Talk:Shah Rukh Khan/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Semi-protected edit request on 29 August 2017

Kashif khan xhazada (talk) 03:43, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. SparklingPessimist ^{Scream at me!} 04:18, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Shah Rukh Khan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130426033118/http://archives.digitaltoday.in/indiatoday/20030324/cinema.html to http://archives.digitaltoday.in/indiatoday/20030324/cinema.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:07, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 October 2017

Change age. Peace. 118.185.164.4 (talk) 12:42, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 13:09, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

New image?

I just came across this beautiful high resolution pic of SRK! File:Sharukhan.jpg. What do you think? Should it replace the current Infobox image?2.51.21.156 (talk) 18:52, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi, it's already being used as the main image on Shah Rukh Khan filmography. --Krimuk2.0 (talk) 19:57, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

One of the highest paid

@Krimuk2.0: The edit[1] was made by a banned sock on 5 September 2017, and it links to an opinion piece, that can be written by anyone, it is not written by staff member of Forbes. You can't use an opinion piece of make huge claims on this article. See [2] featured article version, it has not used such opinion piece. Although using them will certainly degrade the article's quality. Raymond3023 (talk) 11:07, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

• a) Forbes is a high-quality WP:RS, and should most definitely be used. Your claim: "it is not written by staff member of Forbes" is ridiculous. How do you know that? The article has been published on Forbes. We should believe their website or a random claim by a new Wiki editor?
• b) The Forbes article was not published when this page passed FA.
• c) Read WP:IDONTLIKEIT. --Krimuk2.0 (talk) 14:13, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Forbes is an RS and I just checked that this is written by staff, but still you have to decide what is WP:UNDUE and what is WP:DUE on the list, and also follow WP:CON in place of showing your inability to collaborate. Are you even aware of Wikipedia:Ownership of content#Featured articles? Only because sock of a banned editor (see Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Mangoeater1000) made an edit, it doesn't means that it gets a place in FA article without consensus. First paragraph of the article already says "In terms of audience size and income, he has been described as one of the most successful film stars in the world." So why you have to make additional mention in the end of the lead? And honestly #8 is not a big deal enough to mention that on lead. Forbes' source says Mark Wahlberg is the highest paid actor, yet his article's lead doesn't makes mention of it. Get consensus before edit warring again. Raymond3023 (talk) 15:01, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

@Dr. Blofeld, Bollyjeff, Nikkimaria, and Cassianto: Can you comment on this? Since you had reviewed the article for FA. Raymond3023 (talk) 15:18, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

• Generally speaking, Forbes is a reliable source for that sort of information, so it can but is not required to be included. I don't really care whether it is or isn't, and would suggest if you do to start an RfC on the matter. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:24, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

I have already stated "Forbes is an RS", but question is whether this information is due enough for lead. When enough explanations regarding his success have been already made on first paragraph.Raymond3023 (talk) 15:30, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

As I said, I have no strong opinions on that issue and suggest pursuing a RfC to get a broader set of viewpoints. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:40, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

For now I would better hear from involved editors. I just checked that such material had been rejected before going for FA (archive:[3]). Raymond3023 (talk) 15:42, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Mark Wahlberg's article is not WP: FA. Emma Stone, Angelina Jolie, Jennifer Lawrence are all FA-class articles, and this information has been included in the lead very prominently, as it should. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 06:49, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

What concerns me is why an editor with less than 700 edits fighting over this without ever being involved with an FAC process. Cyphoidbomb does anything seem fishy here? --Krimuk2.0 (talk) 06:54, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Not everyone's life is dedicated to editing Wikipedia, and it is a pure embarrassment when people like you who have made a few thousands of edits still they don't know WP:OSE while naming me 3 "highest-paid actress" for particular years, and thinking it will lend support for adding trivial information like "8th most paid" actor. Raymond3023 (talk) 07:02, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I'm an embarrassment to the community and the world as a whole. But that's not what we are debating here. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 07:09, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

I believe the lead should mention that SRK is among the highest-paid actors in the world, but as per this policy, "Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources." Kailash29792 (talk) 07:26, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

