres (Order of the Arts and Literature) award of the French government for his "exceptional career".

Shah Rukh Khan's name was recommended to the president of France by French ambassador in New Delhi Dominique Girard and it was quickly accepted. "Following a request to the president by the ambassador, it has been decided to confer the most important cultural award of France on Shah Rukh Khan," sources said. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.251.71.56 (talk • contribs)

Suggestions

I was going through a few WP bios , and it made me realise that the article is inadequate compared to some of the Hollywood film-bios. I have a few a suggestions for improvement -

• Early life is missing citations for several key points. Although his schooling is mentioned on several fansites, would it be possible to add it in from his biography (ies)?

I think his biography is called Stil Reading Khan - that's a proper reference and it has an ISBN-number. Maybe my local libary has it. I'll look for it.

• Section career is missing references for the films. The page confidently states a line of films as commercial successes, and five others as commercial flops. We need refs for these.

Yep. I'd recommend BoxOfficeIndia.com for that.

• This is a little strange-

After the success of Dilwale Dulhania Le Jayenge he was well known for his on-screen with superstar actress Kajol . Kajol first worked with Shahrukh in Baazigar where their friendship took off. Now Khan, along with Kajol and Karan Johar have a special relationship.

How exactly is any of this encyclopedic content? Do we have refs for this? Are we on Oprah discussing relationships?

We are not Oprah. Needs to be deleted.

• The KBC3 section is not up to the mark.
  • Reviews .. [] .. mostly positive - is absolutely false, several critics have panned the show (I can provide refs for this) and the TRP ratings are falling (I can also provide refs for this).
  • That entire section on KBC3 should be in a seperate sub-heading, as it was touted as a return to his roots, which can also be sourced.
  • The hype that accompanied the launch of the show has also been ignored, as well as numerous gimmicks/stunts/gestures such as presenting contestants watches and calling celebrities on the show to play air-guitar (ahem, Sanjay Dutt), as well as the reported remuneration of Khan for the show.
  • As such, that section could be expanded and could cover a lot more, including the comparisons made with the previous host and the differences between them.

Hmm, not sure about this one. Maybe we can open an article for Kaun Banega Crorepati and link it.

• I apologize if it seems I'm hammering the issue here, but the Trivia section shouldn't exist, as per WP:TRIV, and should be integrated with the rest of the content.

Well, thats about it for now. I'll get to it as soon as I can, looking forward to all editors' feedback about this. Regards, xC | ☎ 16:31, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

The reference I added on the KBC section is about the positive reviews of SRK's hosting style of KBC. I could find a reference of some negative reviews of Srk's hosting very soon.Shakirfan 18:50, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm fine with most of it. Now, it would be great if some of the other editors would talk about this too to prevent an edit war. Best regards, --Plumcouch ^Talk2Me 21:39, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Endorsements

• Pepsi
• Mayur Suitings
• Hyundai
• Tag Heuer
• Compaq
• Lux
• Emami
• Videocon
• Diageo
• Cinthol
• Sunfeast Biscuits
• Sona Chandi Chyawanprash
• LML
• Airtel
• Hero
• Belmonte
• Brahma Putra Tea
• Home Trade

I shifted the above list, put in by some other editor, of endorsements done by SRK. Firstly, we don't have any references for this list. Secondly, several are red-links. Thirdly, is such a list allowed on WP? I haven't seen any list of endorsements on WP, is this allowed as per policy? None of the Hollywood stars have endorsements listed in their pages, none of the film-bio FAs have any such list. Is this list encyclopedic, and is it allowed to be here in the article?

Appreciate any feedback in this matter.

