Talk:Salman Khan

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Indian cinema, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Indian cinema. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.

This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.

Start

This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. (add comments)

[edit] No advertising

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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Zora's revert

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

[edit] 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. Image:England flag large.png अमेय आर्यन DaBroodey 08:04, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

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)

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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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

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)

[edit] 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)

~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

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)

~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 ^{[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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Salman Khan and Katrina Kaif

When Salman start dating Katr

[edit] Biography assessment rating comment

The article may be improved by following the WikiProject Biography 11 easy steps to producing at least a B article. -- Sdsouza 20:20, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hi

Hey what up homie.

              Sharewater

[edit] 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)

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)

Mm yeh you're right Plum. Wikipedia has to be based on pure facts, --Shahid • ^Talk2me 22:37, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Automated peer review

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

Consider removing links that add little to the article or that have been repeated in close proximity to other links to the same article, as per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links) and WP:CONTEXT.^[?]
This article has no or few images. Please see if there are any free use images that fall under the Wikipedia:Image use policy and fit under one of the Wikipedia:Image copyright tags that can be uploaded. To upload images on Wikipedia, go to Special:Upload; to upload non-fair use images on the Wikimedia Commons, go to commons:special:upload.^[?]
If this article is about a person, please add {{persondata|PLEASE SEE [[WP:PDATA]]!}} along with the required parameters to the article - see Wikipedia:Persondata for more information.^[?]
Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Build the web, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006.^[?]
As per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), please do not link words in headings.^[?]
Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.^[?]

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

See also ebooksgratis.com: no banners, no cookies, totally FREE.