@Kailash29792: True but the lead has already said "In terms of audience size and income, he has been described as one of the most successful film stars in the world." Which is much broader claim than simply "among highest paid", it would look repetitive too. Raymond3023 (talk) 07:29, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry at work? Note that Raymond3023 has been previously banned for using multiple accounts. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 07:42, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

So @Krimuk2.0: you are now resorting to edit warring and alleging people of socking, while himself restoring edits of a banned sock.[4] Oh and those both blocks were false cleared by ARBCOM. They don't unblock people if they have been blocked as sock. Can you expose some more of your incompetence? Not to mention you have been legit blocked for vandalism before. Raymond3023 (talk) 07:44, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

By that same logic, I've also been unblocked for "vandalism". What does that say to you? Krimuk2.0 (talk) 07:46, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

You were legit blocked for vandalism, while I was falsely blocked for socking. Big difference. Raymond3023 (talk) 07:49, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Then why was I unblocked? Make your answer all caps and all bold. Will make a "legit difference". Krimuk2.0 (talk) 07:51, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Okay so why you are restoring banned sock's edits? Raymond3023 (talk) 07:58, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

This article is on my watchlist and I only reverted an editor who couldn't even understand what is WP:OWN#FA. Now since you have already personalized this dispute, I will stay here. I also agree with Kailash and Raymond that the bit is undue. Lorstaking (talk) 08:03, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

When did Kailash even say that bit is undue? He was supporting the inclusion, while you were not. 86.99.14.238 (talk) 11:15, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

My take: In the body, mention something along the lines of, "In 2017, Forbes published that Khan was the eighth highest paid actor with earnings of 37 million." In the lead, mention that Khan is one of the highest paid actors in the world. This is not the same as the statement already present. 86.99.14.238 (talk) 11:28, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Article is meant to be rid of those statements since before it was FA, see [5] Raymond3023 (talk) 11:50, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

How about you two use actual arguements to justify your removal instead of the same "rvt; see WP:OWN § FA" and accusing an editor of incompetence? Also, I am well aware of what OWN is about. It seems that it is you two who need to familiarize yourselves with it. Forbes is a very strong source for things related to business/finance etc. Being among the world's highest-paid actors is a very major accomplishment (especially for Indian actors who are not frequently present in the list). And if we are going to base our arguments on WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, Wahlberg's article is a very poor example. FAs like Scarlett Johansson, Angelina Jolie or Deepika Padukone, however, are not. FrB.TG (talk) 11:38, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

You have finally joined the talk page because you can't edit the page anymore. Why you were misrepresenting the policy by falsely accusing me of alleging you of WP:OWN? Even right now you don't understand this discussion. A poor quality of WP:OSE argument is all you have? Those articles, 2 of them being about highest paid actress (bigger deal than #8 highest paid actor) have only mentioned it on first paragraph and this article similarly says "In terms of audience size and income, he has been described as one of the most successful film stars in the world." Which is not found in any of the articles you named, and it is a much broader claim than simply "one of the highest paid". Did you read? The article says "terms of audience size and INCOME", if you still can't read this then you are just saying that you have WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT issues. Raymond3023 (talk) 11:50, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

You talking to me or them? Cause I haven't made a single edit on the this page and this discussion was what attracted me here. The broad claim is just what it is - "A vague broad claim." It, in no way, talks about Khan's remuneration. It simply implies that his films are successful at the box-office. Also, per WP:OSE, being the 8th highest paid actor in the world is way notable than being the highest paid actress in just India. (Referring to Deepika Padukone). I suggest that you read WP:LISTEN, instead of falsely accusing other editors of not respecting the consensus, which is not leaning in favour of you. 86.99.14.238 (talk) 12:06, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

I suggest you not to violate WP:SOCK policies, it is clear that you are an avid editor of Wikipedia, but you are using IP to evade scrutiny. You can start a new discussion about replacing that sentence, but for now it is more than 100% confirmed that we don't need a banned sock's edit[6] to repeat what has been already said in better and broader terms. Raymond3023 (talk) 12:15, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Who is falsely accusing me of being a sock now? I have always edited on Wikipedia as an IP address for a long period, the changing IP address is not something that I can control. Discussing about me being a sock is not relevant here, stick to topic. I was not proposing to delete that sentence in question, I was simply conveying that the sentence, in no way, talks about Khan's remuneration, a claim which you have been making. Check this version I am proposing and convey if you agree with the version.