Best regards,xC | ☎ 06:07, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I think its interesting to have a list of endorsements done by SRK to get an idea of how big a star he is. The list given here is incomplete. Most of these ads are on youtube. Adhishb 16:35, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Shahrukh Khan not brought up as a hindu

Resolved

 – S3000 16:55, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I removed that reference that cites Shahrukh khan was brought up as a hindu. This is not accurate. The author of the article made an error in saying that Shahrukh was born a muslim but brought up as a hindu. This can't be true as both of his parents were born muslims and why would they bring him up in a religion different to their own. It was only after his parent's deaths that he married Gauri Khan who is hindu and started believing in both Hindu and Muslim religions.Shakirfan 14:17, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I added back the reference that sites Shahrukh Khan was brought up a hindu. Apart from the reference cited on the article page, I have produced 3 other articles from reliable sources :

• 1. Article citing Shahrukh being brought up a hindu 1
• 2. Article citing Shahrukh being brought up a hindu 2
• 3. Article citing Shahrukh being brought up a hindu 3

If there is an error to that statement, I believe there won't be many of such articles. By quoting his parents were born Muslims and so on doesn't prove anything. There is adequate citation to suggest he was brought up as a Hindu. This is well enough to keep the statement and reference in the article page.S3000 16:40, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Those three articles are the same. The websites just copied the same article on their pages. He was NOT brought up as a hindu but he started practising the Hindu relgion after he married Gauri Khan who is a hindu. It would not make sense that he would be born into a muslim family and brought up as a hindu when there was no one hindu in his family at the time he was born. Shakirfan 22:50, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Is there any citation to suggest he was NOT brought up a Hindu ? The following is an interview with Shah Rukh himself, from where I believe those websites sourced their information from.

To make things easier, refer to the question: 'Is being Islamic an important part of your identity? Have recent events forced you to think more about it? '

• Interview with Shah Rukh

He claims he was brought up by Hindus most of his life. As you say, he should follow the faith of people who brought him up. --S3000 08:33, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

To say 'Shahrukh was born a Muslim but also brought up as a Hindu' does not make sense. Thus I restructured the sentence. --S3000 09:12, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

This can be easily resolved. If it is contentious it should technically be removed. But it must be stressed here, he was raised by his parents who were Muslim. He grew up with Hindus. But it is clearly obvious here, that being raised by Hindus, is different to be raised as a Hindu. This must also be stated that in his own house he has admitted having Hindu Idols and Islamic artefacts in the same house, as his children will grow up bi-faith. A neutral opinion MUST be considered here please guys. --Raja 19:42, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Reffering to the 3 articles above shows that Shah Rukh Khan was brought up as a Hindu. This is backed by the 4th link (the interview) where Khan himself says he was raised by Hindus. I think this is completely adequate to suggest him being brought up as a Hindu. --219.94.61.87 15:05, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

You are wrong. Being raised by Hindus is different to being raised as a Hindu. Infact the article you suggested clearly states;

"Unabashedly stating that he (SRK) is "truly" an ambassador for Islam" and also "I need to be very clearly standing for the goodness of Islam."

This quite clearly states his choice of Faith albeit his deep respect for the Ram Lila is also mentioned. He states he represents Islam openly here. If this doesn't clarify it, I don't know what will.--Raja 16:36, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm looking at this issue in a very direct perspective. The 3 articles above state that he was 'born a Muslim and brought up as a Hindu'. Upon seeing those articles, I added the statement 'Shahrukh was born a Muslim but was brought up as a Hindu'. Shakirfan then asked how could he have been brought up a Hindu in an all Muslim environment, which I felt was worth looking into. Further research (the interview) revealed that he was indeed brought up by Hindus most of his life. Thus there is full relevence to suggest that he was raised as a Hindu.

It is simply irrelevent to quote the 'an ambassador for Islam' thing. AR Rahman might have meant it in a context that has nothing to do with his upbringing. I never denied he was born a Muslim. Any born Muslim that is favoured and respected by many people can be an ambassador for Islam. The issue is about his upbringing, not which faith he represents today.

Please do look at the whole issue in a straight manner, instead of interperating things in the way you may prefer it to be. The citation I have provided is adequate to support what I stated in the article. There are no credible controversial citations.--S3000 17:36, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

There are :

• 4 reference articles (3 above and 1 in the article page) that writes he was brought up as a hindu.
• 1 interview with SRK that shows he was brought up by hindus

which means he was brought up as a hindu, by hindus... simple.

I cannot see what more is needed. It is so straight forward as there are no loop-holes.--Flexijane 18:12, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Theres a bit of a misunderstanding here. This refers to the the Tehelka interview, which is this. In other words, two of those links given above actually refer to the same interview, so lets not twist facts.