In the lead, write "Forbes listed him among the world's highest-paid actors of 2017." In this way, we are directly tracing Forbes as the original source.

In the body, write "In 2017, Forbes published that Khan was the eighth highest paid actor,....." writing it in a more detailed way. 86.99.14.238 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:39, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

That won't happen, because lead already says "In terms of audience size and income, he has been described as one of the most successful film stars in the world." That covers the banned sock's edits that you are pushing. Raymond3023 (talk) 13:05, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Leave the lead, what about inclusion in the body, which is not there? 86.99.14.238 (talk) 13:14, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes the body can cover it. Raymond3023 (talk) 13:18, 18 December 2017 (UTC) Per below. Raymond3023 (talk) 09:14, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Raymond, please refrain from accusing someone of sockpuppetry without evidence, just because they are an IP. It is also really hypocrite of you to criticize me for basing my argument on WP:OTHERCRAP when it was you who first compared Khan's article to Wahlberg's. I don't have anything else to add here. FrB.TG (talk) 15:54, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

There was no need for you to continue it then, the argument that I had made was rather more logical than yours. Raymond3023 (talk) 15:56, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes, there was when you make baseless accusations and criticize others for doing something, which you have done yourself. In future it would be really helpful if you comment on content not editors. FrB.TG (talk) 16:18, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Look at my first comment on this section, it was totally content based before other editor started with personal attacks. Raymond3023 (talk) 16:26, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

You forgot to mention what I have done though. Raymond3023 (talk)

As one of the FA authors, here is my opinion: The statement already in the lead is good enough. Wikipedia is not a listing of current events; we need to think longer term. Rankings change from year to year, so they quickly become outdated. Notice it said 'as of 2017', but we are only a couple days from 2018 now. You might also notice that rankings are avoided in the leads of articles about Universities. During the FA review, there was an article on his net worth from Wealth-X, but it was ultimately decided to leave it out. I think the same goes for this. That one was actually moved to the non-FA sub-article Shah Rukh Khan in the media, where there is a paragraph specifically about his wealth. I think this statement should be added there instead. Bollyjeff | talk 09:12, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for finding Shah Rukh Khan in the media. That would be a better spot. Raymond3023 (talk) 09:16, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 January 2018

39.38.141.190 (talk) 18:02, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:06, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 February 2018

122.161.171.9 (talk) 12:35, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: Empty request, nothing to do. - FlightTime (open channel) 12:39, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 June 2018

2405:205:1307:9AD8:2982:75C9:630E:71E3 (talk) 17:16, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. L293D (☎ • ✎) 17:23, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Net worth should also be included !

Shahrukh Khan has got huge net worth. According to Forbes website it's $790 millions. So, it would be great if we add a net worth also to the introduction. Vikram jha18 (talk) 16:09, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

It was decided during the FA to leave it out of the lead, and only include well sourced in the "In the media" section. Bollyjeff | talk 00:11, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

But in media also there is no information on net worth. While, many of American and European artist have a net worth column in the introduction and it's very general. Also, Forbes has mentioned Shah Rukh Khan's Net worth on there official page. Isn't Forbes website a well sourced website. Vikram jha18 (talk) 08:38, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Picture for infobox

I think the picture which I have given below should be in the infobox. I am confused because nobody has put this picture in the infobox as it the latest and clear picture. The picture- File:Shah Rukh Khan promotes ‘Jab Harry Met Sejal’ in Delhi.jpg Bayernfan2003 (talk) 14:59, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with the existing one. - FlightTime (open channel) 15:07, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Well every Wikipedians try to put the latest picture of other articles related to a person so why not this one then? Bayernfan2003 (talk) 16:14, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

I don't understand why pictures should continuously be changed. --Kailash29792 (talk) 16:32, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 August 2018

hello wikipedia , i shivam article, just wanted to add something new and importent related to the person. please approve my request . Shivam article (talk) 16:19, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Not done: It is not possible for individual users to be granted permission to edit a semi-protected article. You can do one of the following:

• You will be able to edit this article without restriction four days after account registration if you make at least 10 constructive edits to other articles.
• You can request the article be unprotected at this page. To do this, you need to provide a valid rationale that refutes the original reason for protection.
• You can provide a specific request to edit the article in "change X to Y" format on this talk page and an editor who is not blocked from editing the article will determine if the requested edit is appropriate.

Thanks, ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 16:41, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 August 2018

117.245.139.227 (talk) 06:19, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ChamithN (talk) 06:24, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 September 2018

Sharukh khan had won 287 awards as of 2018Pranavtrivedi09 (talk) 16:23, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. - FlightTime (open channel) 16:31, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_awards_and_nominations_received_by_Shah_Rukh_Khan Link which shows Shahrukhkhan has won most number of awards(287) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pranavtrivedi09 (talk • contribs) 14:28, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 September 2018

Shah Rukh khan has won the highest number of awards(287) which is the most won awards for any actor in the world. Pranavtrivedi09 (talk) 14:21, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Dolotta (talk) 14:48, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 September 2018

Shah Rukh khan has won most number of awards(287) and won for nomination is(71) Proof / Reliable sources -> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_awards_and_nominations_received_by_Shah_Rukh_Khan Add this to page shahrukhkan main page. Pranavtrivedi09 (talk) 08:31, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Also, FYI, you cannot use Wikipedia itself as a reliable source to cite content as per WP:CIRCULAR. ChamithN (talk) 12:16, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 September 2018

Bollywood’s most loved star, fondly known as the King of Romance – Shah Rukh Khan on September 11th, 2018 felicitated with The Economic Times Game Changers of India – Hall of Fame award for “His Unmatched Contribution To Globalising Indian Cinema” at the ET India-UK Strategic Conclave business summit in London. Pranavtrivedi09 (talk) 15:10, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: Again it's not clear what changes you want. Please read the comment to your above request. As far as I can understand, you want an update for he has recently received an award. For that, you will have to provide a reliable source. Thanks, Knightrises10 (talk) 15:24, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 January 2019

125.16.243.82 (talk) 04:58, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. DannyS712 (talk) 05:08, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Vijaykhan.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:39, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 November 2018

Please add a line in the top summary of his page stating that “he is the second richest male actor in the world behind Jerry Seinfeld.” References are many including: http://www.thedailyrecords.com/2018-2019-2020-2021/world-famous-top-10-list/celebrities/richest-actors-world-net-worth/16075/ https://www.trendrr.net/28216/richest-actors/ https://brightside.me/wonder-people/the-20-richest-actors-of-modern-times-405260/ https://www.worldstopmost.com/2018/richest-actors-world/ https://factualfacts.com/richest-actors-world/ 2605:6000:8C87:3D00:7C16:FAB0:8758:139D (talk) 19:54, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

That has been discouraged in the past. You may notice that Jerry Seinfeld's article does not say that he is the richest either. Bollyjeff | talk 22:07, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

@Bollyjeff: Why has it been discouraged? You seem to be factually inaccurate about Jerry Seinfeld's article: there's a whole section about his wealth, and it was there before 1 November 2018 when that comment was posted. Retro (talk | contribs) 11:14, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

They are factually correct that it is not mentioned in the lead which is where the edit request wants to put the statement. Ravensfire (talk) 14:25, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Ah, never mind then. Sorry for bothering you Bollyjeff. Retro (talk | contribs) 18:31, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Retro, Never a bother, it was a good question that took me a bit to figure out what was happening. Ravensfire (talk) 17:20, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 January 2019

Ahmed.haideri (talk) 13:01, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
Shahrukh khan was from Layyah, Pakistan. He was born in 1870 in Ethipia

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:39, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

About him riched actor in the world

Shahrukh khan is a second reached actor in words Mukesh Das 17:54, 3 April 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Actor Mukesh Das (talk • contribs)

It's benefits Wumon warker (talk) 09:03, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 June 2019

dd 2409:4043:80C:A844:0:0:50F:B8B1 (talk) 15:01, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Sam Sailor 10:40, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Honorary Doctorates

I see from this article in the Hindustan Times that Mr Khan is a three-time Honorary Doctor.

Shah Rukh Khan received his first honorary doctorate from The University of Bedford in 2009 , his second from The University of Edinburgh in 2015 , and his latest from The University of Law in 2019 .