The only line in the Tehelka interview mentioning Hinduism is - I’m not an atheist, I am a believer in God, and I don’t think it is great fashion to be an atheist. I am Islamic by birth, so I know that a bit better, though I’ve been brought up by Hindus most of my life, and I was fascinated by Ram Lila and things. He has been brought up by Hindus for most of his life, not brought up as.

Flexijane says - I cannot see what more is needed.. What User:Flexijane needs to see is that we need a sentence from a reliable source stating he was brought up "as" a Hindu.

Above, S3000 says - Further research (the interview) revealed that he was indeed brought up by Hindus most of his life. Thus there is full relevence to suggest that he was raised as a Hindu. What User:S3000 needs to see is that suggestions aren't good enough. We need proof.

Again, this also refers to the Tehelka interview. They have also interpreted his words however they saw fit, which is incorrect. The other link given above this, also refers to the very same Tehelka interview.

It is laughable that there are three articles being counted as individual sources when, in fact, they refer to the same interview. In that interview he very clearly states he was brought up by Hindus, not as.xC | ☎ 08:11, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok, since there are so many controversies, let us just keep the article as it is now, with the statement Shah Rukh Khan was born to a Muslim family but was raised by Hindus for most of his life. I'm sure there's adequate proof to support that.--S3000 10:40, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Support.xC | ☎ 11:01, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Neutral and factual. I also support that sentence.--Raja 20:39, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

You Hindus should respect people of other religion, especially someone who is Muslim. Calling a Muslim as a Hindu is wrong. Shah Rukh Khan is Muslim with no doubt, he also wants to keep his Hindu fans and to do that he shows a little love for Hinduism, not something he would follow but just respect the Hindu religion. The fact is Khan is Muslim, not Hindu...even if he says he loves Hindus, he is still not a Hindu.--Spock44 16:55, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I guess you don't understand the point of this discussion. Anyway can't you see that we've agreed he was only 'raised' by Hindus ?--S3000 09:25, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Where is your proof that Shah Rukh Khan is Hindkowan? 90% or more people of Peshawar are ethnic Pashtuns, this means it is 90% chances that Shah rukh Khan is Pashtun and only 10% he is Hindkowan. You need to go by facts, not your self thoughts.--Khan1982 23:28, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

You should perhaps put that argument under another section as I don't see its relevance with Shahrukh being brought up as a Hindu or by Hindus.--S3000 12:55, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

National Geographic cover image listed for deletion

The National Geographic cover bearing the image of Shah Rukh Khan, scanned and uploaded by me and appearing in this article, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please go there and comment if you are interested in it being deleted or retained, only if you feel it does not violate fairuse norms. Thank you.--PremKudva^Talk 04:25, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Career section split into two

Does anyone think the career section could be put into two one which could have his career as actor in first section and career as a producer etc. Shakirfan 20:58, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd definitely support having two subsections in Career - Actor & Producer.xC | ☎ 05:28, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Inaccurate Labels

Smartsarang 14:43, 29 May 2007 (UTC) The labels Hindi and Urdu are inaccurate and should be replaced by Devanagari and Nastaliq respectively. The symbols denote scripts and names donot belong to languages.So whoever has the right to edit I suggest this be done.Thanx

Sound films are in languages; not in scripts. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:42, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Administrator Lock missing

Smartsarang 07:10, 11 June 2007 (UTC) This page was under lock till a few days ago and any edit was recommended through this page. However this lock has now lifted and results are immediately apparent. I have just reverted to the original article from 'fucking paki'!! I think the lock should be reinstalled.

Is it really neccessary to tell us what the vandalism was? Actually, vandal activity is pretty low in the past few days, a few vandalistic edits here and there don't really justify full page protection.xC | ☎ 08:28, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Shahrukh

Guys, his real name is Shahrukh, not Shah Rukh. You can check that. Every net source names him after this name. All of his films (even though there are some exceptions) credit him after this name. I think that's how it should appear here. He said once, he prefers his name as Shah Rukh Khan. But he still was credited as Shahrukh Khan. Regards, --Shahid • ^Talk2me 20:11, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

This discussion is redundant. Already discussed earlier - Talk:Shah_Rukh_Khan/Archive1#Name.3F. I am reverting your changes to the version accepted by the earlier editors on this page.xC | ☎ 05:11, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

A) First of all, I'm free to open a new discussion when it comes to such a little discussion. Onlu two users took part in it.