I feel that to have 3 separate honorary doctorates from such renowned institutions merits some mention within the article. Perhaps in the 'In the media' section.

I of course defer to the insight and expertise of the Editors. I have made this an Edit Request as I do not feel I warrant any permitted access to the page as I am only a fledgling editor.

Thank you - Justice4Trevor (talk) 15:37, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

References

Thank you for providing the sources. I think the Awards section is a good spot for those. If no one disagrees, I will add them. Bollyjeff | talk 11:33, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Done. Bollyjeff | talk 00:50, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Looks great! Thanks very much for making the edit.

Justice4Trevor (talk) 14:39, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 May 2020

In his Childhood, his father says "Joh kuch nhi kertey woh kamal kertey hai" Brajesh Kumar Nanglot (talk) 04:31, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Jack Frost (talk) 06:33, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 June 2020

Akshay Kumar is referred as king of Bollywood by Forbes. So Shah rukh is not known as king of Bollywood. As there is no reliable source for shahrukh khan. Abhisheksoni004 (talk) 12:45, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

​Sources are in Shah_Rukh_Khan#In_the_media. These kinds of titles are often not exclusive. – Thjarkur (talk) 14:23, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Shahrukh khan’s Bodyguard

Shahrukh khan’s first personal bodyguard was Yaseen Khan, he is From small town name Gulbarga in Karnataka state. He worked As personal bodyguard for 10 years. He quit’s job for marriage his marriage. Mabad khan (talk) 15:23, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

@Mabad khan: What value does this information have here? This is an article about Shah Rukh Khan, not his bodyguard. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:35, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Age

Hi. Can someone pls change the age of Shah Rukh Khan please to 55 y.o.? --89.80.238.24 (talk) 17:58, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

This is the result of the page cache being a bit too old. I've purged the cache and the new age should now be reflected in the article. If it isn't wait a few hours and it should update. Or you might need to purge your browser's cache as well. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:41, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Filmfare Awards

In the wikipedia article it is given that sharukh khan has got 14 filmfare awards however all sources say that he earned 15 .. plss do take this correction into consideration Ruchika28 (talk) 19:48, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

@Ruchika28: What constitutes "all sources"? The zero sources that you brought to the discussion here? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:31, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 January 2021

Grammar error 2405:201:400F:CA77:1CC8:9FD2:8EF1:C647 (talk) 09:16, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Jack Frost (talk) 09:40, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Gauri "Chibber"'s name

Are we supposed to put that he's married to "Gauri Khan" or "Gauri Chibber"?

She was born with the last name Chibber but changed it to Khan, so just wondering. Voraciousdolphin (talk) 14:24, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 May 2021

200.7.91.112 (talk) 00:05, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:12, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 May 2021

200.7.91.112 (talk) 00:13, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:04, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 May 2021

200.7.91.64 (talk) 23:51, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:54, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Add a link to Shah Rukh Khan filmography in the main page.

Please add a link to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shah_Rukh_Khan_filmography in the main wiki of Shah Rukh Khan. Right now, if a user wants to see the filmography for Shah Rukh Khan it is present in the bottom of the page as part of a Navbox Something similar to what is done for Tom Cruise (taking as an example) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Cruise#Filmography Siddhu2411 (talk) 22:37, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

 Added in the "see also" section. I wouldn't want to just add an empty section with just a hatnote like on the Cruise article, given this is a well-written Featured Article, better than the Cruise one. IronManCap (talk) 22:51, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

I also added it at the more customary location just under the "Acting career" label. Bollyjeff | talk 18:43, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Removed from "see also" section per WP:SEEALSO then. IronManCap (talk) 19:14, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 August 2021

sharukh khan is from Delhi Adhiraj99 (talk) 11:50, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:03, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Separate section for filmography

I don't know whose idea, pages on several actors now have no separate filmography section but has been replaced with just a hatnote in the career section. For a normal reader, it's always easy to navigate if there is a separate section on filmography where the link to the filmography article is given. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:7C0:205F:8001:0:0:0:32 (talk) 22:34, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 January 2022 (2)

Srk is regarding greatest actor of 21th century one of the most influential actor of world cinema and most popular actor on this planet 2409:4064:2305:81F5:0:0:27A9:C8AC (talk) 17:09, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:41, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 August 2021

Please add Shah Rukh Khan's name in Indian languages. Shah Rukh Khan (Hindi: शाहरुख़ ख़ान, Urdu: شاہ روخ خان) Source: French version of the article. Shalom Xi (talk) 21:51, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: I'm afraid French version of the article isn't sufficient for an edit request. Please provide the source cited within the French version of the article. Alternatively, any editor passing by with sufficient skill in Hindi and Urdu can review this and simply add it or explain that it is incorrect. —Sirdog (talk) 16:15, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Community consensus here is to not add these: WP:INDICSCRIPT. Bollyjeff | talk 20:42, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

I think we ought to do what it says in the linked page, to quote:

Linking of the name of Indian people in their mother tongue Wikipedia can be done. For example a page beginning

Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi (Gujarati: મોહનદાસ કરમચંદ ગાંધી, IAST: mohandās karamcand gāndhī, IPA: [mohən̪d̪as kərəmtʃən̪d̪ ɡan̪d̪ʱi]; 2 October 1869 – 30 January 1948) was a ...

Also, the name seems to be a bit long. I think it's generally spelled with a initial choti he after the alif and I don't think the waw is supposed to be there. Outside of that, the Urdu looks good (I think, not sure though, I can speak Urdu at a basically native level but it's a bit difficult for me to read it.) Cahmad25 (talk) 22:12, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

MOS:PUFFERY

@DeluxeVegan: Re: this edit

Do not add trash sources, for exceptional claims. Read the relevant policy. This is an encyclopedia, not a fan blog. This IE PR puff piece is from BollywoodHungamaNewsNetwork. This yahoo article has zero independence; is sourced to "research company Wealth-X". This is an interview filled with direct quotations; fails WP:IS; is a primary source; more importantly makes no claim of "most successful". - hako9 (talk) 19:07, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

And I would ask you to read the rest of the article apart from the lead, which already lists multiple sources for his success. I merely readded references intended to immediately support the claim, which was removed earlier in January by @Nicholas Michael Halim, presumably because it was already sufficiently supported in the body. Do bear in mind that this is a featured article since 2015 (nominated by @Bollyjeff), and multiple editor eyes have vetted the sources and claims made here thoroughly. The version that appeared on Wikipedia's main page even included a direct quote. In any case, I don't intend to revert your edits again, and would wait to know what others think. DeluxeVegan (talk) 20:13, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

bear in mind that this is a featured article since 2015 Doesn't mean shit. Produce sources. - hako9 (talk) 20:19, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

They are cited in the article, find them yourself. I will not be commenting further. DeluxeVegan (talk) 20:25, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

The "In the media" section is where you can find these claims. I think we do not need more sources cited if the body has these already. —Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 02:24, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

And what sources in that section exactly, do you think justify the non-removal of "most successful"? - hako9 (talk) 05:24, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

The sources in the 'In the Media' section were cleared by FA reviewers. They do not need to be repeated in the lead. Bollyjeff | talk 01:45, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Your point has already been discussed in the original feature article review and it was passed as it is and as mentioned by everyone if you took the time to read the full article you would have found the source yourself. Also, try treating it as the encyclopedia you claim it to be and refrain from using foul language...you know, for the sake of good manners and professionalism. Meryam90 (talk) 02:16, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

@Bollyjeff and Meryam90: Same bs again by you two. Oh.....but the FA reviewers passed it years ago. So don't question it? Oh but it's somewhere in the body. I just can't find it. - hako9 (talk) 03:29, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Why question it when it's true and backed by reliable sources (that you can't fin, that's your problem lol)? And why remove it? Because you don't like it?