B) This issue was discussed by two users only. It wasn't a big debate where more than two users decided to name him Shah Rukh Khan, or even a little poll where the decisions separated as per #Oppose and #Support.

C) He is credited often as Shah Rukh, Yes. But he is credited doubly as Shahrukh.

D) Net sources like indiaFM.com, IMDb.com etc, name him Shahrukh, just like most of the net sources on-line.

E) As per Google: Shah Rukh Khan - 1,010,000 results; Shahrukh Khan - 1,320,000 results.

F) Here on Wikipedia, in most of the pages, he is credited as Shahrukh.

G) [1], [2][3] This is just the part of the part.

Best regards, --Shahid • ^Talk2me 09:41, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I would also like to know what your personal opinion is. --Shahid • ^Talk2me 10:02, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Personally I believe his name is Shahrukh, due to its meaning - it wouldn't make sense to split up the name into two parts. His stated preference (apparently) for Shah Rukh stems from the fact that the initials SRK are a brand now all by themselves. At least thats what I believe, it may or may not be for some other reason.

What clinched it for me is the three images you posted above - DTPH and Darr, both early films, and VZ, more recent. In all he's credited as Shahrukh and not Shah Rukh.

Just to clarify, I reverted your changes to his name because I couldn't find any discussion on the talk page involving more than two editors. But at this point, I agree with you - his name should be Shahrukh and not Shah Rukh.

Now if a few more editors could jump in as well and add their views we could close this discussion and change his name back. Excellent research, friend! Brilliant, looking up the film posters, good workxC | ☎ 06:36, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

First of all thank you for your kind words. Totally agree with everything. I personally have grown up with his films. Since childhood I remember him as Shahrukh even though he was also credited as Shah Rukh. I thought to turn to WP:RM, but due to its being a controversial proposal with mixed proofs, it's better to have a debate here. Whether we decide to redirect it or not, If we discuss here, we at least will close this issue. Tomorrow someone else would also come and say that his name is Shahrukh. In order to prevent the happening of such case, it is necessary to have a final decision. Best regards, Shahid • ^Talk2me 15:13, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely. Alright, today is July 13. Within a week if no-one raises any further issues, we can safely(?) assume that there are no objections, and shift this to Shahrukh Khan. Looking forward to July 20th then. Happy editing,xC | ☎ 05:27, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

That's all... Today is the 20th. Can be redirected. --Shahid • ^Talk2me 14:54, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely. A weeks up. Since you raised the point, I'll allow you to shift the page to its correct name :) Best regards,xC | ☎ 15:38, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I also think the statement in the intro is necessary. We can't be satisfied with only prominent. He is definitely one of the biggest actors. You can rewrite it if you want, but don't remove. --Shahid • ^Talk2me 16:39, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Lead

Balancing outstanding commercial success escorted by critically acclaimed performances, Khan has established himself as one of the biggest actors of the Indian industry.

POV. Needs to be fixed.xC | ☎ 10:46, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Mmm yep. But I think we have to analyze it.

Balancing outstanding commercial success - I know it seems to be a SRK worship, but the fact is that he had a big commercial success, more then every other actor of his generation, mmm lying with Salman Khan I think. There is no POV. The box office speaks for itself.

critically acclaimed performances - I don't think there is a problem here.

Khan has established himself as one of the biggest actors of the Indian industry - I see. A bit unencyclopedic. Do you have any idea?

Best regards:) --Shahid • ^Talk2me 14:37, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Its a difficult task. For now, I've come up with this - Khan has established himself as one of the prominent stars of Bollywood, balancing commercial success with critically acclaimed performances.

Thoughts?xC | ☎ 17:14, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, quite superficial. He is described here as an average actor, while he has a really significant success at the box-office. In the case of critical status, he is a six-time Best Actor winner.

I'm thinking of the best way to make it both special and neutral.

Mmm...