Go back to the original FA review, this point has been discussed already, we have been through it. We're not here to go through it again just cause you woke up and you chose violence a decade later lol Meryam90 (talk) 22:54, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

1999-2003 was a time period where Khan DID NOT struggle

Khan was already established as a great actor from his previous decade. His most critically acclaimed films (and highest grossing films from that time) was ranked #1 for 3 straight years in K3G, Devdas, and KHNH. I think this time period and the next section (Resurgence) ought to be reevaluated again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.133.212.219 (talk) 20:33, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 June 2022

Shahrukh khan have 3 children not 2 202.168.84.54 (talk) 12:36, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:22, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 June 2022

Change children 2 to 3 160.238.93.35 (talk) 22:21, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:31, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 June 2022

SRK has no child bu t, while Wiki shows only 2. Please look into that. Tho Abraham was born through surrogacy, he still is SRK’s child. Bilal bin Arshad (talk) 01:56, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

shahrukh khan Bilal bin Arshad (talk) 01:57, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 02:53, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

"They have a son Aryan (born 1997)[39] and a daughter Suhana (born 2000).[40] In 2013, they became parents of a third child, a son named AbRam,[41] who was born through a surrogate mother.[42]" 2001:8F8:172B:5565:6C37:A17B:B46C:283A (talk) 19:59, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide the source directly (or link which article this information can be found so we can find the source/s from there) instead of just linking an excerpt from another article. 💜  melecie  talk - 10:25, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

I mean, it is in this article itself. The references numbered 39, 40, 41 and 42. show the actor has 3 kids. For some reason the infobox got it wrong. 2001:8F8:172B:4FDB:411:E0FD:4912:AA13 (talk) 11:16, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

 Done All set now. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:28, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 November 2022

Abhishekyadav.2333 (talk) 05:58, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

shah rukh khan is not world richest person

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Cannolis (talk) 06:32, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

'Legend'?

Why does the introduction start with "The Legend Shah Rukh Khan"? His legendary or otherwise status is a subjective point of view and an inappropriate term to begin an article: almost every major celebrity or historical figure could also be called a legend, subjectvely. If one wishes to include later in the article something like "he holds legendary status amongst many Bollywood film goers" this would be fitting qualification. 92.8.180.23 (talk) 09:44, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

About the image used in the introduction box

I have changed the image of Shahrukh Khan in the article to a better version that I personally prefer but I don't know why it is being removed and it actually gives a good impact on the actor's career and I actually couldn't find an image of him present in the crowd which is actually who he is and what he represents as an actor in the Hindi film industry or India and therefore I used a better looking version of him from a movie, which is critically acclaimed, of his. Beingsumants 170106 (talk) 15:59, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Untitled

Please mention it, Shahrukh is most popular actor around the globe.Evry three of one people knows him, which means one third of the worlds population knows him, of course no other actor's have this kind of popularity, and fan base, he is popular than Hollywood's most popular actor Tom Cruise. In terms of acting, I think he is unmatchable. It wouldn't be wrong, if I say that, the synonyms of acting is SRK.And after Michele Jackson he is the only real star living. And yes! As he says in an interview, I am last of the star. It's very very true. I have seen a lot of movies,Hollywood, Bollywood, there are lots of great actor's or actresses, but he is different from all of them, as a actor, as a person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ismail kabbo (talk • contribs) 19:06, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Gushingly positive commentary

@FrB.TG: Today, I removed some gushingly positive commentary from the lede of this article, trying to bring it closer to WP:NEUTRAL. I was reverted with the claim that it's acceptable since the film industry gave him the nickname "Baadshah". We ran into this same sort of problem on Mammootty, where people were trying very hard to include gushingly positive nicknames and praise, all against WP:NEUTRAL.

FrB.TG, you say it's acceptable because the film industry gave Shah Rukh Khan the nickname "Baadshah". Really? Where's the source for that? There isn't one. There is no award I am aware of that is given out by any film award called "Baadshah". Barring presentation of some such proof, this is wholly unsubstantiated.

You've also tried to support this by saying the nickname is frequently used by the media. The "media" isn't a monolithic entity. There might be some articles from some media outlets that refer to him in this way, but to say that "media" refers to him in this way is flat wrong.

Further, you've reintroduced "In terms of audience size and income, he has been described as one of the most successful film stars in the world." without providing any source to substantiate it. Described by who? Where? A single source? Lots of sources? And so what? There is no award for this. The lede already contains ample proof of his stature, including the Filmfare awards, Padma Shri and more. It isn't necessary to include such gushingly positive, WP:NEUTRAL violating commentary and nicknames when they aren't supported or awarded.