Khan has established himself as one of the most prominent and best known stars of Bollywood, balancing conspicuous/outstanding/notable commercial success with remarkable/_______/_______ critically acclaimed performances.

I think your version is a good format. What do you think about my additions? I know you're busy and I know my insistence is irksome, but anyway, it's important.

There is no contradiction between commercial success and critical acclaim, there's just a separation. Regarding critical acclaim, there are different kinds of critical acclaim, so there is a need to write some adjective (like in my suggestion: Remarkabke). Khan was part of a big amount of critically acclaimed films, from Kabhi Haan Kabhi Naa to Dil Se to Swades to Paheli altogether.

Commercial success - Kuch Kuch Hota Hai, Dilwale Dulhaniya Le Jayenge were some of Bollywood`s biggest hits[4]. Kabhi Alvida Naa Kehna, Veer-Zaara, Kabhi Khushi Kabhie Gham, Don and Devdas and Kal Ho Naa Ho are the biggest Bollywood hits in the overseas market when Shahrukh Khan is the one who appears in all of them as the leading actor[5].

Apart from, 4 of his film are the highest grossers of their year. So you see, there is a difference.

--Shahid • ^Talk2me 13:34, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

What exactly is superficial about it? If you could elaborate, I'm sure we could find a way to make it less superficial.

Where did I write that he is an average actor?

Prominent directly entails among the best known, therefore the snippet Khan has established himself as one of the most prominent and best known stars of Bollywood is redundant. We are merely repeating the same thing twice if we put in the above.

We could write notable commerical success, but the very fact that we are mentioning his commercial success implies that it was notable, and so the word notable in this context is merely an unneccessary adjective that the article could do well without.

Regarding critical acclaim, there are different kinds of critical acclaim - I'm afraid I didn't get what you mean? What are the different types of crtical acclasim?

Suggestions?xC | ☎ 06:53, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

First of all, I didn't say that you said "Shahrukh is an average actor"

The fact is that he is a six-time Best Actor winner, while Dil Se, Baazigar, Anjaam, Darr and Swades were super acclaimed, so it's a high status of critical acclaim (there is a difference between acclaimed and highly acclaimed). All my explanations regarding his commercial success can be seen above. Not every actor has such success. So, actually there is a difference between Shahrukh's success at the box office and Aamir's success. If you go through the top ten most successful Indian films at the overseas list (which I gave you above), you will actually notice that eight films out of the 10 star Shahrukh where he is the leading actor. DDLJ is one of the biggest hits Bollywood has ever known. So that's a BIG commercial success. Do you agree with me at least here?

Balancing significant commercial success with remarkable critically acclaimed performances, Khan has established himself as one of the most prominent leading actors of Bollywood.

What do you think?

I think you have written a good lead for Rani Mukerji. You had written something like myriad of critically acclaimed performances when it was removed... In general, I just think Shahrukh deserves a better lead. Half the actors who've been part of critically and commercially successful films can be described as critically acclaimed and commercially successful. Regards, --Shahid • ^Talk2me 10:07, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Balancing significant commercial success with remarkable critically acclaimed performances, Khan has established himself as one of the most prominent leading actors of Bollywood.

I don't see why we need to use the word balancing in this context. Commercial success and critical appreciation are not things that need to be balanced, as such. Several actors, such as John Abraham are flogged critically but have achieved notable commercial success. On the other hand, several actors, for example Rahul Bose, have achieved critical success in the art film area but have been eluded by large-scale mainstream commercial success.

It is because of this that I feel we should not have the word balancing in the lead.

My suggestion -

Shahrukh Khan (born November 2, 1965) (Devanagari: शाहरुख़ ख़ान, Naskh: شاہ رخ خان) is a prominent Indian actor, producer, as well as recent host of the game show, Kaun Banega Crorepati.

Khan established himself in Bollywood with significant commercial success and a myriad of critically acclaimed performances. Since 2000, he has branched out into film production as well.

Its only a rough draft, I'm reading up on articles from Category:FA-Class biography (actors and filmmakers) articles and will have another go at it later. Happy editing,xC | ☎ 04:45, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

OK I trust you... Regards, --Shahid • ^Talk2me 11:55, 28 July 2007 (UTC)