I remind you that WP:BLP says "Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—must be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.". Both of the statements you restored were against this policy. I could remove them again and be within policy to do so. I won't for the time being, but find sources that support your assertions that all media use this nickname, and that there is wide support for him being described as you suggest, or it will be removed per policy. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 14:40, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

The article passed its FAC and appeared on the main page with these claims in place meaning that consensus was gained for this. They are very well-sourced. If you skim the "In the media" section, you will find each of these claims to be properly sourced and attributed (for example source 245 says he is "Rightfully called King Khan' and the 'Baadshah of Bollywood" meaning that it's not just their opinion but it's a widely known nickname for him within the Indian film industry). And here you can see how many book sources confirm this; one example from a Springer Nature-published book (Stardom in Contemporary Hindi Cinema): "SRK is perceived both in India and in the global market as the personification and King of Bollywood itself".)

For the claim that he "has been described as one of the most successful film stars in the world", there are many different sources calling him the world's biggest film star (not just Indian sources, but Western sources like LA Times, The Times etc.) and a survey concluding that 3.5 billion people in the world know him. Once again, this is no different than saying Michael Jackson is called King of Pop or Madonna is known as Queen of Pop. FrB.TG (talk) 16:46, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

FAC doesn't supersede BLP. If there are many different sources, then provide it but ascribe it to a particular media outlet, not "media" as a monolithic entity. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:25, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

I didn't say it does, but for it to qualify for FA, many users obviously checked the prose and sources. The sources I named above are already there in the article. Just look through the "In the media" section. It's not just one single source having that opinion. It's either several prominent sources saying the same thing or one source confirming that it's a well-established consensus. When it's a single source making a claim of their own, it is properly attributed to that particular media outlet (like "In 2022, Khan was voted one of the 50 greatest actors of all time in a readers' poll by Empire"). FrB.TG (talk) 17:33, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

"Referred to in the media as the "Baadshah of Bollywood" and "King Khan"" isn't attributed to anything, much less a multitude of media sources. I hereby declare him to be the grandmaster of entry rugs. Should I add "Considered to be the grandmaster of entry rugs," to the article? "In terms of audience size and income, he has been described as one of the most successful film stars in the world." is likewise not attributed to anything. Neither statement is cited, and saying it explains it elsewhere doesn't work. Either it gets cited or it gets removed, per BLP. Wide reaching claims require wide reaching sources. A single source isn't going to cut it. The reader's poll by Empire is fine; single source, single attribution. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:02, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Once again, they are sourced in the "in the media" section, and per MOS:LEAD, we don't need to cite sources in the lead; doing so in the main body suffices, but I have now added them in the lead. One source in the article literally says that the media refers to him as "King Khan" so it is not just an opinion of one or two publications. I hope this suffices now. FrB.TG (talk) 18:42, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 September 2023

Riyan tahi (talk) 07:31, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Shahrukhkhan's net worth in 2023 is $770Million USD according to Forbes. Shahrukhkhan has more than 4.25Billion fans.

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Lightoil (talk) 08:37, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Lead changes

@Bandwagon98: please discuss this change here. It is way too soon to write about Jawan in the lead considering the film just released. Your other changes use far too many words that can be expressed with fewer words (like in the current version) and mean the same thing. Phrases like "huge comeback" is considered WP:PUFFERY. Happy New Year is not an action comedy (heist is not the same as action). FrB.TG (talk) 16:09, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Unnecessary redirect to another profile

The redirect when shah rukh is entered must come directly to this page and not to the Timurid ruler. To come to a less popular less relevant profile when one of the most popular personalities name is entered makes this page less reliable. 46.38.83.210 (talk) 05:34, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

The subject is known much more by 'Shah Rukh Khan' rather than 'Shah Rukh', since 'Shah Rukh Khan' is the WP:COMMONNAME. Though you can with move requests. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 10:48, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 December 2023

I would like to Add Shah Rukh Khan Artist Official YouTube Link on his profile. Amarnath Prajapati (talk) 07:30, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Khan doesn't have a YouTube account. FrB.TG (talk) 10:28, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 December 2023

Please change the main image as SRK has better hairstyles than shown in this picture 82.14.57.29 (talk) 21:35, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Need a suggested image to change it to. Check out WP:Image Use Policy before making a suggestion Cannolis (talk) 21:38, 11 December 2023 (UTC)